Linux-Advocacy Digest #889, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: the mismeasure of scale (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Shades")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... ("Zed Mister")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:16:12 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:40:53
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:10:08
>> -0700;
>> >"Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> You know, the really scary thing about Charlie's enthusiasm is that it feels
>> >> so much like the "You GOTTA be saved, Jesus LOVES you!.." enthusiasm of some
>> >> religious sects.
>> >>
>> >> Or is "Linus loves you," more accurate?
>> >
>> >windows is a pretty cool system. easy to install and easy to use. i like
>> >it just fine.
>> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> >
>> >men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>> >more even than death
>> >- bertrand russell
>>
>> When I recently changed my .sig, I received several lame comments about
>> how I wasn't following my own advice, using such a sig while flaming
>> trollers rather callously. But that's nothing compared to "Jackie"
>> here; one must presume he hasn't even managed to read his own sig, let
>> alone understand what it says and its applicability to his own comments.
>
>what part of my comment do you dispute?
>that i think windows is cool?
I need not dispute any of your comments for my comment to be valid.
>if so, how can this be considered evidence of fear of thought when it
>expresses nothing more than a subjective response - ie 'that's pretty
>cool' or do you have a dispute that windows is easy to use and easy to install?
>if you do i suspect you define 'easy' in an idiosyncratic way which makes
>the byzantine world of unix look good - such as 'it won't crash'
>ignoring the fact that a system which doesn't crash but which requires
>more investment in time and effort than most people are willing to make
>just to get started with is, for most people, effectively useless.
>or perhaps you think liking windows is itself evidence that i fear thought?
>well, that may have an element of truth if you define 'thought' strictly
>as human cpu cycles. my observations indictate that learning to use unix
>well requires an immense amount of what is for most people (myself
>included) tedious and unpleasant mental work. this is the underlying
>reason for the high value placed on unix savvy people by the market in
>that it tends to restrict the supply. (the other side of this is, of
>course, increased demand)
>now it may be that you, like a lot of people on usenet, love working with
>computers. but you should not let this blind you to the fact that for most
>people working with computers has only been made just barely tolerable by
>things like windows.
>and until this is fully understood by the linux evangelists bill gates
>needn't lose any sleep fretting over microsoft losing thier total desktop
>enduser market domination.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
>men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>more even than death
>- bertrand russell
I think the conflict between your comments and your sig is made all the
more obvious by this rant.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: the mismeasure of scale
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:18:44 GMT
Said The Danimal in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:34:27
>Anonymous wrote:
>> aaron wrote:
>> > Anonymous wrote:
>> > > then there are those who are in business and understand economies of
>> > > scale. not to mention the cost of paying a headcase unix guru to be snotty
>> > > and obnoxious whilst smelling up the office and dripping twinkie crumbs on
>> > > the server and making rtfm sounds with his porcine cakehole.
>> >
>> > It takes a minimum of FIVE Windows adminstrators to get the same productivity
>> > of ONE Unix administrator.
>
>That's because Unix administrators don't have to cope with the
>same types of users. The daunting complexity of Unix selects for
>highly self-sufficient users. This is like comparing the productivity
>of two physicians, one who treats terminally ill elderlies and
>the other who treats healthy young people. You'd be naive to think
>the doctor with the higher patient death rate is inferior. You have
>to compare them on the same patients.
Any fool who thinks a physician using a professionally administered Unix
box needs to care a wit about Unix's "daunting complexity" is obviously
entirely ignorant of what "professionally administered" means.
>The low level of real-world compatibility in Unix systems discourages
>people from connecting them to random hardware devices and relentlessly
>installing new kinds of application software as is routine with Windows
>computers. [...]
"Low level of real-world compatibility in Unix systems"? Guffaw!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:20:46 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:56:10
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >The GPL simply doesn't guarantee the goal as stated by your last
>> >sentence.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, it does; that's why you have a problem with it.
>> >
>> >Please quote the part that you think says that anything must be shared.
>>
>> The whole thing. C'mon, Les; I know you're not that stupid. You aren't
>> actually confusing the effect with the text, are you?
>
>There is no part that says or even suggests that you must redistribute
>anything at all, only restrictions on how you may do it if you choose.
>Whatever effect you are talking about must have only been in your
>mind.
The effect is apparently evident to other minds as well, considering the
success of Linux.
>> >The version I read only speaks of requirements that must be
>> >met before it can be shared at all - requirements that prohibit
>> >many things from being shared.
>>
>> Only theoretically. Regardless, the GPL only concerns what is covered
>> by the GPL, obviously, so the issue is what is done with what *is*
>> shared, not with what *isn't* shared. The only "requirements" are that
>> it be shared completely, if it is shared.
>
>Which rules out sharing many things at all.
So? Sharing itself rules out many things.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:23:17 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001
07:58:23 -0500;
>On 18 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss, "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Free software obviously means that it can be passed on to other
>>> people with no restrictions.
>> That is not at all obvious. Mention of often made of free speech and
>> free beer, but what about the concept of free as in "free man"? Is it
>> not possible the freedom may be (at least in part) an attribute of the
>> software rather than just being a freedom granted to the recipient of
>> the software? In other words, like a free man, it may be passed
>> around and shared but (in the same way as a free man can change
>> employers but not be enslaved by them) it must retain its freedom.
>
>This is the "software enslaved" argument, and it's bunk. Software
>itself can't have freedoms; they're only able to be expressed -- like
>the sofware itself -- in what others can do with it.
This "software enslaved" argument has another benefit, however; it makes
obvious those who cannot easily grasp abstractions, because they
consider the argument "bunk" for that reason.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:28:52 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> I think this line of questioning is very important, as it shows the
>>>> abstract nature of the underlying arguments. First, there is a
>>>> technical difference, it seems, between public domain and something
>>>> "without a copyright".
>>> No, there isn't. The two mean exactly the same thing.
>> No, not exactly. They *can* mean the same thing, of course, since one
>> is a description ("without a copyright") and the other a characteristic
>> ("public domain"). But something which is "without a copyright" is
>> impossible, according to current laws, while public domain, obviously,
>> is covered (in fact, defined) by those laws.
>
>Do you ever have anything worthwhile to say, Max? Something in the
>public domain does not have a copyright on it. It is "without a
>copyright".
Whether it is worthwhile or not is for others to judge, but it is not
possible for something which is in the public domain to "not have a
copyright on it". That copyright isn't owned by anybody, it is in the
public domain. It is without copyright *protection*, as I said. It
cannot be without a copyright.
>Your distinction is, like everything else you manage to
>spew about this matter, false and completely without an erg of rational
>thought behind it.
Which is to say you either didn't understand it, or haven't figured out
why it might be important. No bother.
>>>> For one thing, the latter (software, or any work of authorship,
>>>> without a copyright) is not possible, presently. As a legal
>>>> abstraction, it existed up until the mid 80s, I think, when the Berne
>>>> Convention was adopted almost globally.
>>> Meaninless tripe. (Hint: I can write something and release it into the
>>> public domain. From that point forward, it is "without a copyright.")
>> If it were without a copyright, you couldn't own it, and therefore
>> couldn't release it into the public domain. It is "without copyright
>> restrictions". Yes, the difference is small. Whether its meaningless
>> tripe depends on your premise, which you haven't furthered at all so
>> far.
>
>It's meaningless tripe, just like everything else you say. You invent
>these foolish and worthless "distinctions" on points which aren't
>distinctions at all -- you did this the last time someone brought the
>conversations from where you reside to gmd, and you eventually left
>with your tail between your legs (only you called it a victory instead
>of the shaming it was). The "difference" you bring up is only in your
>own mind.
And potentially in the minds of others I communicate with; this is
called "a concept". If you're not interested, then just don't respond,
OK?
>>>> I think that's
>>>> where the GPL discussion comes down to; "GPL isn't free" zealots seem to
>>>> believe they have a *right* to profit on what they received for free.
>>> Complete lie. You keep repeating it despite the fact you've been told
>>> otherwise. Keep believing it, Maxie, but it'll never be true.
>> Whether something is true has nothing to do with whether I believe it,
>> Austin. And, just in case you aren't really nothing more than an
>> obnoxious bore, you can call me "Max".
>
>You're more like a "Min" -- seeing as you apply no thought at all to
>your arguments. Your statement above is a false statement: keep
>repeating it and you become a liar, because you've been informed that
>it's a false statement. Oh, that's right ... you ARE a liar because you've
>been informed of this fact before...
So I would presume my original theory is correct, and you're nothing
more than an obnoxious bore, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:30:54 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001
07:39:19 -0500;
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:21:56
>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Why is it a good thing to force people to do something against
>>>>> their will?
>>>> Because it maintains freedom.
>>> I guess logic isn't a requirement here....
>> The statement is perfectly logical. The ability to handle complex
>> abstractions is, unfortunately, a requirement, though.
>
>It's logical to the degree that it's a circular statement. You've advanced
>nothing, Maxie.
No, it simply requires the understanding of complex abstractions, such
as "freedom" and "will". You've learned nothing, Austin.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:38:34 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001
07:41:44 -0500;
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Actually, I'm quite correct. Freedom 2 itself is contravened by the GPL.
>> "Contravened"? Not at all. Freedom 2 gives you the right to distribute
>> the software to help you neighbor. The fact that the GPL makes it
>> impractical or impossible to make a profit on it without providing a
>> value add, well, that doesn't mean you can't distribute the software to
>> help your neighbor.
>
>No, it actually makes it impractical or impossible to distribute
>value-added to the software without giving up significant rights of
>your own. It contravenes freedom 2 -- you're NOT free to redistribute
>... except under the restrictions of the GPL.
You seem to be unaware that freedom 2 itself contains a restriction, and
it is this restriction which you apparently think is contravened by
freedom 2. You only have the right to give the software away to help
your neighbor. The ability to add value and sell it at a profit is not
mentioned or related to freedom 2.
>Stallman has delineated these freedoms, and the he's not consistent
>enough to actually follow through with them -- he assumes something (in
>the paragraph following this delination) that isn't itself a freedom.
He's a flawed human being, merely trying to cogitate and communicate.
It is apparent that some people expect him to be a perfect algorithm,
implacable in his logic, unrefuted in his facts, and perfectly valid in
his examples and opinions.
His concepts are sound, his considerations are not excessively
self-contradictory, and his political agenda, as it were, is gaining
much ground these days. Were it not hostile ONLY TO COMMERCIAL
EXPLOITATION of a "free" (you can create it at almost 0 cost) commodity,
it would indeed be something to be concerned about, considering how
popular it has become. Kind of like Napster, really; when the
"bogeyman" is only seen by those with the greatest vested interest in
the status quo, it doesn't really look so scary to everybody else, no
matter how irate and dire are the warnings of disaster.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:39:11 GMT
Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 18 Mar 2001 14:17:28
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:16 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Likewise, free software refers to the ACT of *using software*. Not the
>>act of publishing software. Restrictions against redistributing
>>software cannot prevent that software from being free any more than
>>copyright can prevent speech from being free.
>
>Coipyright can, in some instances, be used to suppress free speech.
>For example, someone might use copyright law to suppress publication of
>leaked documents.
Precisely my point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:45:43 -0500
> Unix has half a dozen GUI's that are so good that Mafia$oft
> copied (in their own, usual, less-than-elegant way) as much of
> this functionality as they could.
>
> Now....if Unix is supposedly soooooooooo difficult to use, then
> please explain why Mafia$oft is copying Unix ON THE BASIS OF
> EASE OF USE.
>
I do not understand this statement. Where is MS copying Unix on ease of
use? All the newest GUI's I have seen on Linux look a lot like something
I have seen before.
>
> >
> > > > i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
> > > > u can't touch this
> > >
> > > So you are saying that you were doing useful work on windows after
never
> > > having used it before and having had no training? LOL!
> >
> > no formal training whatsoever.
>
> You have used Windows for years.
>
> You are saying that, when you were an absolute novice with windows,
> you are just as productive as you are right now, years later?
>
> How .... sad.
>
You know ragging on guy who has been using an OS for years and is not more
productive is not something I would think a Unix person would rag on. I
would disagree about the argument that the Windows OS has not evolved and
helped increased productivity. Embedding documents and and being able to
link embedded spreadsheets with actual data somewhere on a server is very
useful for businesses. Also the Knowledge management feature coming out
from MS makes working with these documents much more productive.
> > i'd fucked around with it a bit tho. a friend of mine showed me the
basic
> > stuff and i think i took one page of notes - various basic control
panels,
> > stupid right mouse button tricks, the standard menu layout in office.
> > and most important of all - where to find help. (it's usually cleverly
> > hidden in the 'help' menu)
>
> The Help menu mainly leads to such highly informative information as
> "The font button is use to select what font you want to use."
>
> If you need help to figure that out, then you're probably not
> intellectually capable of using a computer in the first place.
>
Yes and Man pages have always been great too.
>
>
> >
> > > > > Unix has had fully functional GUI's since the mid 1980's.
> > > >
> > > > xwindows?
> > > > nerdo please...
> > >
> > > What is wrong with X. WTS is begining to emulate some of the
> > > functionality, over 15 years late.
> >
> > as i recall it consisted of a bunch of barebones windows where you
> > could punch in command line stuff and occasionally show a peecture.
> > real user friendly.
> > not.
>
> No.. X windows is a PROTOCOL upon which you can write GUIs.
>
> The first X window managers were just a proof-of-concept.
>
> This is like berating internal-combustion engines because the
> first diesel engines ran on coal dust.
>
Why not everyone laughs at DOS and Early versions of Windows.
>
> Word Processing
> CAD/CAM
> data-base front-end tools
>
> *ANYTHING* you do on a desktop is more easily implemented in Unix
> than in Windows....ANYTHING.
>
> And if it's easier for the programmer to write a sophisticated,
> high-quality application, then the sooner, and more cheaply
> you are going to get it.
>
Hmm.. you know almost all colleges send out Comp Sci majors and engineers
that know Unix at some basic proficient level. If your statement is true
then "why" is Windows still so damned popular. I mean your statements do
not have any empirical proof that you can base it on. For the case of
Microsoft you have people from all over the world who have to focus on
getting their job done(not knowing the intricacies of the OS) and they do it
mostly on Microsoft Windows. Why it seems odd that if everything works so
much better on Unix then where is it? Why is it not on everyone's desktops?
I mean Unix has been around for a long time you would think people would be
using it like crazy? I know one answer everyone says and that is MS is a
monopoly, yada yada yada but Unix had a lightyear start. It never made much
of a dent. I am not trying to be a dick I just want you to answer it
honestly with some real empiracal data as proof.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:48:31 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001
>On 18 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Most users aren't going to know a fscking thing about hiring a
>>> software developer to fix their software problems -- again, this is
>>> a fact.
>> That may be a fact now, but if free software becomes the norm will it
>> still be case? I am sure that the "software service" shops would
>> appear in the same way as there are now have TV repair shops and type
>> and exhaust centres.
>
>Yes, it will. Software is more an art than a science -- and while it
>will become more science-like over time, it will ALWAYS maintain a
>level of art which makes it nearly impossible for such things.
Isn't it a fact that software programming in the post-Turing age is
recognized as being "art" only so much as it is not very well done, from
a science perspective? There is a great deal of "artistry" to putting
together software, simply because of the extremely limited knowledge you
have about what is the "best" way to put it together. Ultimately, is
not software development not a purely *practical* exercise, having
concrete and objective (if extremely complex and subjectively measured)
design goals which might themselves meet aesthetic goals, but are not
even related to the aesthetics of the programming, which has no value at
all for the user? If so, there must be an objective "best" method, in
that it is most efficient for the given set of tasks, and the nature of
'art' in software is really more of a scientific intuition and elegance,
not at all "artistry".
>I also don't see GPL-unfree software becoming the norm.
Well, what can I say but, "Wake up and smell the coffee, Austin."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Zed Mister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:48:30 -0800
Yes. Check out Need For Speed and see for yourself. The lens flare in the
game actually looks realistic, whereas this Photoshop one does not.
Microsoft definitely did a stupid thing, but that doesn't change the fact
that Direct3D is capable of lens flare. They probably didn't have any games
that actually used the feature, since it isn't used that often (lens flare
looks gimmicky and annoying). I guess one of the marketing people figured
lens flare would look cool or something, and asked if it was possible to
have it in a game. The programmers said "yes, it's possible" and the
marketing person asked for a screenshot from a game that had it. The
programmers said "we don't have any, none of the xbox games use it yet,
since gamers think it's kind of stupid and a gimmick." The marketing person
gets all mad and takes that as a personal attack and fires up Photoshop and
adds the filter to one of the screenshots. Of course, none of this could
have happened ... or could it? no, it couldn't ... or so one would think.
"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3ab5af43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Zed Mister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Uhm.... lens flare has been a part of Direct3D for a LONG time ... it was
> >used extensively in Need For Speed: Porche Unleashed, and the version
before
> >that (I don't remember the name). Those games used Direct3D 5.0 and 6.0
as
> >their 3D API. The lens flare in those games was actually much more
advanced
> >and looked a whole lot better than the Photoshop filter that was used in
> >that demo screenshot.
>
> So...
>
> Direct3D produces lens flares that are a "whole lot better" than
> Photoshop, but somehow Microsoft just forgot that it could do that?
>
> The used a Photoshop lens flare to make the screenshot look worse?
>
> Riiiiight.
>
>
> >
> >"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >> > 'Today, Microsoft released this statement on www.xbox.com:
> >> >
> >> > "Some of the images for Amped released during Gamestock were enhanced
to
> >> > illustrate some features that will be in the final product. ...
> >>
> >> And we know how good MS is about ensuring that all their brag features
> >actually
> >> make it into their final products.
> >>
> >> Bobby Bryant
> >> Austin, Texas
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to
that
> wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
> bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
