Linux-Advocacy Digest #36, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: e: Feminism ==> subjugation of males ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why Linux is paralyzed ("Edward Rosten")
Re: IE (Bob Hauck)
Re: IE ("Ayende Rahien")
Am I a feminist? (was Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Karel Jansens)
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product ("JoFi")
Re: Communism (theRadical)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's
Date: 29 Apr 2001 13:12:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: But yet you have no application like:
: CD Architect
: SoundForge.
: Vegas audio/video
: Cubase
: Samplitude
: Acid
: Cakewalk
: Sonar.
: Logic Audio
: And I could go on for hours........
The list of poor-quality, non-portable software, that can run on only
one OS, and the shittiest one available at that, certainly seems
endless.
Ditto for poor-quality hardware.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: e: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: 29 Apr 2001 13:27:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> Both daughters love math and do great at it. My twelve year
:> old wants to solve the Twin Prime Conjecture (she also wants
:> to cure cancer using molecular biology, so we will see where
:> she ends up).
:>
:> --
:> Andrew Hall
:> (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
: People who brag about their kids irritate me.
To Brent: Do you have children? If not, you will hopefully understand
when you do. If so, then shame on you. What could possibly be more
worth bragging about?
To Andrew: You have every right and every reason to be very proud of
your daughters. I'm sure they will accomplish great things.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is paralyzed
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:36:52 +0100
> Why Linux is paralysed before it starts. I do belive that someone
> somewhere has a fully working desktop system that runs with ease on
> Linux but they are few a far between them.
I do. In know quite a lot of other people who do.
> But I have never seen any
> computer being sold in a retail outlet "PC World" Etc running Linux for
> the Desktop.
Mee neither. I have seen PC World selling Linux, though.
> The reason being its just too difficult to configure for
> retailers and I doubt if they could handle the problems that come with
> Linux.
Linux is every bit as easy. The new distros set up and detect everything.
> EIDE is just one of many problems that you encounter with Linux.
> EIDE based CD Writers cheaper and more common than SCSI but all Linux
> distributions seem to only cater for SCSI.
Don't you mean ATAPI? Oddly enough I know 3 people with both Linux and a
CD writer. they're all ATAPI and they all work fine.
> This means you have to
> implement SCSI emulation.. Why ?
What's wrong with SCSI emulation? ATAPI was designed to be SCSI-Like. In
fact most CDRW drivers for Windows work using SCSI emulation.
> Take the latest version of Suse 7.1 for
> example asking you to alter the
> "/sbin/init.d/boot.local file " when it does not exist and is now in"
> /etc"
> !
Very odd. I don't know Suse. Besides, what was asking you to alter that?
> That you should re-set your link for to emulated SCSI ln -sf /dev/scd0
> /dev/cdrom and if you want to use a second CD drive with emulation ln
> -sf
> /dev/scd0 /dev/cdrom1. But the CD writer is /dev/cdrecorder and not
> cdrom1.
> Each distribution of Linux seems to have a different way of
> getting SCSI emulation. Even magazines say it's easy all you have to do
> is compile a few extra modules:- alias scd0 sr mod options ide-cd
> ignore=hda pre-install sg modprobe ide-scsi pre-install sr mod modprobe
> ide-scsi pre-install ide-scsi modprobe ide-cd then it is just a matter
> of doing cdrecord scanbus as root, and then find the device ID. Why
> can't this all be done for the user it's a known problem? This is just
> one of many problems with Linux and why it will die just like OS2.
It is done. All recent distributions ship with all the relavent modules
required for getting a CD recorder working. In fact, some of the really
new ones set it up for you autmatically, which is easier and faster than
on windows ecause you don't have to stick in the driver CD and then
reboot.
Yet again, another person complaining without checking out a new
distribtuion.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:43:42 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:29:40 +0100, Michael Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But I use a dial up 56k connection. It's not fantastic and I do get pissed
> off with flash pages because my P200 can't render the buggers fast enough
> even if I could download them!
Flash is sometimes faster than an animated GIF. But those are evil
anyway <g>.
> I don't do BIG pages. OK, I have two sites on the go t the moment. The
> first, a fan site for miniature wargaming (www.ultimate40k.net) has index
> page download as follows:
>
> Grand total: 11.32KB (about 2.7 seconds @ 4.1KB/s which is standard for a
> 56kbs modem)
I have only two comments about that. One is that I cannot get a 41K
connection, or even 33.6. I think that is because I am behind a line
multiplexer, which is unfortunately a popular thing with telcos.
Figures vary from the 5% of lines claimed by the modem companies to the
20% claimed by Boardwatch.
Second, you didn't include latency in your calculations. There's a
couple hundred ms of latency in opening a new connection. That isn't a
huge deal in this case, but I've seen sites with 40 or 50 small GIF
images on them. In that case, the latency adds up.
> It's hardly the world wide wait. Add to that the fact that everythng except
> the HTML page is cached and used with all the other pages and after you have
> arrived at the index,
Ok, so you are paying attention, that's good. I've seen lots of web
pages that do silly things that break caching for no good reason.
> bit of server side coding means that NS4 users don't even get errors, they
> just get the main headings on the sidebar which that can navigate manually.
And that is how it should be. The thing that bugs me is sites that
*will not work properly* if I have the "wrong" browser. I'm ok with
giving up a few features or not having it look perfect if I can use the
browser I want to use.
Browser-specific code is bad enough, but when the site gets the
detection wrong too, well, then the designers ought to be taken to a
re-education camp or something. Violating the standard and doing it
badly is combining two evils.
> > Cool looking pages are more often than not slow pages.
>
> Unless the designer was a good one. Elegant minimalism is very fashionable
> at the moment
There seem to be a lot of bad web designers. Not your fault I know.
> I dislike very graphics intensive pages mainly for their oppressive
> feeling or garish colours than their download time.
Careful, you're going to be accused of advocating "simplism" 8->
> The Bellsouth site wasn't well designed, it was written by a big web
> design company with a WYSIWYG editor and minimal knowledge of actual
> HTML.
No doubt. Unfortunately, a "big web design company" by definition does
a lot of sites.
BTW, I'm going to be travelling on business next week, so we may have
to leave this for a while. Sorry.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:43:00 +0200
"Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hSTG6.4178$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > At the same time you don't want to alienate them with "you must upgrade
> > your browser or go away".
>
> No, you don't. That's why I do spend hours trying to find workarounds for
> older browsers, but it is true that no one uses a v3 browser anymore, I
have
> stats on the subject. The problem is that one v4 browser if a long way
> behind all it's competitors but is still popular...
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/March/browser.html
NS 4 (the trouble maker) is only 9%, IE (4 &5) are at 86%.
When writing reasonably complex pages, you can almost always divivde the
workload to:
Building it: 50%
Testing & fixing it in IE: 5% (It usually just works, but I will give a
reasonable figure)
Testing & fixing it in NS4: 45%
BTW, there are still people who are using V1.0 browsers (more IE than NS,
though), so I wouldn't scorn V3 browsers.
NS3 was a masterpiece.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Am I a feminist? (was Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males)
Date: 29 Apr 2001 14:23:37 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: No, they don't. See the above definition. A feminist is anyone who does
: that specified in the above definition.
I advocate women's rights on the grounds that women are at least equal
to men.
However, I disagree with nearly everything else that today's so-called
"feminists" teach.
I don't believe that women are an oppressed minority. (They are in
fact a majority almost everywhere in the world outside of China.)
I don't believe that, on the basis of statistical averages, women are
equal to men in *every* respect. They tend on average to be better
than we are at some things, and worse at others. I suspect, but
cannot prove, that there are more things, and more important things,
that they do better than us, than things we do better than they.
At any rate, I prefer to relate to people as people, not as members of
some huge composite group consisting of the entire half of the human
race which happens to share the same gender.
I don't believe in government-mandated "equal pay" schemes because,
like other government-mandated intrusions in labor markets such as
"minimum wage" laws, they greatly increase unemployment among the very
groups of people they allegedly are intended to help.
I believe that, while real cases of sexual harrassment are still all
too common, most complaints of such harrassment are bunk.
I believe that marriage contracts should be enforced as would be any
other contract. They ought to be entered into far less lightly than
they tend to be, and ought to be exited from rarely if ever.
I believe that easy divorce and single parenthood are among the WORST
things ever to happen to women, even though these are among the very
things that many feminists insist on above all else.
I don't believe women would be just as well off without men. And I
sure as hell know that men wouldn't be better off without women.
I don't believe that women or anyone else have the right to murder
their unborn children.
I prefer most women to most men, as friends, as lovers (sorry, I'm a
flaming hetero), as co-workers, as business associates. They have
strengths that complement mine, and often excel in areas in which I
find myself lacking, and the converse is sometimes true as well.
But except for being a flaming hetero, I don't exclude men from any of
those roles simply because they aren't women.
I believe in holding doors open for women, not because they aren't
capable of opening doors themselves, but because it is a sign of
courtesy and respect.
I believe that women are of infinite value and worth, not just because
of what they do, but who they are.
But I also believe that this is true of all people.
Am I a feminist?
According to your definition, I am.
But somehow I doubt that Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Molly Yard,
and their ideological kin would agree.
And I would be more than a little frightened if they did.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Apr 2001 08:57:44 -0500
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Apr 2001 14:32:36
>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:31:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Apr 2001 10:12:43
>>>>On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:28 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 24 Apr 2001 12:57:20
>>>>>>On 24 Apr 2001 18:02:36 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>You clearly stated that you personally believe that [any killing not in
>>>>>>>>self defense] includes [killing at war].
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>Bzzzt wrong. And you claim that you lectured on logic?
>>>>>>That's not what your sentence said at all. I provided the definition
>>>>>>of "includes" for a reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm afraid you're mistaken, Chad. Roberto was perfectly correct in
>>>>>pointing out that killings in self defense are possible in war, and none
>>>>>of his statements have been inconsistent with his current statements.
>>>>>He has not stated all killing in war is murder, and he has well
>>>>>supported his logic in claiming that some killings in war are murder,
>>>>>and being in war does not prevent them from being murder, unless the
>>>>>intent is to defend the waging of war for no purpose.
>>>>
>>>>You failed to provide the one sentence where he, in fact, states that
>>>>killing in war is included in the category of non self-defense killing.
>>>>Perhaps he meant something else, but it's not what he wrote.
>>>>
>>>>So, your statement is also incorrect. All you had to do was include
>>>>Roberto's sentence your post. I wonder why you did not.
>>>
>>>Sorry, Chad, but you seem intent on playing rhetorical games rather than
>>>any more reasonable discussion. Whether I included a single sentence
>>>cannot possible have an impact on the correctness of my post. I wonder
>>>why you're pretending it does.
>>
>>Well, he either said something or he didn't, that's why it matters.
>>If he says something, and then wants to waffle on it, well that's another
>>story.
>
>To say "he either said something or he didn't" is the whole problem.
>Words, you see, have this rather variable thing called Meaning. So
>whether he said something or not resolves to what he meant, not what was
>in any particular singular word or sentence. I could "he intended to
>say", but then it would sound as if I am second-guessing his meaning,
>rather than providing my opinion of what he meant.
>
>Words are both relative and uncertain; yet words cannot waffle, and
>Roberto's opinion on this subject seem comprehensible and reasonable.
>I'm afraid that means I think your opinion is mistaken in some way. I
>think you're just mistaken about what Roberto said, not what he meant,
>so perhaps you were right to say that I should have included some
>particular sentence. To be honest, I'm not sure which single sentence
>you're referring to, nor where any single sentence where Roberto stated
>his opinion might be found.
>
>In the end, these last few exchanges have devolved to commenting on
>rhetoric, not dealing with the meaning of the terms "killing in war is
>unethical".
>
Agreed. But I will add that I have found in my few attempts at
trying to carry on a debate with Roberto that, no matter the topic,
the debate inevitably veers off into a rhetorical debate
precisely because he often says very different things.
In this debate alone, he has said:
All killing in war is murder
All killing is murder
All killing is murder, except killing in self-defense.
All non-self defence killing is murder, including killing at war.
When trying to pin him down on some of these things, the debate
will quickly revert to what "murder" means and what "is" is
Agreed. mBut
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:46:16 +0100
<snip>
> > How about multimedia?
>
> It's getting better, but it's still no where near windows. But hey, it's a
> windows world.
> Try going to college and ONLY using linux. Sure, you'll get your mail, but
> all those word documents, powerpoint slides, Flash enabled demos (yeah you
> can get flash - but NN under linux sucks), on and on.
> Have a new digital camera? You may be able to get it work (more likely not),
> but you don't have the software that comes with the camera that makes image
> capture, processing, and cataloging so damn easy! What are you paying for?
> Setting up a home lan to share a broadband connection? Windows, couple of
> hours. Linux, good luck getting the NIC drivers to compile. How many
> 'newbies' have any idea what the hell /usr/src/linux/ is, let alone the
> compile parameters you need to pass to gcc to compile a kernel module.
> Then you've got depmod and the other commands needed to accomplish this.
> Windows? RE-boot, pop in the card, pop in the driver disk, reboot, done. I
> don't mind the linux way because I'm a computer junkie, you think someone
> who is not has time for that sh*t? Get real LinZealots.
A couple points here:
1:I can think of at least one package for linux that reads word
documents
2:I admin a network (or should that be notwork?) of windows machines.
They keep on misbehaving badly. Windows seems to beleive it knows
better than me what needs to happen to get everything running smoothly.
Result- much stress and headaches. Linux, you pop the card in, boot up,
load drivers and assign IP addresses. Simple.
<snip>
> I disagree. Plenty of people use it. Students, mainly CS. Hobbyists,
> aspiring programmers.
> Computer enthusiasts. I use it, I like it. But you HAVE to have a windows
> box, you simply have to.
>
I booted windows on my home machine yesterday for the first time in
about 2 months. The reason for this was to view some recipes on a free
cd provided by the wonderful dolmio company. Some fuckwit there had
decided putting the recipes in plain text was a bad idea, and so they
were built into binary executable files. Having booted windows, it
proceeded to change the time stored in my CMOS clock, thus requiring me
to go into setup on reboot (HAD to get back to Linux) to sort the mess
out. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrr
<snip>
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:14:03 +0000
JS PL wrote:
> =
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
> > [...]
> > >I see no evidence that the early differences between
> > >GEM and Windows had anything to do with who owned
> > >DOS. I admit that the transition to Windows 95 did
> > >depend upon this- but had CP/M been king, Windows 95
> > >would effectivaly have meant migrating everyone to
> > >*Microsoft's* CP/M clone in the process.
> > [...]
> > >It's all hypothetical, but that's how I see it.
> >
> > I think you are mistaken in ignoring the impact of Microsoft
> > force-bundling Windows with DOS, the very behavior that MS signed a
> > consent decree to avoid ending up in court. Later, they paid Caldera=
an
> > undisclosed amount (I speculate it could be up to two billion dollars=
)
> > to avoid further investigation into Microsoft's actions to kill off
> > DR-DOS.
> =
> I speculate it was 2=A2 because Caldera didn't have a shot in hell of w=
inning.
Then why do I have lying here a retail box of Windows 3.1, a retail box
of DR-DOS 6 and a floppy disk containing a patch from Digital Research
to allow Windows 3.1 to run atop of DR-DOS?
Microsoft _did_ make trivial changes to the code of Windows 3.1 to
discourage uninformed users to make the switch away from the - inferior
- MS DOS.
BTW, the set is still packed and ready to ship. I previously made Erik
Funkenbusch the offer I would send him the disks (seeing as he claimed
they don't exist) if he was prepared to pay the shipping costs. That
offer still stands, and Iam prepared to extend it to you.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:43:37 +0100
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Flash is sometimes faster than an animated GIF. But those are evil
> anyway <g>.
Yes. V evil. I do use them for my button network, but that is
"non-compulsory" downloading. Everything else downloads and the page is
displayed with placeholders for them unless you hang around for them to
download.
> I have only two comments about that. One is that I cannot get a 41K
> connection, or even 33.6. I think that is because I am behind a line
> multiplexer, which is unfortunately a popular thing with telcos.
> Figures vary from the 5% of lines claimed by the modem companies to the
> 20% claimed by Boardwatch.
That is exceptionaly unfortunate, but, while I feel for you, this time I
feel I really do have to say that this one particular problem isn't mine ;)
However I'm sure you should make formal complaints if the lines really are
that shit...
> Second, you didn't include latency in your calculations. There's a
> couple hundred ms of latency in opening a new connection. That isn't a
> huge deal in this case, but I've seen sites with 40 or 50 small GIF
> images on them. In that case, the latency adds up.
No, that is true, but the connections for such small files (in my case) are
often done simultaneously, offseting some of the latency. Still, a good
point. Perpahs we shall up it to a whole 3 seconds ;)
I understand about the 50 gifs though. In that instance, a good designed
should use a graphical font if possible, webdings and wingdings are fairly
widespread and can work perfectly well as buttons and other little icons.
you can use a little server side code to send the actual gifs if the fonts
are not available, but they are a good bandwidth saving option and as font
files are tiny, people may even be willing to download them in return for a
faster experiance.
It's not a technique I have tried though. I prefer to go with simple
formatted bullet lists rather than graphic ones... Neater.
> Ok, so you are paying attention, that's good. I've seen lots of web
> pages that do silly things that break caching for no good reason.
It's fine when there is a reason, but at any other time is is counter
productive for both the designer and viewer. It slows down your server if it
is serving files multiple times and many hosting companies do put a cap on
your total bandwidth allowance per month...
> And that is how it should be. The thing that bugs me is sites that
> *will not work properly* if I have the "wrong" browser. I'm ok with
> giving up a few features or not having it look perfect if I can use the
> browser I want to use.
Yeah, it's fine in this case, where the object of incompatability is a
special feature. What annoys me is when it is an integral part of the site's
design of layout which goes all to pot because often it is too deeply
embedded in the very being of a page to offer a cut down version and you
simply have to scrap your new baby design and start again.
> Browser-specific code is bad enough, but when the site gets the
> detection wrong too, well, then the designers ought to be taken to a
> re-education camp or something. Violating the standard and doing it
> badly is combining two evils.
Detection can be a problem though. There isn't a very good standard of
browser type reporting, so you just have to download all the browsers and
see what each says. Also there is very little way to tell what the latest
version of any given software will report itself as and what it will be
capable of, so there is often a lag in the new software appearing and
everybody getting their detection code sorted...
> There seem to be a lot of bad web designers. Not your fault I know.
Tell me about it. The only big problem is that I am but a 17 year old lad at
college. The days when I could have started my own company and conquered the
world with good quality coding are gone now. Alas I want born just a couple
of years too late ;)
I have tried to start up designing for money, starting with friends, but it
is very difficult to get going when you have nothing to invest and no past
commercial ventures to display...
> Careful, you're going to be accused of advocating "simplism" 8->
Na. I advocate elegance when it comes to web design. Simplicity in your
sense of the word means very simple in both code and output. I strive to
create a more visually appealing look, based on certain principals of
simplicity, but the code you need to create such a thing is more complicated
than you might think.
Did you ever go look at www.webdesignsystem.co.uk?
Please do, because then you might understand the kind of simplicity I like.
However, there are two things you need. Firstly, NS4 is giving me a headache
over it at the moment. While it will load the full source of the bottom
navigation bit, it says it is still downloading and does nothing and won't
display it. That's a technical error which is out of my hands... NS6, IE,
Mozilla and Opera should all be fine.
Secondly, you need a coply of the tahoma font, installed as standard on
windows systems.
I know those were two very naughtly things to say, but I only discovered the
first the other day and of the second, well, I have only just been
introduced to linux, so I wasn't aware of it's font set...
> No doubt. Unfortunately, a "big web design company" by definition does
> a lot of sites.
Yes. It is a great shame...
> BTW, I'm going to be travelling on business next week, so we may have
> to leave this for a while. Sorry.
OK, I'll leave it as a watched thread, so if you post on it when you get
back I'll be sure to see it...
Nice discussion.
Laters
MP
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:46:28 +0100
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ch5uu$gm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/March/browser.html
>
> NS 4 (the trouble maker) is only 9%, IE (4 &5) are at 86%.
Unfortunately, for me the NS4 percentage is rather higher. A lot of me
regular visitors are not on the best terms with MS... ;)
> When writing reasonably complex pages, you can almost always divivde the
> workload to:
> Building it: 50%
> Testing & fixing it in IE: 5% (It usually just works, but I will give a
> reasonable figure)
> Testing & fixing it in NS4: 45%
Exactly! That is what annoys me...
> BTW, there are still people who are using V1.0 browsers (more IE than NS,
> though), so I wouldn't scorn V3 browsers.
> NS3 was a masterpiece.
Yes, there are. But that really is their choice, and they have to live with
whatever their browser shows.
NS4 was a step backwards from 3!
MP
------------------------------
From: "JoFi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:16:53 +0200
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 26 Apr 2001 23:57:08 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
<snip>
> >
>
> Remember Windows costs money, you'll have to buy additional software to
> make Windows even functional, and you'll have to spend even more money
> in the form of time after that, unless your time is worth nothing.
>
>
The reason I use Windows is because of its functionality out of the box. The
more Microsoft add to this the better.
For Linux I would have to read manuals, configure text files etc etc for
software which has very poor functionality and usability.
You call this functional?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:08:45 GMT
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:36:00 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>theRadical wrote:
>>
>> On 26 Apr 2001 13:59:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:57:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> and lying is for dolts like yourself.
>> >>
>> >>Speak for yourself, dolt.
>> >
>> >Are you saying you have not lied here, Aaron?
>> >
>> >Didn't you, when I said marrying you could be dangerous for a woman's
>> >health say that was not true, only to say, two posts later, that
>> >you would kill such woman if she ever got alimony from you?
>>
>> he's pathological, anything to try to win an argument.
>
>I'm a winner
>You're not
>Hope that helps.
wrong, you are the one who drops threads when he loses, just as now.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
