Linux-Advocacy Digest #690, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Mar 01 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Matt Kennel)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (jose)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("David Brown")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Sun Blade 100 (Tim Cain)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Linux Joke (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: I am looking for a newsreader (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:11:42 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:19:51 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>> However, it probably does as good a job as you could hope for given
:>> that the output of the test is a single three digit number.
:>
:> It does a good job at testing cognitive abilities. Those cognitive
:> abilities correlate well with some things and not at all with other
:> things.
:
:You are implying that it does a good job of testing all cognitive
:ailities. It does a good job of testing the cognitive abilities which
:relate to the things it tests. Tha is all.
By definition. The things that relate to the things that it tests are
rather general, of course. In fact there are some pretty low-level
neurological correlations (timed performance on some pattern matching
and eye-hand coordination tasks) that go with 'g'.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
From: jose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:10:49 -0500
"Richard E. Silverman" wrote:
very well said richard, much better than i have been able to draft up.
> By way of contrast, the last time I reported a serious security bug in
> SSH1 to SSH Communications Security, they took five months (!) to issue a
> one-line source code patch to fix the problem.
i, too, had a vulnerability report ignored (in 1999) by ssh.com, though
a recent one got code changed within about 48 hours. openssh, in
contrast, incorprated the fix in about 1 hour, and a fix to the fix
(children that die simultaneously) incorporated in another hour.
if you're curious, the 1999 problem i noted is a small, trivial
implementation problem, but it led to the PKCS-1.5/oracle decrypting bug
(wasn't that CORE-SDI?) being feasible against SSH-1 servers from
ssh.com. the proactive openssh fix (submitted by a friend, a better
coder than i am) is one reason why openssh is not vulnerable to this
problem.
again, well said. thanks for putting it very eloquently. all in all
chad's tirade has been amusing as all hell for me.
jose nazario [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:25:09 +0100
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:17:27 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>>>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>
>>I see what you are getting at now, but there is one slight flaw with your
>>arguement - the Windows API is crap. It is far too big, totally
>>disorganised, inconsistent, carries huge amounts of baggage from older
>>versions that are no longer needed yet limit newer versions, has calls
that
>>work differently under NT and 9x, has totally inconsistent methods of
>>handling bad arguements to calls, has piles of undocumented calls for the
>>benifit of MS apps, and has gems such as the ReadFileEx function that can
>>read from just about anywhere *except* from a file (under Win9x, that is -
>>under NT it *can* read from a file).
>>
>>I am not going to argue that any other major OS's API is better or worse -
I
>>don't have enough experiance with other APIs to do that fairly. But not
>
>Your claims that it is "crap" are meaningless unless you have something
>else to compare it with. There are very awkward compromises between
>backward compatibility and moving forward, but it does offer a lot to
>the person who wants to develop user friendly applications. Linux is
>playing catch up here.
>
My opinions on the Win32 API stand even without a comparison (my
understanding of APIs on Linux are that the Linux APIs themselves (e.g.,
file access, processes, memory management, etc.) are neat and consistent,
but programming raw X is a nightmare). I am not saying that the Win32 API
is necessarily worse than any others available, but there is no doubt that
it could have been vastly better.
Nobody (well, almost nobody) writes code that directly uses the Win32 API -
they use libraries on top of it such as MS Foundation Classes or Borland's
VCL. Not all of the API is covered with these libraries, but most of the
worst and most commonly used parts are neatly hidden. It is these tools
that let developers write user friendly apps, not the shared libraries that
come with Windows. And given the similarity between Delphi on Windows and
Kylix on Linux, there is nothing special about the Win32 API - it is tools
like Delphi that let you develop programs.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 21:50:16 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> >
>
> >>> and certainly does not have any development tools.
> >>
> >>It has shared libraries.
> >
> >Shared libraries are not development tools. A developer might take
> >advantage of existing shared libraries in a program, but that is a far cry
> >from calling libraries "development tools".
>
> Yes, I should have been more clear. The development tools are not part of
> what comes on the Win9x CD. However, the APIs *are* developed in tandem
> with the operating system, and an operating system with a good set of
> APIs tends to offer developers a lot when it comes to writing applications.
>
> The question I was addressing is "what is modern about Windows". While the
> header files and compiler do not come on the Win9x CD, they do add value
> to the platform from a users perspective, because they make it easy for
> the developer to write user friendly applications.
Did you ever look into those API's? Well, I did. I was used to special
purpose real-time OS's, but customers wanted nice GUI's, so I considered
trying to use Windows environment, and I started looking into Windows
not by a casual user point of view, but by a developer's point of view.
After that I had no other idea than to find an alternative solution.
I've never seen such a mess of inconsistent idiotic things, with no
plan, no design philosophy, no logic behind. Lots of different API's to
do the same thing, just because the first one takes some parameters from
global data (forgetting the multitasking environment), the second one
just provides a flag to tell apart two different cases out of 50
possibilities, then 48 more to cope with the other possibilities, and so
on. It's a programmer's nightmare. Beginner programmers with some talent
turn out much better software than what you clearly understand to lie
behind those API's. That way you may produce tens of thousands of API
calls (that's the number reached up to now, if I understand properly)
without providing a fraction of the functionality of a well designed
system with just a few hundred system calls.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 7 Mar 2001 22:04:11 GMT
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:25:09 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>My opinions on the Win32 API stand even without a comparison (my
>understanding of APIs on Linux are that the Linux APIs themselves (e.g.,
>file access, processes, memory management, etc.) are neat and consistent,
>but programming raw X is a nightmare).
Well that's sort of the problem. Until quite recently, Linux was fine
until you wanted to put a user interface on your application.
> I am not saying that the Win32 API
>is necessarily worse than any others available, but there is no doubt that
>it could have been vastly better.
I see. I wasn't talking about just Win32, I was also referring to other
APIs (such as MFC). I take your point that they don't ship the libraries
with Windows (I thought they did). In any case, these APIs definitely
make it easy to write user friendly applications for Windows. For a long
time, no one really paid attention to this issue on Linux.
Win32 itself isn't that pretty, as you suggest.
>that let developers write user friendly apps, not the shared libraries that
>come with Windows. And given the similarity between Delphi on Windows and
>Kylix on Linux,
But how similar really ? The jury is out on that one (unless you've seen
it and used it)
> there is nothing special about the Win32 API - it is tools
>like Delphi that let you develop programs.
And APIs. BTW, Kylix IIRC is based on Qt which is also a very nice API.
Without Qt, they'd either have to use something else, roll their own,
or use X.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:05:02 GMT
David Brown wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
> >On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:17:27 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
> >>>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >>I see what you are getting at now, but there is one slight flaw with your
> >>arguement - the Windows API is crap. It is far too big, totally
> >>disorganised, inconsistent, carries huge amounts of baggage from older
> >>versions that are no longer needed yet limit newer versions, has calls
> that
> >>work differently under NT and 9x, has totally inconsistent methods of
> >>handling bad arguements to calls, has piles of undocumented calls for the
> >>benifit of MS apps, and has gems such as the ReadFileEx function that can
> >>read from just about anywhere *except* from a file (under Win9x, that is -
> >>under NT it *can* read from a file).
> >>
> >>I am not going to argue that any other major OS's API is better or worse -
> I
> >>don't have enough experiance with other APIs to do that fairly. But not
> >
> >Your claims that it is "crap" are meaningless unless you have something
> >else to compare it with. There are very awkward compromises between
> >backward compatibility and moving forward, but it does offer a lot to
> >the person who wants to develop user friendly applications. Linux is
> >playing catch up here.
> >
>
> My opinions on the Win32 API stand even without a comparison (my
> understanding of APIs on Linux are that the Linux APIs themselves (e.g.,
> file access, processes, memory management, etc.) are neat and consistent,
> but programming raw X is a nightmare). I am not saying that the Win32 API
> is necessarily worse than any others available, but there is no doubt that
> it could have been vastly better.
>
> Nobody (well, almost nobody) writes code that directly uses the Win32 API -
> they use libraries on top of it such as MS Foundation Classes or Borland's
> VCL. Not all of the API is covered with these libraries, but most of the
> worst and most commonly used parts are neatly hidden. It is these tools
> that let developers write user friendly apps, not the shared libraries that
> come with Windows. And given the similarity between Delphi on Windows and
> Kylix on Linux, there is nothing special about the Win32 API - it is tools
> like Delphi that let you develop programs.
Waiting Kylix to be ready, we've implemented some part of our software
using VMware, to have a Windows GUI, and Linux processes. Linux and
Windows communicate through TCP/IP sockets. As the communication is two
way (one server and one client on each side), the implementation is
quite symmetrical.
Well the Linux side implemented in C is ten times shorter and simpler
than the Windows side, implemented with a RAD instrument like Delphi
(which hides most of the idiocies of Windows). The one which locks in
case of error is the Windows side.
------------------------------
From: Tim Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun Blade 100
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:09:58 +0000
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Has anybody looked into the new Sun Blade 100?? It's around $1K, 64-bit
> sparc, 128M, 18Gb drive, Cd-rom.
> Runs at 500 Mhz. Uses ECC memory expandable to 2Gb. Has Gnome available
> for it bundled in along with the other gpl software. It appears to be a
> good buy, but I'll take a coffee break and see what others have to say about
> it.
Looks pretty interesting. I'm tickled pink at the thought of having
a Sun box sitting in my home-study, but OTOH, what the hell would
I do with all those MIPS/FLOPS or whatever?
Running Linux, my old AMD k6/200 is plenty fast enough for the stuff
I want to do: Surf the net, browse the news, a bit of spreadsheeting,
some (very) lightweight development...
It's still a very appealing idea, though. Are there any packaged
distributions
(a la Mandrake etc) for the Sparc platform? I guess HW support may be
less of
an issue here, as well (A *big* guess).
Best,
Tim.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:05:46 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Annette M. Stroud wrote:
> In article <98650h$lgp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> > There is are VERY strong correlations between doing well on a
> >>> > well-designed IQ test, and the ability to quickly learn and perform
> >>> > well at any other randomly selected task. (Quickly as compared to
> >>> > the rate at which an IQ 100 person [statistical mean] would learn).
> >>>
> >>> The only thing that IQ tests measure is how good you are at IQ tests.
> >>
> >> That's something dumb people say.
> >
> >That really is all IQ tests measure.
> >
> >
> >>> They put no emphasis on precision over speed, for instance.
> >>
> >> Being able to think fast is a sign of higher cognitive processing speed,
> >> which is a distinct advantage in most situations.
> >
> >It may be an advantage in many situations but if I can get further in a
> >problem than someone who thinks more quickly, who is the most intelligent?
>
> Or, if the more one thinks about something, the clearer it becomes, rather
> than muddying up pretty accurate instantaneous responses.
Huh? (tm)
--
Brock
"One thing counts in this life: Get them to sign
on the line which is dotted...A. Always. B. Be.
C. Closing. Always Be Closing."
http://www.swingout.net/party/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 7 Mar 2001 22:07:27 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:56:35 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>>I've always maintained that Linux must have an EZ-HACK feature, judging
>by the ease in which "hackers" compromised entire university computer
>labs for their DDoS assault on Ebay, Amazon, Microsoft and several
>others last summer. It was reported that a large majority of the
>machines used in the attack were compromised Linux boxes.
Put up or shut up. The box is smith203-1.rutgers.edu.
My challenge to you: break in and deface the webpage. I haven't made that
much effort to check security (besides the obvious precautions) or keep
it up to date.
IMO the reason why Linux boxes tend to get compromised is because the
"admins" are often not professionals.
Solaris is attrocious OOTB compared to Linux (it doesn't even come
with TCP wrappers last I checked) I'd hardly call LInux the least secure
OS out there. (though it's second only to NT in having incompetent admins)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:18:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >You missed the point here. I'm not whining about having to RTFM, as I
> >said before.
>
> No, I am not missing the point, because the manual *does* answer the
> point you are trying to make. Not reading the manual does not justify
> your point.
When I need to read a manual to setup something as simple as a printer...
> >No, it's not my goofup, it's a Mandrake oopsie.
>
> You goofed up by not reading the manual, which would instantly give you
> the answer to the problem and how to fix it. Yes, it is also a Mandrake
> "oopsie" for setting the wrong default. But you _did_ goof up.
No I did not. It is not my fault that an application picked the wrong
default. Please don't lay this one at my door.
> >> Only when *you* tell it to (with -o raw). 2^(DOH)!
> >
> >I didn't tell it to, I picked the default which by any reasonable
> >assumption would _do the right thing_, but it didn't. D'oh!
>
> Your assumption was not reasonable. It would only be reasonable if it
> was based on something written in the manual, which obviously it was
> not.
I stand by my assumption being reasonable. Nothing you have said has
altered that.
> Why do we have to go through such great lengths to educate you on such a
> simple concept?
Why are we going over and over the same point? Perhaps because you are
not listening, I think.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: I am looking for a newsreader
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:59:20 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Antigates wrote:
>>Brad Sims wrote:
>>
>>> Knode is ok but I want something like Xnews, that I can run on
>>> my linux partition (SuSE 7.0, KDE 2.1). I have tried krn and did
>>> not like it either.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Try Pan. It can even handle binaries. Real nice and fast.
>>
>>http://pan.rebelbase.com/
>>
>
>SLRN for performance and ease of use.
>
>Charlie
Amen to that! Now, as one slrn-er to another, could you help me
with a little something or two....
Problem 1 is that read posts disappear next session; I'd rather see them
next time with a 'D' next to them.
Problem 2 is that it objects to text flowing beyond so many characters
on a line from the editor (can't remember the number). Can't it do that
automatically?
Any tips? TIA.
Richard
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:22:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> If I give you my account details, will you drop 30 quid in it?
> After all, it's not much is it?
Certainly. What do I get in return?
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:20:26 GMT
In article <983v25$1ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Well, it defaults to postscript, which is what I printed the first time,
> > until I selected The Gimp's EPSON driver.
>
> Save it. Go and live in ignorance for all I care. I'm not going to
> explain the linux printing system to you again. Read some of my previous
> posts.
Your replies detailed a great deal but answered the wrong question.
My whole point was that if I select a specific printer in installation,
then everything else should follow suit. The Gimp did not. Your
explanations about postscript were irrelevant.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:21:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > It's around £30 or less. That's a big expense is it?
>
> It is is you don't want it, having an alternative operating system already
> on hand you want installed.
>
> You're arguments are getting short and weak.
You must be pretty poor if £30 is too much.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:24:48 GMT
In article <983sp1$t1p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Beacus in order to install apps on 'doze you have to write to the
> registry (in most cases). No sane admin would allow any idiot to do that.
> Under *nix, you don't have to do that, since most apps will install as
> non admin.
>
> So it is NT's fault for having a buggered system
Only if you consider writing to the registry (and probably to a users
private space) a dangerous operation. Mostly it isn't.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:33:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > I'd hardly call the output of a thermometer "cryptic".
>
> Eh? What's self-explanatory about a thermometer?
Oh well, I can't help you then...
> > No it's just cryptic.
>
> Look, "cryptic" means: "something you don't understand". How in the name
> of Seven Hells can _anything_ be cryptic if you understand it?
>From the "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English":
cryptic: secret; with a hidden meaning, or something not easily seen.
"something not easily seen" is what I'm referring to.
> > I might except a Linux PC doesn't have that consistant interface as yet.
>
> It can have it.
It could but not yet.
> > I realise that, but most of what I use is pretty consistant.
>
> Was that consistency there right out of the box or did you have to tweak
> some of your applications?
Out of the box.
> > > Success = popular ?
> >
> > Seems to be.
> >
> In a way, you are correct. Success can be equal to popularity, but only
> if the goal set was to be omnipresent.
So we agree here.
> If I were to set technical excellence as a goal for an application of
> mine, success would only be achieved if it outperformed every other
> similar application on the market.
Unfortunately, technically excellent things are rarely successful.
> > Witness the battle between Betamax and VHS. VHS is the inferior product
> > but it's the one that won.
>
> Won at what? Being the most sold, yes. Being the best, no. Betamax still
> exists today, and it is used wherever quality outweighs volume shipping.
> It might even be that in the long run the betamax suppliers are better
> off: They don't need to compete in a teeth-and-claws market where you
> need to ship a gazillion units to break even. They might in fact be in a
> position where they can pretty much ask any price they want, because
> they are - according to your definition - unsuccessfull.
But they exist in small numbers for a specialist market. Sounds like
Linux!
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:43:44 GMT
In article <983tbn$3a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > True, but even less works on Linux.
>
> Depends what hardware. 'Doze supports only PC hardware. It's moniter
> support is also crap. That is one thing Linux consistently supports
> better on the PC platform.
Windows support of monitors seems to work just fine.
> > Because other people have complained of the same problems!
>
> I have never seen anyone complaints involve the sheer number and variety
> of problems you seem to experience. That is why your install is bolloxed.
Then you haven't been reading some of the posts in this group.
> > Why does Windows install perfectly every time I do it?
>
> Why doesn't it for me?
>
> (there's a hole in my bucket)
You're missing the point.
> > Funny, in order to get my monitor to work on Linux, I had to at least
> > give it a basic specification.
>
> I just checked, you need to do that under Windows too. But Linux doesn't
> need a whole driver.
On my Iiyama monitor disk is an INF file. It's used to install a
"driver". Actually all it contains are details about the monitor. Not
really a driver. Which monitor are you referring to that actually
installs a VXD or SYS file?
> > Perhaps because the list of monitors that work with MAC are much
> > reduced?
>
> This moniter works with a Mac. It came with a Mac adapter. The Mac
> doesn't need drivers.
How does that answer my question?
> >> Why didn't it provide drivers for solaris (despite supporting SUN's od
> >> screen modes)? Same reason.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Why didn't it need drivers.
See above.
> >> It's just a fscking moniter. Moniters do not need drivers.
> >
> > The OS needs to know what kind of monitor you have attached. Same thing.
>
> Not really. And under the cases where it does, windows really falls down.
> Try getting an old 56khz workstation moniter working under 'doze. Now try
> under Linux.
Well, if you want to use an old monitor, go ahead!
As for Windows falling, down, why here I am happily using my Iiyama
Vision Master 400 without any problems. Should I tell it that it's really
falling down?
> > Fresh and clean appears to equate to "buggy and unusable".
>
> I've found it useable and more bug free than windows.
You consider, for example, the KDE desktop more usable and bug free than
Windows? Your expectations must not be very high then!
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:48:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > What kind of commands are in the CLI?
> >
> Anything.
> You can perform any drawing, selecting, editing, filing, printing,
> whatevering command with two-letter command lines, followed by optional
> parameters (line length, angle measure, colour, line size...).
Can you give me an example?
> > I don't doubt you, I just find it hard to believe.
> >
> > How would you change one pixel from say red to black with the CLI?
> >
> [repeating myself, but...] Autodesk makes vector-oriented graphics
> programs, aimed at technical users. In theory I could draw a box that
> was one pixel in size and change its properties, but that's not how
> vector-oriented programs work.
OK vector graphics I might accept, but... (and a package called Xara X
comes to mind which is a vector package but entirely GUI based).
> For a pixel-oriented program it would probably be tricky to do
> command-line stuff up to pixel level, although there is PovRay, which
> creates bitmaps, and is a command-line raytracer.
... thank you, editing pixels with a CLI is down right difficult.
You talk to me about POVray?!? It's a raytracer, not an pixel editor!
It has a scene language which a lot of talented people can make amazing
pictures with. However, I quickly found it a lot easier to use a 3D GUI
package to front end it (I wrote one!).
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:43:56 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > > It's around £30 or less. That's a big expense is it?
> >
> > It is is you don't want it, having an alternative operating system
> > already on hand you want installed.
> >
> > You're arguments are getting short and weak.
>
> You must be pretty poor if £30 is too much.
>
Pete, I don´t think the value is the issue here. After all, I´ve got
several meters of books (Windows / OS/2 / Linux) here where EACH
of them costs that much. But I would not like to pay that sum to Billy-boy
without getting something worthwile in return. But MS does not even throw
in a manual into the "bargain". I have at least 30 licences here (MSDN)
which I do not use. Why pay for yet another?
Peter
--
Get the new Windows XP. Now with eXtra Problems included
Linux is like a Wig-Wam: No Gates, No Windows, Apache inside
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
