Linux-Advocacy Digest #203, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: Interesting article ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Answer this if you can... (J Sloan)
Re: The Windows guy. (J Sloan)
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me (Donn Miller)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. (Donn Miller)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:10:51 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > With 250,000 developers working on Linux world wide, it
> > has become humankinds largest software project ever.
> >
> > It certaintly has to be within the top 30 projects of
> > all mankind.
>
> I grow weary of having to ask over and over for a SOURCE for these fantastic
> numbers you linux folks seem to pull from thin air.
Sorry to hear of your woes!
Look into it if it's bothering you, and get it cleared up.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:13:38 GMT
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kCAi6.125230$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:mY6i6.71632$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Microsoft implementations are done according professional rules as
far
> > > > as programmer salaries go, but not as far as good programming
> practices
> > > > go, therefore they do not deserve the "professional" appellation.
> > >
> > > You have no idea what the programming practices are at Microsoft any
> > you've
> > > never seen the code so you have not grounds to judge.
> >
> > That's the point. We can tell the code is broken by the fact that the
> > machines
> > crash and the event logs fill with nonsense like:
> >
> > "The World Wide Web Publishing Service terminated unexpectedly.
> > It has done this 454 time(s). The following corrective action will
be
> > taken in 60000 milliseconds: Restart the service.
>
> Sorry Les. It doesn't ever say that. The IIS error strings are
documented
> on MSDN. Go look em up.
It did say exactly that, or as close as I could retype it. The bizarre
event log viewing interface doesn't let you copy and paste and is
basically useless compared to a text file.
> BTW, I don't consider Apache to be part of Linux any more than IIS is a
part
> of Windows. It's another product. Where is your evidence and
documentation
> of Windows NT code and failure?
Why do they charge extra for it as a part of win2k server vs. workstation
if it isn't part of the product? Why does a reinstall change core dll's?
> > Care to calculate how much of the time this box was off the air in the
> half
> > a
> > day it took to accumulate that many restarts? If we could see the code
> we
> > could tell what was wrong - or maybe fix it. This is a win2k, sp1 box
> > doing a little bit of xml/xsl processing, by the way, using the stock MS
> > dll for the job. And, of course the design of WLBS makes connections
> > keep coming to the box even though the service isn't accepting them.
>
> And you didn't know IIS was having problems because?
I know it is having problems - it doesn't work a lot of the time. What
I don't know is what the problem is, given that it is all a stock
installation, or how to fix it. As you pointed out, there is no useful
documentation about the kind of error that happens in practice.
> There are the alerter
> and messenger services that must be setup for all production monitoring.
If
> you didn't do that then don't complain.
I already know it is broken - why do I need extra things to tell me that?
Now
for something even stranger, installing the updated msxml3.dll in replace
mode seems to make it not 'terminate unexpectedly' any more with no
change to the asp pages. BUT, it uses the http component of the xml
dll to pull some pages from another site and display them like so:
url = "http://other.server/page"
Set xml = Server.CreateObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP")
xml.Open "GET", url, False
xml.Send
Response.Write xml.responseText
Set xml = Nothing
With the stock setup, a fresh copy of this page is retrieved for
each request - as it should - it is dynamic data that must be
updated. With the replacement dll, and no other changes,
the server caches the first copy of this page it gets and
re-uses it for all subsequent requests. I see nothing in the
documentation suggesting this should happen - it is just pure
evil black magic with no way to tell what is happening or
why.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:18:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:31:43 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Absolutely - For instance, I'm happily scanning pictures
> >left and right into my new HP 5200 C usb scanner, even
> >though claire/steve/flatfish claimed it couldn't be done.
>
> I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said my USB devices didn't work
> under Linux despite them working perfectly under Windows and iMac.
> I also listed them several times and HP was not amongst them.
It was very straightforward for me as a Linux user to go
to the computer show and, armed with several printed
sheets of supported scanners, pick out a good one.
I plugged it in, and usbview saw it right away.
xsane and xscanimage work quite well, which reminds
me, I ought to try out the gimp plugin for that...
> I'd try SuSE 7.0 but it refuses to install properly.
hmm it works for most people...
>
>
> >> Win98SE and Win2k have them all shut down, although previous versions
> >> left Netbios among others wide open.
> >
> >What do you mean, "shut down"?
> Closed for ports or not running by defaul for services (ftp, etc).
ftp is about it. There is no secure shell to "shut down", nor are
there nfs, nis, telnet, time, rsh/rexec nor any of the other standard
unix services, so saying they're "shut down" is rather silly, since
they're not "shut down", they're simply missing.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:30:55 GMT
Mike wrote:
> Sure I can. The ifdefs are primarily to tell the compiler where the include
> files are and what's in them.
Many other things as well - surely you are aware that there
are facilities common to all unices, which are completely absent
from the pc platform. For instance, if a program calls "fork()"
you will have to do some clever workarounds to get it to compile
in windows, let alone do anything useful
> Genuine Unix, from a major vendor. Our current vendor could be called vendor
> S. Our previous vendor could be called vendor H. Real live Unix. All day,
> every day.
So, you sit at a windows pc all day and telnet to Unix?
All the DBAs all do that where I work - but none of them
are even what I would call familiar with Unix.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:29:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Craig Kelley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> In article <YsCi6.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark Weaver"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> why else would Microsoft even invent this technology. They have
>> >> never been proponents of open standards: Direct 3D was invented to
>> >> make game developers develop for Windows, NetBIOS/NTDOM was invented
>> >> to make people buy NT servers, and now we find out that the Windows
>> >> 2000
>> >> 'signed driver' technology wasn't intented to make the OS more
>> >> reliable, but to give Microsoft control over media services.
>> >>
>> >> Fun stuff.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Right. MS's first attempt at secure digital music was cracked
>> > quickly with a virtual sound-card driver that simply captured the raw
>> > digitial audio after it had beeen decrypted. So MS is trying to
>> > close that hole by securing the whole 'sound stack'. Hmm. Well, at
>> > least, it'll give the hackers out there a fun new challenge to work
>> > on...
>> >
>>
>> Protection schemes of any sort only lasted a few weeks in the eighties.
>> Now, nearly everybody has a computer. It'll be only days before its'
>> broken.
>
> Think public-key encryption. Signed stuff cannot be broken with
> technology when half the key resides outside of your control. When was
> the last time a 1024bit RSA key was legitimately cracked?
>
> Now, social engineering is another ball of wax.
>
The best solution is, simply, not to buy the products in question.
And another thing:
There are enough smart kids out there with hardware and endless time on
their hands to make any business indulging in the above practices regret
they ever had a NET connection.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
Presently lurking in his Linux Partition
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:44:33 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ***CORRECTION****
>
> Microsoft bailed out Corel and told them they would do it under
> the condition that they dump Linux in favor of .NET.
Corel has stated matter of factly that this is not the case. In fact, they
stated that MS was a bit PO'd at them for getting rid of their Linux
division, since it made their job of portiong to .NET to linux more
difficult.
> The are currently not working on any Linux project but rather
> concentrating on continuing to develop the Windows end of the
> business. All Linux distro's have ceased and the stores will
> be dumping the boxes.
Corel has acknowledged that they've been contracted by MS to do the Linux
version of .NET.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:33:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Flacco"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think that'll go for many, many people. Just hastens the day the
>> world becomes Microsoft free.
>
> Unfortunately the Linux community thinks this will happen without
> catering to current MS addicts' needs.
>
> A targeted "Windows Migration" distro is really needed in order to
> capitalize on MS's heavy-handedness here.
Sounds like a twelve-step program of some kind is in order...
"Hi, I'm Bill, and I'm a Windowholic"
"Hi Bill"
The last time I brought this up I got my ass reamed, but here goes...
There has to be a simpler, dumbed down Windows-like GUI system for these
people or it ain't gonna happen.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
Presently lurking in his Linux Partition
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:20:12 -0600
Simply amazing. Rather than believe that MS could possibly improve the
quality of it's code, you'd rather believe it to be some kind of "trick".
You can't just remove exception handling. An exception happens for a
reason. Divide by zero could handled, but things like access violations are
simply meaningless. You start executing nonsense code and it has nowhere to
go.
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You know, this is pretty funny. I never had a BSOD since I installed
Windows
> ME. I was thinking "Damn, what did MS do to make this thing more stable
> than Win 98?" Then, it occurred to me: what do you want to bet that MS
just
> removed some or all of the code that causes a BSOD to occur? LOL, this is
> the equivalent of removing all the panic() calls in a unix system.
>
> So, I suppose that's one way to prevent an unstable OS from crashing:
just
> remove all the exception handling, and let the OS screw up your system
> naturally or lock up on its own.
>
> Anyone else notice this? And here, I thought NE truly WAS more stable.
Like
> David Copperfield, MS pulled an illusion. And does anyone else here think
> Bill Gates is a lot like P. T. Barnum? Think about that.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:26:22 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > At this rate, AMD is going to eat Intel for breakfast.
> > > :-))))))))
> >
> > Intel realizes they can't compete with AMD today, though they do have a
new
> > version of the PIII coming out later in the year which will take much
better
> > advantage of DDR and RDRAM, and when the "real" Pentium 4 (currently
code
> > named NorthWood) starts shipping later in the year, it will put AMD in
quite
> > a squeeze.
> >
> > When I say "real" pentium 4, I mean what the P4 was supposed to be. The
P4
> > was rushed out the door to compete with AMD and they disabled all the
> > features that weren't finished yet, causing it to be the mess that it
is.
> > When the real one goes out the door, AMD should be shivering in their
boots.
>
> cobblers. AMD INVARIABLY put out chips which outperform Intel. And
> this won't change with the P4.
Invariably? AMD couldn't keep up with Intel until very recently, and only
because they sacrificed the pentium market in order to get the Athlon out
the door. Intel is now taking a page from AMD and sacrificing the current
market (somewhat, since the Intel name still carries a lot of weight, look
at all the people buying current P4's) in order to make a leapfrog in the
next generation.
> --
> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:30:31 -0600
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > When I say "real" pentium 4, I mean what the P4 was supposed to be. The
P4
> > was rushed out the door to compete with AMD and they disabled all the
> > features that weren't finished yet, causing it to be the mess that it
is.
> > When the real one goes out the door, AMD should be shivering in their
boots.
>
> AMD chips has been cleaning Pentium's clock in performance for several
> years already.
Huh? Do we live on the same planet? AMD's floating point performance was
so poor in the K6 series that even Celeron's without cache were beating the
K6 at the same clock speed.
AMD didn't start beating Intel until the Athlon came out, and that's only
been the last 18 months or so, and even then the Athlon was roughly equal to
the Pentium's because of the poor Athlon chipsets. AMD didn't start BEATING
Intel until the last 9-12 months.
> Failing to get their product out the door is going to cause a MAJOR
> shake up within the company.
>
> It's not the big that eat the small, it's the quick that eat the slow.
AMD is not small. Have you looked at the size of the company lately?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:21:24 GMT
Aaron Kulkis writes:
>> Tom Wilson writes:
>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>> Thanks for proving my point, donkey raper.
>>>> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>>> Somebody stomp on the floor...Tholen's needle is skipping again!
>> Illogical; I'm simply responding to Kulkis' multiple instances of
>> invective. Perhaps you should investigate why Kulkis' "needle is
>> skipping again".
> I'm amusing
On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
> You're not
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm trying to be amusing, Kulkis.
> Hope that helps, oxygen thief.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:22:30 GMT
Aaron Kulkis writes:
>> chrisv writes:
>>>>> Sheesh, can't you morons trim your posts?
>>>> Who are the alleged morons here?
>>> You and Kulkis.
>> On what basis do you include me? Note that I *have* been trimming
>> away Kulkis' ridiculous .sig.
> If a thing does the job which it is designed to do, and does it
> well, then you must be using a definition of ridiculous which
> differs from the rest of the world.
The key word here is "if". Please demonstrate that it does either.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:23:29 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
> Tholen, David
> 1505 Alexander St,
> Honolulu, HI 96822-4978
> (808)941-3552
>
> Tholen, David
> Alexander St Apt 406, Honolulu, HI
> 96822
Of what relevance is that, Kulkis?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:33:07 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > At this rate, AMD is going to eat Intel for breakfast.
> > > :-))))))))
> >
> > Intel realizes they can't compete with AMD today, though they do have a
new
> > version of the PIII coming out later in the year which will take much
better
> > advantage of DDR and RDRAM, and when the "real" Pentium 4 (currently
code
> > named NorthWood) starts shipping later in the year, it will put AMD in
quite
> > a squeeze.
> >
> > When I say "real" pentium 4, I mean what the P4 was supposed to be. The
P4
> > was rushed out the door to compete with AMD and they disabled all the
> > features that weren't finished yet, causing it to be the mess that it
is.
> > When the real one goes out the door, AMD should be shivering in their
boots.
>
> So you're a Microsoft *and* an Intel apologist?
I like the Athlon, I just know that Intel is taking it's beating and licking
it's wounds right now and WILL strike back hard.
AMD managed to get a leg up on Intel because the current P3 architecture
didn't scale as well as they planned and had to abandon it earlier than
expected. They've been mobilizing for the coming war for the last year.
> What do you think about McDonald's? :)
I like their french fries ;)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:30:52 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Simply amazing. Rather than believe that MS could possibly improve the
> quality of it's code, you'd rather believe it to be some kind of "trick".
It's not just MS and quality. It's been stated numerous times in here
that Windows 9x is really a DOS extender with a windowing system on top
of it. You can only improve on a DOS-based system so much. Now, I can
believe reports of Win 2000 being reliable, because at least it is not
DOS-based like ME. But then again, DOS is just code, so maybe it IS
possible to improve on the reliability of DOS, which Win ME clearly is.
Until I see the code, I say Windows 9x is just DOS. I've heard rumors
that people who have seen the Win 9x source code claim that Win 9x is
part of the same source code tree as DOS. If Microsoft really HAS
improved the quality of its code, then hats off to them.
> You can't just remove exception handling. An exception happens for a
> reason. Divide by zero could handled, but things like access violations are
> simply meaningless. You start executing nonsense code and it has nowhere to
> go.
But BSOD's do not trap divide-by-zero exceptions. BSOD, AFAIK, provide
a sort of handler for when system integrity has been violated. Also,
don't BSOD's serve to shut the system down to prevent certain violations
from occurring in kernel space? By commenting out the BSOD code where
certain kernel errors would normally occur, you give the user the
impression that something serious in kernel-space has not happened, but
maybe something is still seriously wrong with the stability that no one
knows about.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:41:10 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:06:22 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > I think you're reading a lot more "into" the "plan" than is there.
> > Yes, MS has a lot of dreams for what they would like to do, but I
> > doubt even half of them will become reality. That doesn't mean .NET
> > won't be useful and quite popular.
>
> The difference this time is that many of the "dreams" involve things
> that are good for MS but bad for the user. This time even Winvocates
> are hoping that some of the dreams _don't_ come true.
This time? I didn't agree with Windows 3.x (I was an Amiga and OS/2 user
until Win95). I didn't agree with MS Bob. I prefer Quicken over MS Money.
I grudgingly use Visual SourceSafe, mostly because it's easier to use, even
if it frustrates me quite often. I run my server on FreeBSD (and earlier
Linux) because I have no need for a Windows OS on my web server at the
moment, I just need something that can serve static HTML (it might be
different if I needed database and ASP and various other features, but I
don't).
I haven't agreed with a lot of what MS does, and I recognize that only about
half of what they hype ever comes to be (mainly because they start hyping it
way before they even have a solid implementation and figure out later that
it doesn't work well the way they intended).
The market will speak on this. MS can't force people.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:37:52 +0000
> BTW, can DVI output directly to a printer? I wa under the assumption it
> had to be translated into PS first. Unless you happen to have a
> 2400 dpi typesetter on your desk, of course.
I've no idea, byt the print filters make it look like it can, which is
nice.
>>
>> > Why is this a good idea? System-wide printing subsystems have to go
>> > for the lowest common denominator, because it has to work for every
>> > printer possible. But specific printer drivers can go to the bone and
>> > squeeze the last dot out of the drum, or achieve faster-than-light
>> > printing results (i.e. in Applix, using the native PCL driver, my
>> > LaserJet 4 spews out copy so fast the paper hits the opposing wall
>> > <G>).
>>
>> In some cases it doesn't matter. I have a hp500. My computer can handle
>> PS much faster than the printer can print.
>>
> Printing to the LaserJet, using the built-in fonts, is worryingly fast
> under Applix. My 550c is slow anyway, and it doesn't get used that
often
Yes, laser printers aer very fast loke that.
> (I'm waiting to replace it with a dirt-cheap Lexmark z11, but the linux
> drivers aren't up to speed yet).
Well, my 500 is still enough for me at the moment, so it isn't going
anywhere.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:40:13 +0000
In article <5mMi6.45983$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
>> Tholen, David
>> 1505 Alexander St,
>> Honolulu, HI 96822-4978
>> (808)941-3552
>>
>> Tholen, David Alexander St Apt 406, Honolulu, HI
>> 96822
>
> Of what relevance is that, Kulkis?
Is this correct (even if it is not relavent)?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:40:32 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Brent R wrote:
> Let's not forget re-direction, a very useful UNIX attribute!
Re-direction is a property of the unix shell, not the kernel. For
example, stderr & stdout redirection behave identically under the WinDOS
version of bash as well as the unix version. In fact, I was able to
redirect output to /dev/null under the Cygwin port of bash, although
there was no /dev/null physically present! Damn, there must be a hack
under Windows such that any output directed to /dev/null is
automatically sent to NULL:, or whatever Windows uses for the "null
device". Well, not in general, but just the bash port, I meant.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:49:59 -0600
"Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6ECi6.2041$uY2.42076@news2-hme0...
> At work our CD burner machine is setup to triple-boot
> Win9x, WinNT and Linux.
>
> Under Win9x and WinNT it regularly fails due to buffer-underrun
> errors yet in 6 months of regular use under linux has never had this
> problem
We've been over this before. The quality of your software has more to do
with burning coasters than the OS. I have a very old Yamaha CDR-100 4x4
with only a 512k buffer in it (shortly after this model they started coming
with 1MB, and many today have 2 or more MB). I have never burned a coaster
on NT, ever.
> Also, we back up our NT server once per week and I have written a linux
> script which uses the unix 'find' command to list all directories under 2
> weeks old into a file in a format compatible with the KDE based 'kisocd'
> CD burning package. This script is run from an icon on the KDE desktop and
> finishes by starting the kisocd package so when first dialog appears I
know
> the project files are ready to open and burn the CD's.
> This is impossible under windows - firstly all windows ports of 'find' I
> have seen don't have the output formatting options of the linux command
and
> secondly all windows based CD burning software I have seen use binary
> project files so before using linux I had to waste half an hour each week
> creating the project files to do the backups - under linux I click 1 icon
> then wait 5 seconds for dialog to appear, load project, insert disk and
> select 'Burn CD' - so much for the supposedly easier to use windows.
CDRWin uses text based files for this, and is completely scriptable.
http://www.goldenhawk.com/cdrwin.htm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
