Linux-Advocacy Digest #122, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Feb 01 15:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article ("David Brown")
Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux reference distro (Perry Pip)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (sfcybear)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Answer this if you can... (Mig)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(Bob Hauck)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Interesting article ("David Brown")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Micro-Sinux Distro? (Tim Hanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:19:43 +0100
Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>Typically, you have descriptions that match the method name word
>for word, i.e. sendFoo(int x, int y, bar b) "Sends a foo".
You mean the methods are named according to what they do? If the function
name fully describes its action, then that shows the function/method name
was well-chosen, not that there is a problem with the documentation.
Compare this to the Win API - functions like ReadFileEx which lets you read
data from a file, or any one of a number of other sources, asynchronously
(as compared to ReadFile, which lets you read data from a file, or other
sources, synchronously or asynchronously), except of course on Win95 -
ReadFileEx can read data from anywhere except a file. The Win32 API help
files contain lots of information about why ReadFileEx cannot actually read
files on Win95, but can on NT (and people worry about Linux fragmenting !) -
this must be far better documentation.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:23:49 +0000
Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> It seems to be some people's purpose in life to complain.
In my case, criticise.
> People complain about Linux lacking standards in areas where it offers
> choices (like desktop environments), but then, when there is an
> established, open, free, cross-platform and easily-implemented
> standard (PostScript), they complain about that too.
Then why do so many cheap printers not do postscript?
> There is however a small kernel of truth to some of Pete's complaints:
> while the solutions are completely intuitive and natural to someone
> with Linux experience, they may not be to someone who's unable or
> unwilling to learn. If we want Linux to be usable by these people,
> then we need to find and smooth out these sorts of rough edges.
> Mafia$oft makes a generally shitty product, but believe me, it *does*
> make sure that even relatively unsophisticated users can figure out
> how to do simple things on their own. In the desktop arena, we need
> to try to do more to "idiot-proof" some of our apps, not because users
> are necessarily idiots, but because most of them are accustomed to
> being treated as if they were.
It seems to me Linux has a whole slew of different ways of doing things.
I've already heard how these are "trivial" and "inconsequential", however,
when I setup a printer, I'd have thought it was setup that way everywhere.
What I find in the case of Linux is that this is not true.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:25:21 +0000
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Windows has the same problem. In Windows, one has to have
> a hDC and issue Win32 commands to it; the translation is
> effected by something (I'm not sure if it's the "printer driver",
> or something intermediate; the Windows soup is thick and creamy,
> with unidentifiable lumps :-)), and ultimately the printer gets
> commands in its native language.
By a driver which makes the Windows model a universal one.
> If one "prints" directly to the parallel port in Windows, one would
> expect similar difficulties.
Not many applications do it that way now.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:26:32 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> It was only until he was forced to recognize that his understanding of
> 'printer driver' was woefully inadequate, apparently. Perhaps a "cat"
> as a 'test page', and then trying to dump a postscript file, wasn't the
> most brilliant way to set things up.
Which is precisely what I did _not_ do. I used the Linux Mandrake system of
setting up the printer. Is it my fault it got it wrong?
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:27:26 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> And an honest request for help goes further than a troll.
And a request for help in an advocacy group is in the wrong group.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:28:05 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> "No, I didn't fuck it up; it just did it by itself. I didn't do
> anything."
Correct.
> It might have been believable the first hundred or so times, dude.
What you believe I couldn't care less about. It happened.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:28:51 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Not when you can ignore the fact you just made an idiot of yourself.
And then I go and publish the URL's of the articles in question. Who's the
fool now?
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Linux reference distro
Date: 11 Feb 2001 19:26:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 Feb 2001 17:44:21 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You dont have the smallest idea of how many report incidents microsoft
>deals with every day.
>
sed "s/deals with/ignores/"
Perry
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:31:51 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I plead guilty. I have confirmed in another thread that in my
> > personal opinion (confirmed by experience) Mandrake 7.2 was
> > rushed to the market.
>
> One...
http://x65.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=726298021&CONTEXT=981813346.757202969&hitnum=2
http://x65.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=721452552&CONTEXT=981813346.757202969&hitnum=161
http://x65.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=721459108&CONTEXT=981813346.757202969&hitnum=162
Two.
There you are, another one (the above are three statements by the same
author). You sure you want more? You sure you still want to call me a liar?
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:33:08 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> No, but you're successfully being more annoying than most others, for
> some reason.
>
> Feel free to continue randomly trying distros pretending to look for
> Windows, but spare us the updates, OK?
So long as I keep finding these little "oopsies" in Linux, I think I'll
continue. If that annoys you, then good!
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:34:46 +0000
Mart van de Wege wrote:
> I just checked the gimp. It defaults to default printer queue,
> but it uses the option -oraw.
> It appears that Pete is right. The gimp does not use his defined
> printer, but dumps raw PS to his Epson. This is
> counterintuitive, as all other Linux programs generally take the
> user-defined default queue.
> It is however a gimp issue, not a Linux one.
You're right, this is a Gimp issue, not Linux. I know I keep lumping this
all on Linux's broad shoulders, but that's the way it'll be perceived by
the majority - especially if they install a single distribution. It may be
technically wrong, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:17 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Well, that doesn't sound surprising. The Gimp is a graphics package; it
> wouldn't be unusual for it to have a more exacting printer
> configuration.
KDE's Konqueror had absolutely no problems printing a file to printer and
getting it to work with the Epson driver. I could find out how many other
applications that do work as well.
> It was. It is not reasonable, however, to assume that all applications
> are properly configured just because one is. That isn't any more true
> on Windows than on Linux.
Except on Windows, all the applications I've used all seem to work. None of
them spew forth postscript on my printer. I've not seen that kind of error
on Windows for a _long_ time.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:38:20 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >When I installed Linux Mandrake 7.2 I installed CUPS and the
> >driver/filter/whatever for the Epson printer. I naturally assumed that
> >was all I needed to do.
>
> You assumed wrong, is all. Lack of an illegal monopoly does inhibit the
> support for 'brain-dead' mode, on the part of the user. Thank god.
> Just a few more months, and we'll be done with posers like you.
I think I did what any reasonable minded person would do. Why do you
attribute that to "brain-dead", I don't know.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:42:02 +0000
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >Because someone told me it was better than Windows?
>
> The term "better" in this context may depend on the speaker.
> I admit it. I'm an old Unix-head; I've been using the stuff since
> the 1980's, in various forms (Aegis wasn't Unix, but it was close).
> I've used X since about 1991, if not earlier, and experimented with
> it before then (it was available on Apollos at one point).
I'm still looking for a better OS. Windows isn't it, BTW.
Since I used to work for Digital, I'm an OpenVMS fan. UNIX was something I
came across but did not like.
> (Makes me sound like a druggee. I'm addicted to Unix! :-) But
> it's a better "drug" than some others out there.)
It's out-lasted Digital and OpenVMS.
> >Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
> Why? If you're having such problems, switch to another distro.
> (Debian's old, RedHat's unstable, I've no idea what Slackware is
> doing, and SuSE is having financial problems with its US operations. :-) )
I'm thinking of trying SuSE, despite all the contradictory reports I've
read. It has Linux 2.4, KDE2.0.1, ReiserFS and XFree98 4.0.x. Some of the
distros you mention I don't believe have all those.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2 (but not for much longer?)
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:33:04 GMT
In article <3a86d8e7$0$43853$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2684374,00.html?chkpt=zdnn_rt_
> latest
>
> Look at the numbers they're talking about. TurboLinux is just SOARING
with a
> whooping 68% revenue growth (not profits, just revenue) which sounds
> impressive until you realize that it's a jump from 1.8 million to 2.9
> million. Give me a break, that's what two middle level managers at MS
make.
Ever think that it's you who is paying for those 2 mid level managers?
That's a lot of money wasted on paper pushers.
> Compaq spends that much every time it submits a webspec test. Dell spends
> that much EVERY month on print ads in just two magazines.
Compaq and Dell are hardware vendors and not compitition for Linux.
AND their
> prediction for growth was LOWERED.
>
> This is after SuSe fell through the floor and dumped it's employees - but,
> I'm sure they'll all stay on for free cause we know linux is free and it's
> support is free and it's volunteered powered right?
Um SuSE Dumped SOME of there employees. Many highly respected large
companies have done the same.
> It's nice to see that technical staff is being dumped while the management
> teams from BOTH companies are staying around collecting their
paychecks and
> stock options.
Right. If you followd the SuSE story, you would know that SuSE opened a
new 100 person support site in Europe, this is what made the US site
REDUNDANT and unneeded.
Yea, you need all that management but who needs technical
> support eh?
>
I don't need tech support very often with Linux, MS products is a far
different story. Yes, MS NEED a large tech support staff because it's
products are so bad.
> But, really - who cares, right? According to linux supporters linux has
> newsgroups and websites filled with support by unpaid (unknown,
uncertified,
> even untrusted) volunteers who we know are just hanging around every
minute
> of the day waiting to solve YOUR companies problem on your timetable, I'm
> sure. I mean, if you've got a problem with something, you can just pick up
> the phone, er, write a newsgroup post and keep hitting refresh waiting for
> that authoritive answer from sven svengalli recently paroled from
warez land
> to help you get that enterprise database running again. ALl his time
running
> mySQL for his warez file indexing system will certainly be of use to
you. if
It seems that you have never used the news groups have you. 9 times out
of ten the solution is already waiting, just a quick search and you have
the answer, in far less time than you spend on hold just to get to a low
level tech support person at MS.
>
> Anyone suggesting Linux is making inroads at the (successful) enterprise
> level is just plain nutz...
>
Not one of you statements has said anything about Linux making inroads
at the enterprise Level.
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:43:10 +0000
Edward Rosten wrote:
> Unless the hardware is very new, then RH6.2 should do. Even if the HW is
> new, it's no problem to upgrade GS, the Kernel and XFree.
I checked at their website and they don't have the following: Linux 2.4,
XFree86 4.0.x and ReiserFS. SuSE 7.1 (out Monday) apparently does.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:37:14 +0100
John Muir wrote:
> <Tirade>
>
> Now please don't get me wrong, I WANT to like Linux, I want to tell
> everyone how good it is, that they are silly to stay with Windows,
> that Linux is faster and better, but...
>
> I have been using Linux off and on for about three years. Every now
> and again I get the urge to use it constantly and at first find it
> wonderful and open and fast and non-Windows, but then comes the
> STOPPER…
Just stick with Windows kid... you will be much happier with it.
> <Examples>
>
> I install some RPM package or other and at the end of the
> install...NOTHING... where is the bloody thing? How do I start it?
> Where is the new menu entry. Nuffin' doing kid. Now for some REAL fun
> 'find -i / -iname mozilla' … and then work out if it's a binary or
> script. If it's a script then './blahblah' … Yes, you arrogant
> bastard, I know Linux is so bloody clever that this will stop baddies
> usurping … and so on. But it doesn't make anyone actually want to use
> Linux instead of Windows, does it?
Just use the rpm name.. this works for must cases or use MC to browse the
bin directory in the RPM.. Not very hard to do. If you use Gome or KDE apps
then they will have a menu entry just like in Windows.. See not that
difficult.. kids learn this after 5 minuttes on Linux
> I want to copy a line of text from my xterm window (or browser window)
> to another app ... forget it! EVERY Windows app can cut & paste to
> another app, why not Linux? This is CRIMINAL!
Lets see.. i fire up netscape 4.75, i mark a teskt and paste it here with
middel button (scroll mouse) or Ctrl-V (just checked) "You have installed
the easy-to-use and pre-configured Linux Mandrake system on your computer."
(from navigator startpage).. Wow it works.. thats amazing... now lets try
to make it paste on a terminal window... lets use good old Xterm.. WOW.. it
even works when i click the middel button.. lets try with Ctrl-V..Uhhh...
does not want that... what about vi (VIM) in a term.. yeps it works... I
give up more tries... it shure looks as it works...
Can we conclude something out of this ?
> I can't get the delete key to delete the character to the RIGHT of the
> insertion cursor in X. (Please don't even try to tell me that
> 'historic' reasons related to teletypes and punched tape have any
> rele-vance to today). In spite of almost a whole day spent reading
> HOWTO's and searching Google et al, if I enter <ctrl>-v then the
> 'delete' key is STILL COMES BACK WITH '^?' INSTEAD OF '[[3~' although
> outside of X it works fine. That I should even have to know such
> arcane crap in 2001 is a total mystery to me.
Works fine here in knode, Netscape, kwrite, gedit.. Give me a program where
it does not work.
> </Examples>
>
> I now understand that there really is a good reason why Microsoft
> spends so much effort on usability labs and such. Why do I seem always
> to have to fight Linux. Why doesn't it even TRY to help me? The
> arrogant attitude of some Linux 'gurus' is really childish..."REAL
> programmers enjoy wasting whole days trying to get Delete and
> Backspace working in all apps."
But you sound like a light user.. why do you want to use Linux.? You will
not become a cooler person because of that..
> For all the 'holier than thou' attitude of so many Linux advocates,
> Linux is simply 'spaghetti code' gone wild. Has no one in the Linux
> community read Parnas (1972) "On the Criteria to be used Decom-posing
> Systems into Modules?" If so, then why are whole web sites devoted to
> trying to help poor idi-ots like myself get the bloody 'delete' key to
> delete the character to the right of the insertion cur-sor? Have you
> lot never heard of encapsulation?
Could you provide a link to Linux source code that is "spaghetti code" ?
No i dont think you can.. youre just wabbling
> If Linux was a half-decent system there would only be ONE place to set
> key mappings, but oh no 'its sooo flexible, you can set the key
> mappings in round about 10 to 20 different places', wow! That's really
> cool!
That surely is.. it just takes some brain to use a system of its kind to
ones advantage. You are not capable too... make the conclusion yourself.
> If a programmer of mine put such a 'solution' to me I would think
> seriously of firing him/her.
> </tirade>
I doubt you are in a position to fire someone.
> John Muir
>
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: bobh -> haucks org
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:43:42 GMT
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:45:05 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Erik, why do you think they settled out of court in the Caldera
>> DRDOS suit ?
>
> Because Caldera settled for less than 1% of their suit? Hell, it was a
> great deal for MS.
Three seconds searching on google finds that you are mistaken:
<http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2420035,00.html>
MS took a $155 million charge against earnings for the settlement. This
would imply that Caldera had sued for some $15.5 billion. Nope, they
were suing for about $1 billion. So they settled for about 16%. Not too
bad, really, and a far cry from your claim. They wouldn't have got a
billion at trial, that was just the maximum they could plausibly claim.
If you recall, there was also widespread speculation about undisclosed
terms of the agreement that were worth another $100 million (the whole
agreement is confidential and we only know about the $155 million
because of SEC reporting requirements). So, if that is true, they
settled for about 25% of what they were asking. Which would be quite
good actually.
> Prolonged legal fees would have been much more than what
> they paid.
Really? Must be some pricey lawyers to cost $155 million. Perhaps they
could have used those against the DOJ.
> I think Caldera just wanted to get their money back that they
> put into the lawsuit.
Must be more really expensive lawyers. But it seems more likely that
the settlement looked to be at least as good as what the court would
have awarded.
Erik, you posted this 1% claim before, and it is still false. Repeating
it a year later won't make it true.
> No, it was because they had dozens of lawsuits going at the same time
> and wanted to be done with it, and had the opportunity to do so
> cheaply. It's the same reason Sun settled for a paltry 20 million.
And MS agreeing not to use the "Java" brand.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:51:19 +0000
Edward Rosten wrote:
> If you use the wrong driver under Windows, you get garbage out. Simple.
> Try installing Adobe's PostScript printer dirver and printing to your
> Eposn Stylus under Windows. You'll get garbage out.
Yes, I agree.
However, on Linux, I installed the Epson driver. Using Konqueror I printed
the file with no trouble. With The Gimp, which doesn't use the same model
as other packages, I get Postscript by default.
> > Under Linux I selected the Epson 640 Color stylus driver when I
> > installed Linux Mandrake. What do I find? The Gimp doesn't use this, it
> > defaults to postscript instead.
>
> Yes, of course it does. What do you expect? You have not paid the
> blindest bit of attention to anything I've said.
Neither have you, from the looks of it. I set the printer driver to the
Epson printer. I think any reasonable human being would expect the rest of
the system to follow suit.
> THE STANDARD PRINT MODEL UNDER LINUX IS POSTSCRIPT
Which is a standard that might suit UNIX from several years ago, but is not
a valid standard now.
> That means that every application produces postscript, and the GS
> converts it in to printer codes, this way, each app does not need to
> speak the language of many different printers. This is almost exactly the
> same as Windows. In Windows, each app speaks WPS (Windows print system),
> and the printer drivers spew out the correct codes. Most windows apps
> have no concept of what the different printers really are, but they can
> choose a print queue to send images to.
Then why, when I install the Epson driver does konqueror use this model and
print correctly, whilst The Gimp, ignores this model (unless I ferret it
out myself) and prints the Postscript standard.
> > Well, DUH!
>
> Duh, indeed.
Indeed.
> > The Gimp picks postscript by default.
>
> Of course it does, read what I've written above. If your printer is set
> up correctly, then it looks like a postscript printer.
I repeat - I set up the printer to be the Epson printer. I did this during
installation of Linux Mandrake. Instead, The Gimp ignores this, and uses
Postscript. I have to make _more_ configuration settings to get this to
work.
> > I had to override that and get it
> > to select the Epson printer instead.
>
> You have set up your printer incorrectly. If it was set up correctly, you
> could dump postscript to the printer and an image would come out. That is
> the way it should work.
BUT MY PRINTER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND POSTSCRIPT!!!!
> GIMP is one of a very few applications which has its own print drivers.
> If your printer is correctly set up, the default setting (postscript)
> will work correctly.
Then Linux Mandrake is setting up my printer incorrectly. Strange.
Konqueror works just fine. I could find out what else works just fine. So,
why does The Gimp get it wrong?
> Gimp is unusual like this (having its own drivers). If you have set up
> your printer correctly, then is should print PS correctly and you can use
> the default setting (ie PS, level 2) from GIMP.
See above.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:47:07 +0100
Paul 'Z' Ewande® wrote in message <9636hf$2397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>Because they have a server OS [AIX] and would look like complete fools if
>they didn't use it. AIX was beaten by the Win2K cluster, they could use a
>Linux [or OS/2 for that matter] cluster [after all they have the bucks to
>set up a Win2K one, and Linux is chearper right ?] to kill two birds with
>one stone [humiliate both Compaq and Microsoft], but didn't.
>
Perhaps IBM uses their own systems because they are better for the job.
Even MS uses other people's systems if they can't avoid it (remember how
proud they were over using Unix to avoid getting viruses (or at least,
viruses that they did not write themselves) on their installation CD's?).
I remember reading somewhere that MS had around 80 IBM machines (AS/400, I
think) in various places around the world, for general purpose business use
(accounts, customer databases, whatever). They decided that it was an
embaressment that they needed to rely on other people's software, and so
installed 14,000 NT servers to do the same job (I am not wholly certain of
the figures - hopefully someone else remembers the incident and can confirm
or deny the details, or even provide a useful link or two). Unfortuanately,
they could not get the system working properly, and had to re-install the
AS/400's.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:54:31 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> You show your intellectual dishonesty again, Pete, by misconstruing the
> question so pointedly. Did you select the correct printer? What was it
> called?
I'm not lying.
There's one queue.
When I configured Linux Mandrake, I selected the Epson driver. I then
printed a test page (which had graphics) and it worked.
> We don't care. Your reasons are your own; I can think of a couple
> reasons I'd want to do so, but that's beside the point.
I think I'll engrave that on Linux's epitath.
"WE DON'T CARE"
> Presuming you only print to one printer, and have no reason to have
> multiple configurations for it, the question remains; was the correct
> printer selected in the very Windows-like dialog box?
If it printed a test page, then the answer is "yes".
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Micro-Sinux Distro?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:55:24 GMT
Ballmer has said "licensing issues" preclude issuing a Linux
distribution as well as developing software for Linux. He wouldn't
elaborate when pressed. My assumption is that unless M$ can exert total
vertical control, as it does with Windows, there is no interest.
Steve Tinkle wrote:
>
> Here's a thought...
>
> If Microsoft is so afraid of Linux, what is to keep them from
> unleashing a Micro-Linux Distibution and compete with all the other
> flavors out there?
>
> Steve
> Let the flaming begin.
> =)
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there."
-- Will Rogers
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
