Linux-Advocacy Digest #134, Volume #34 Wed, 2 May 01 20:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Nigel Feltham)
Re: IE ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Greg Cox)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Donn Miller)
Re: Primary and secondary missions (Ray Fischer)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: IE (Pancho Villa)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Primary and secondary missions (Ray Fischer)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Just for chuckles ("Adam Warner")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Matt Kennel)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Karel Jansens)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Karel Jansens)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 01:18:59 +0100
>> What an absurd statement, you're the one being completely illogical. If
>> a hetrosexual can be "converted" then clearly they already have
>> homosexual leanings.
>
> Proof?
I shall use you, Aaron as proof. Would you ever have sex with a man?
-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: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:19:23 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
> >I don't understand, that's for sure. Sure seems like this Compaq
> >testimony backs up what us MS-shills are saying: People aren't
> >being "forced" to accept Windows; companies like Compaq
> >are giving them what they want.
>
> This is just word-games played on the assumption that all transactions
> are voluntary and all contracts guarantee informed consent. This is
> obviously a fallacy. People are routinely "forced" to accept Windows,
> as is conclusively proven by the lack of available alternatives which
> adequately substitute for Windows.
I suppose you could look at it that way, but I don't see
how it's Microsoft's fault that their competitors produce
second rate products. :D
> OF COURSE the testimony "seems like" it supports your apologists
> position: this was Microsoft's intent in presenting this testimony. The
> judge found it uncompelling, and so do I.
And I rather think for the same reason, too.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 00:33:37 +0100
Terry Porter wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 19:28:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote: <snip>
> > The editor that comes with PINE
> Pico.
>
Good editor that - I didin't know it was part of pine package though.
Gedit is also a good editor - designed to be used with gnome desktop but
works well with all other window managers too.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 01:21:44 +0100
> With the registry mapping layout as a FS, so it shouldn't be *overly*
> slow. Windows would do it faster, because the registry is a hirercial
> database, which is a damn fast design.
An FS is usually an implementation of a heiracial database.
-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: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:26:13 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> I refuse to be a member
> of any organization that will have me.
>
If you're going to use someone else's line (Groucho Marx) at least give
them the credit...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 19:28:48 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Mart van de Wege wrote:
> It's probably a driver issue. Given the distros Pete mentioned this would
> be X4.0x, which has the Xvideo extensions. However some grapics card
> drivers don't support Xvideo yet (nVidia since version 0.9-769), so xine
> obviously defaults to Xshm (shared memory, at least that's what it
> reported on my system before I upgraded my drivers). This means also that
> a lot of image processing is dumped on the processor.
> Question is: what video card is in your machines? It might help upgrading
> to the most recent drivers.
I checked using xdpyinfo, and Xvideo was running, and it still wanted to
use the Xshm extension. I probably need something else, though, such as
dri/drm. My video card is a Sis 5597/5598 (which probably explains
it). I'm using the Xfree 4.x development version from the cvs
repository. All my other graphics animations seem to be pretty decent
WRT speed in X, though, although that probably doesn't mean xine is
going to give me decent animations.
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Primary and secondary missions
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:34:24 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Larry Caldwell wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > No, you have it backwards. Propagating DNA is the primary mission.
>> > Getting laid is merely a supporting operation.
>>
>> A Social Darwinist. How quaint. I thought Social Darwinism was limited
>> to survivalists squatting in their bunkers discussing their imminent
>> world domination.
>
>Any genes that don't get successfully passed on to members of the next
>generation that THEY THEMSELVES reproduce are.....eliminated.
So what?
>In other words....genetic success is NOT determined by having children,
>it's determined by whether or not one has grandchildren.
Why do you think "genetic success" is of relevance to anything?
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:36:21 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think I get what you're saying, and I agree: it is a problem if you
>have teachers in a predminantly english speaking country who can't speak
>the language. For one thing, they can not communicate with most of the
>pupils.
"I think I get what you're saying, and I agree: it is a problem if you
have teachers in a predminantly [spanish] speaking [community] who can't speak
the language. For one thing, they can not communicate with most of the
pupils."
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: Pancho Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 16:36:52 -0700
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > With the registry mapping layout as a FS, so it shouldn't be *overly*
> > slow. Windows would do it faster, because the registry is a hirercial
> > database, which is a damn fast design.
>
> An FS is usually an implementation of a heiracial database.
>
Ayende's comment above needs some explication. Actually, the Registry
is not damn fast at all but it is the one thing that slows Windows
down perhaps more than any other. This is the reason for the familiar
sensation of Windows getting slower with each new app installed.
--
Pancho
"Villa is everywhere but Villa is nowhere." A frustrated comment by
U.S. General Jack Pershing, 1916.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:38:48 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Davey wrote:
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >Not according to NAMBLA.
>>
>> So you agree with NAMBLA? I would have said they had it completely wrong, and
>> am rather disturbed you keep waving their views around.
>
>So, to summarize, you believe that homosexual attraction is genetically
>determined.
Research to date (and common sense) indicates as much.
>In other words, it is a birth defect,
In your opinion.
> just like congenital mental retardation.
Whereas when you choose to be a homophobic bigot it's not a birth
defect so much as the choice to be an asshole.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:40:23 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >> The intolerance of homosexuals is a much higher level thing and can
>> >> easily be changed.
>> >
>> > how's that working out for you?
>>
>> Well, I haven't tried to make many people more tolerant, because the
>> people I am friends with have enough of a moral sense to realise that
>> blind prejudice is wrong.
>
>Evaluating people on their behavior is NOT prejudice...it is postjudice
But being a homosexual is not behavior any more than being heterosxual
is.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:42:06 GMT
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Go back and read the posts. One of the original questions posed was
>(I'm paraphrasing) "why be concerned about what people do in their
>private lives". That's not what I worry about. I am concerned
>about the homosexual political lobby that wants to eliminate freedom
>of speech and freedom of religion.
Propaganda 101: Demonization. "They" want to eliminate freedom.
You're a bigot.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Primary and secondary missions
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:44:35 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Scott Erb wrote:
>> Watching George the Younger I get the feeling I'm watching a figure head --
>> the decisions are being made elsewhere. At least with George the Elder and
>> even Reagan there was a sense that the President knew that the big money
>> interests around him took things too far, and he wouldn't give them all they
>> want. George the Younger's job seems to be to try to put a smiling likable
>> face on one of the biggest policy shifts in favor of big money in recent
>> history, bigger than Reagan's if he can pull it off.
>>
>> I suspect he'll end up failing. But yeah, they've got power now...
>
>As long as he delegates the decisionmaking to competent authorities,
>then that's all that matters.
Then why was Shrub running for president? Why didn't one of these
"competent authorities" get elected instead?
>The problem with Democrats is that most of them are incompetant to
The problem with right-wing Republicans is that they're stupid
bigots.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:46:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
> >We like to be called "optimists"! :D
>
> You're a sock puppet, admit it.
:D
I confess to curiousity: Whose sock puppet do you
think I am?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:52:47 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cq1pm$42o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:RuZH6.1897$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sure, 80x86 is the enegerizer bunny of CPUs, but nothing
> > lasts forever. Sooner or later Microsoft will *have* to
> > support something else.
>
> Intel means to kill it within ten years time, AFAIK
Dead by 2011, then?
> > They've got no hope of doing it with the Windows 95
> > codebase.
>
> Nor did they mean to.
I know; I've been outlining Microsofts plans on this
to the irrepressible Mr. Devlin.
[snip]
> > It's 2001, and most of
> > us still have DOS bits sprinkled liberally over our
> > OS.
>
> NT doesn't, and I've used nothing else for other two yeras, 9x was never
> meant to last beyond the time it would take people to start coding for NT.
> BTW, NT was implemented on a MIPS first, before ported to x86, to ensure
> portability.
I know it, and I've used Windows NT and 2000 as well; but
I am typing this on a Windows Millenium box right now,
and the installed base of the OSes derived from DOS/Windows
is much, much larger than that derived from Windows NT.
This is the obstable Microsoft must overcome- by 2011,
I guess. :D
If .NET works, it could do a lot for this problem. Apps
distributed as bytecode would run just as well on
IA-64 as on crusty old 80x86.
I don't think this is lost on them. Microsoft is really
amazingly persistant about these sorts of things.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Just for chuckles
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:52:18 +1200
Hi all,
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/nt4vlinux.asp
Although supposedly written in 1999 it was updated 12 February 2001
It contains such gems as:
Linux is "more prone to security bugs".
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-023.asp
Linux "Inherits the security flaws of UNIX"
"No resolution path (e.g., methodology) for bug fixes with clear
accountability."
No centralized security - users must manually synchronize user accounts
across servers
[Um, let's see. How about a cron job: apt-get update; apt-get upgrade]
"A number of OEMs offering 99.9% uptime guarantees on Windows NT Server 4.0"
(as if the three nines was supposed to be impressive)
Linux only has "Hundreds of available applications".
NT has "Driver Development Kit to assist hardware vendors develop device
drivers" Well Linux users have the SOURCE CODE! Oops that's a BAD THING:
"Provides source code to allow developers to deviate from standard
distribution"
And check out this impressive combination:
"OS services provided as an un-integrated collection of technologies
developed by independent developers"
However two sentences later:
"End users forced to integrate (i.e., Web server, database, application
authentication)"
Also it shows how far Linux has come:
"Lack of a Journaling file system - file system may not recover after
unplanned downtime" (Can anyone say XFS 1.0?)
But the funnies problem of the lot with Linux, according to Microsoft:
Linux has "Poor support for Java"
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:55:48 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I don't see what point you think it proves. GEM was
> >a real competitor during the days of Windows 1
> >and Windows 2.
>
> Microsoft doesn't have competitors, only victims and those who are not
> yet victims. At the time you suggest GEM was a 'real competitor', it
> classified as the latter. Now it is the former.
I think you are letting your, um, ideology show too much.
Nobody can possibly take you seriously when you say
things like that.
> >Thought one has to admit that GEM was not as good
> >a product in some ways, it was smaller and faster-
> >that could have meant something, but it really wasn't
> >small and fast enough.
>
> Still deluded into thinking Windows found success based on competitive
> merits.
Why yes, I am. :D
> That's a rather naive position, given the consent decrees,
> federal convictions, on-going predatory tactics, and notable lack of
> competitive merit (or at least the obvious lack of competition, if you
> are too inexperienced to be able to understand how Windows lacks
> competitive merit.)
I see considerable merit in Windows, and I do not see
that you have given me any reason to change my mind
about that. You just say I'm wrong a lot. I can live
with that.
I wouldn't call Microsoft angelic, but most of what
they do is defensible, and their products are sometimes
very good.
> >Once Windows began its mutation into a full blown
> >OS, GEM, well, didn't. It was rapidly left behind.
>
> Windows didn't have such a mutation; merely a new marketing program.
You can say it, but it ain't so.
> The code was and is still the same, so much so that MS can't even dream
> of producing a consumer-level OS that is not compatible with the DOS
> monopoly all this predation is built on.
MS does dream about it. They keep talking about how they
are going to move everyone to Windows NT/2000/XP... somehow.
Someday.
*Doing* it is the hard part. But they certainly dream.
[snip]
> >Windows 95 provides developers writing to it the
> >tools they need to give users the products those users
> >want.
>
> Sounds like a faith-based conviction to me; unfalsifiable and
> 'self-evident' only to the faithful.
It sounds like that when you snip the justification,
yes. :D
> [...remainder snipped, as it's obvious at this point that Daniel is a
> sock puppet or a troll...]
For developers- and it's the developers who count
in this- the differences between these platforms
are often stark.
If you want to write a ordinary desktop application,
you must have predefined widgets, you must have
device independant printing, you must have a file
manager you can do business with, you must have
a help system.
You can't afford to roll your own answers for
all this stuff. And you may need much more than
the above- it depends on your app.
You basically can write for Windows, MacOS
or OS/2. Anything else, and your product *will*
be second rate because you just won't have the
tools to do better.
And frankly MacOS is borderline on this stuff. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:56:15 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
> >> That is, until Mafia$oft old OEM's that they *MUST* bundle windows
> >> with DOS, and so, even if the user didn't want LoseDOS, they had to
> >> pay extra for GEM.
> >
> >Well, no. Windows 1 and 2 were bundled with Excel and
> >(I think) Word for the PC, but Windows 3 was sold
> >retail, then sold to OEMs.
>
> It was forced on OEMs, who had to buy it in order to get DOS, which was
> already a secure illegal monopoly.
Microsoft did not risk getting anal about this until
1995, when Windows 3's position was already very
strong.
Until then, MS would sell DOS and Windows
separately.
> Word for Windows 1.0 was released
> simultaneously with Windows 3.0;
I'm certain that Word for Windows 2 predated
Win3, and ran on Windows v2. I just don't know
if it ever ran on Windows v1.
> Win1 and 2 were bundled with Excel, and
> PageMaker, and a few niche products.
Yes. GEM was the same way. GEM's
most popular app was Ventura Publisher,
as I recall.
> >Then it was combined (or bundled, if you like) with
> >DOS, renamed "Windows 95", and becomes more
> >comparable to OS/2 than GEM.
>
> No, it was bundled as Win3.1;
No, not yet. Win3.1 was still sold separately, and
so was DOS. Sure, they'd sell you both at once-
they had no reason to be a pain about that.
> Win95 was "bolted", in the terminology of
> the federal court, and was not comparable to either GEM or OS/2.
This was the real watershed..
> >MS didn't go for the integration thing until Windows 3
> >was firmly on top. They minized the risk that way.
>
> There is no risk in monopolizing, other than the risk of getting caught.
That's very naive. There are always risks. MS
got blindsided by one; they forget that their
competitors might try to manipulate the legal
system to break them, rather than competing on
merit.
> To minimize that risk, MS engineered a worthless consent decree to both
> avoid prosecution and to allow Win95. Since MS lied, knowingly, in
> claiming that Win95 ('Chicago' at the time) was a new OS, not merely a
> combination of DOS and Windows, this caused such consternation that the
> Circuit Appeals Court is still trying to sort out the mess.
The DOS/Windows thing was settled some time ago by
the appeals court, in Microsoft's favor. It may be a combination
of DOS and Windows, but it's "integrated".
And it added a lot of new stuff, at that. It's not *just*
DOS and Windows in a box together.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 00:05:24 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Wed, 02 May 2001 11:22:33 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:Ian Davey wrote:
:>
:> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:wrote:
:>
:> >Chronos then responded with more illogical gibber:
:> >
:> >>Hint: even if I did have some sort of "magic fairy dust" to make arbitrary
:> >>men turn gay, that doesn't mean that they would suddenly find me
:> >>attractive, much less a potential lifemate.
:> >
:> >SO what? A small chance is better than ZERO, is it not? If a person
:> >is gay, then "more gays" is good for that person, _period_.
:>
:> What an absurd statement, you're the one being completely illogical. If a
:> hetrosexual can be "converted" then clearly they already have homosexual
:> leanings.
:
:Proof?
Know anybody who 'came out of the closet' who said ``I honestly had absolutely
no desire for guys before and got turned on by women only, and I wasn't just
acting.'' ?
Why is it called 'coming out of the closet' as in their personality
was hidden, rather than, ``changing my mind about what gender I wanted
to boink.''
:> You can't transform a hetrosexual person into a homosexual (if you
:> believe that then perhaps you're unsure of your own leanings, hence the
:> anti-homosexual rantings).
:
:Not according to NAMBLA.
Like axing Dr Hannibal Lecter for a surgical referral...
--
* 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: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 01:41:48 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > That is just plain wrong.
>
> It is? I've just demonstrated in another post that it takes far less
> steps in Word to write and print a letter.
>
So ease-of-use equates to how many times you have to click?
> > Once the templates have been set up correctly, even a total moron can
> > produce a professional letter with LyX. Worse (for Word, that is),
> > aforementioned moron doesn't even need to know what "layout" _means_,
> > let alone know the applicable rules.
>
> Once you've setup a template in word (and what's a layout?), how hard
> can it be?
There _is_ a difference between Word's templates, which are really just
documents with some stuff already put in, and LyX's templates, which
will take your text and typeset it correctly for you. It is also quite a
lot more difficult to muck up a LyX template. These are both substantial
advantages in an office environment.
Oh, and BTW, I was referring to "layout" as in the art of correctly
formatting documents, not to "a layout", which for some wordprocessors
is a synomyme for template.
And even more BTW, I do have some experience in setting up
wordprocessors to produce a house style. I only wish that back then I
had known about LyX; it would have saved me a lot of headaches.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 01:52:16 +0000
pookoopookoo wrote:
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cokr1$36a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Port edit.com, because every Linux editor is FAR too complex and
> > > bass-ackwards to be of any use to a regular user (like me)
> >
> > If you can' manage to use kedit, gedit, pico or xedit, then you shouldn't
> > be using a computer.
> >
> > -Ed
>
> Hehe, I did mean console editors. X is a different story, I think kedit is
> perfectly suitable then (apart from some little problems cutting and
> pasting)
mcedit, the editor that comes with mc (Midnight Commander, a
console-based file-thingie a la Norton Commander) is quite simple and
has a natural feel to it (IMHO, of course, and YMMV).
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel versus Sparc
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 20:07:37 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 19:05:48 -0400;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:39:55 -0400;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> Well, the fact that it affects only operating systems and/or compilers
> >> >> on Intel platforms seems to contradict your otherwise-valid observation.
> >> >
> >> >I don't have this problem on Linux.
> >>
> >> Welcome to the wonderful world of the inductive assumption.
> >
> >Read my other response, specifically about "ulimit."
>
> What's your point? Just because something affects only operating
> systems and/or compilers on Intel platforms does not mean that all
> operating systems and/or compilers on Intel platforms are affected.
> Note the distinction between "only" and "all"; presuming one means the
> other is an inductive assumption.
The point is that it has NOTHING to do with the hardware platform itself, and
only has to do with the mindset of the developers. There is no reason, besides
common sense, of course, that the stack needs to be limited to any small
number.
A 32 bit process space is pretty big, and it the 64M struct blowing the stack
isn't a function of the hardware, it is a function of the operating systems.
That is what this thread has been about.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
