Linux-Advocacy Digest #159, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:29 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>>> On Tue, 1 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>>>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. (See below.)
>>>>>> Quit being a troll, goofball.
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> It says that he wrote the specification. Perhaps the little bit of
>>>>>>> batch file putzing that you've done hasn't introduce you into the
>>>>>>> concept of a specification separate from the implementation. This is
>>>>>>> quite common in C++ and in various other languages (Ada, PL/SQL, etc.).
>>>>>>> Yes, you write some code; no, it isn't functional without a body (the
>>>>>>> implementation). It's an API to the functions within that package.
>>>>>> No, it is documentation for the API to the functions within that
>>>>>> package. Get over your abstraction error, and get back to me.
>>>>> No, that wasn't documentation, that was API. [...]
>>>> Please define the difference.
>>> An API is not an API if it doesn't have function specifications. There
>>> is usually documentation on the API that describes *what* (not *how*)
>>> things are done on data passed into the function. The documentation,
>>> however, is not the API.
>> Metaphorically, you might be correct, as I understand your point.
>
>There is no metaphor in what I said; what I said was fact.
I never said that you used a metaphor. Is English a native language for
you?
>> But
>> when someone wants to know "what is the API?" the answer is
>> interchangeable with the documentation, is it not?
>
>Not really. The API is the interface definition code; the API
>documentation is the documentation that describes the API.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Whatever you say, Oh Namer Of 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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:30 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 23:26:29 -0400;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
[...]
>>You're saying McDonalds doesn't want to sell pizza for some reason other
>>than that they can't make enough money from it to show a profit?
>
>No. Their reasons for not selling pizza do not matter.
I didn't say it mattered. You're trying to say it doesn't exist.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>The fact remains that
>you have no right whatsoever to go into McDonalds and buy wahtever you want,
>including demanding a pizza.
Sure you do. Are you on drugs? I can go into McDonalds and demand
anything I want. I can do it real loud and for a long time, until they
arrest me for being a public nuisance. And then, from my prison cell, I
have a RIGHT to send McDonalds letters DEMANDING that they sell pizza.
And you know what? Nobody in McDonalds is going to claim I'm just
jealous of Ray Krock's wealth. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-h.
>> I don't know of any honest businessman who would turn down honest profit
>>on principle.
>
>Not relevant.
Guffaw.
You've been spanked, JS PL. I figure you probably missed it, so I
thought I'd let you know. It wasn't really me that did it, though; you
kind of spanked yourself on this one.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:32 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 22:03:53
[...]
>I really haven't had anything to do with OEM licensing. And I'm not
>knowledgable about this cliff's-edge ppl agreements. I have a simple
>question tho: how much does one pay for the MS O/S if it comes from a
>vendor like IBM? If I have to upgrade the O/S it seems that I have to
>pay around $80 to $90. [...]
Unfortunatly, this is not a question that can be answered. Unless the
OS is a line item on the invoice (AFAIK, MS contracts prevent this,
since it will give a consumer an idea of just the information you are
looking for, and MS wants to ensure you don't have) you're just
guessing. If you can buy a "bare system" for $200, and the system w/OS
is $250, it would seem as if it should be reasonable to say the OS costs
$50. But this isn't a free market, so what you might assume if you
expect competitive merits is misleading; the OEM may have to pay $249
for the OS; you have no way of *knowing*. (Though obviously it would be
ludicrous to suspect $249 like that; the point is that any number is
just a guess; it could as easily be $1.)
This is what comes from allowing dishonest business practices, in any
form.
In the end, WinDOS can go for anywhere from $15 TO $90 (and I'd expect
IBM's would be on the higher end), while WinNT(/2K/XP) starts at $90 and
probably goes up to about $300, for a regular consumer EULA.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:33 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001 06:56:37
>In article <z81I6.1998$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > 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.
>
>You made me curious so I looked for my special leather bound version of
>the Word for Windows 1.0 manual I received as a ship gift: Word for
>Windows 1.0 required Windows version 2.03 or later. If you didn't have
>Windows installed Word came with a special cut-down version of Windows
>so it could run without the full version being installed.
Well, it might say that, but Word for Windows was not available until
Windows 3.0 was released. Your "special leather bound version" sounds
like a beta; I was up on all this stuff, since I was teaching courses in
it at the time, and I've never seen or heard of Word coming with the
run-time Windows. (Those weren't "cut-down" versions at all, BTW, they
were just the regular Win2 or Win286/386 (mostly the latter) that were
bundled with apps. It was called "run time", but it was simply Windows.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:34 GMT
Said Rob S. Wolfram in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 16:05:43
[...]
>Not quite. Netware and Linux run *instead of* DOS, W9x runs besides
>and/or on top of DOS. In the latter case DOS is a lot more than merely a
>bootstrap system. Note that the debug thingy uses 20 (or 21) bit
>addressing. If W9x really had taken over it would be a senseless mapping
>to the flat 32-bit addressing mode and exception handling would be
>trivial. This is clearly not the case.
Another, simpler way of saying it is that the DOS is inside Win9x. It
was "bolted" in there, and so the few improvements and extensions to DOS
in DOS 7 are referred to by the sock puppets as 'Windows'. There's
little sense in attributing improvements in an OS in memory management
and such to a GUI, though, so this is an obvious fabrication.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:35 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 08:38:50
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> > You don't need to name the file, even to print it. If you want to save
>> > it, then you need a name. Can you not name the file in LyX?
>> Well of course you can, lyx also supplies a default name if you cant be
>> bothered thinking o fone yourself.
>
>Yes but LyX actually needs one as it produces a file to be converted to
>postscript then printed, does it not? Word goes straight to the printer.
So to speak; presuming the document is not mangled by a "bad printer
driver" that needs to be reinstalled (!) and the computer does not
crash.
Meanwhile, you've forgotten again that 'sending' the file 'from' LyX to
be converted and then 'sent' 'from' the convertor to the printer is all
a single command in Linux, thanks to Unix's elegant and efficient
'pipes', something MS is unable to comprehend, let alone match.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:35 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
18:59:42 +1200;
>>> My wife does something similar to your methods when using Word. Her
>>> method only vairies from yours in the areas of *bad language* when Word
>>> misbehaves and lockups of her Windows98 OS.
>
>My parents use Lotus Smart Suite 9.5 on Windows 2000 Pro, and experience
>none of those problems.
Wait a couple months.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:37 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001 00:02:07
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> >That is why i called it "funny" - I thought it was doing well and a few
>> >weeks later, it dies. What is the deal with windows?
>>
>> It's called "registry rot". Nobody really knows why it does that, but
>> it will just stop working after a while.
>
>From what I've read in the MSDNs that I've got (3 cdroms), this registry
>rot comes from the different apps one installs on their computer. Each
>app likes to store program state information upon exit into the
>registry. It is suspected that the app may well cause corruption of the
>registry... especially when a few apps hit the same registry.
>Could also be very well corrupted when that app crashes during a write
>to the registry.
I would not go so far as to declare that it is "corruption" of the
Registry, as per the MSDN. The fragility of the registry is certainly
increased exponentially by each additional application installed,
though.
Perhaps I'm being too skeptical; the explanation given doesn't
contradict my experience. I was probably being naive in thinking that
not even MS would design such a pathetically bad OS that it has no
ability to maintain its own configuration data reliably. According to
the sock puppets, rogue apps shouldn't be able to screw the registry
accidentally, but only through "programmer error". I guess it's not
surprising that MS considers the OS functional even though it doesn't
guard against applications screwing the system, unlike any OS by
professional programmers. A lot like their scheduling and memory
management problems, it seems.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:37 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 29 Apr 2001 11:08:08
>"JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
[...]
>> It's like a whos-who list of plagiarists!
>
>I mean look at this! I love how those that claim to despite the GUI and
>everything MS like - are the first to do everything possible to copy it.
>Look at all the damn near identical copies of Windows tools and the look and
>feel. Give me a break, these screen shots are fantastic. I didn't see a
>single original idea in the bunch.
One of the more subtle types of damage caused by illegal monopolization.
Engrossing all the sales eventually causes the same effects as
forestalling all the production.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:38 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 20:30:02
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>When was Ada the next big thing?
>I agree that the syntax can use improving, but the ideas on the basis of Ada
>are *very* good.
A couple decades ago, the U.S. Government defined ADA as a standardized
programming language. All work done for the gov't was to be done in
ADA, the 'hardware neutral' programming language, the 'next big thing'.
You probably have a very interesting perspective on ADA, since you
aren't from the U.S., and if you can stand the chance you'll become
flame-bait, I'm sure that many here would like to hear your opinions and
experiences in the subject. You're certainly the only programmer I've
ever heard speak highly about it, mostly for the same reason you got an
"ugh" from Tom. In the US, its customary to bad-mouth the thing,
possibly only as a knee-jerk reaction that programmers always have when
told that they "have" to do things a certain way.
So what do you know about Ada?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:39 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 03 May 2001 02:46:34 GMT;
>On Thu, 03 May 2001 02:12:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> And your posts are growing more and more obtuse by the day.
>Look who's talking, an anynomous Wintrollwho has used all of these names:-
>
>"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish">
>
>
>Who hides his identity for fear of discovery, and who's news program
>cant even allow him to follow usenet conventions,ie your reply *under*
>the post your replying too.
Thanks, Terry. It is helpful to know that not everyone is as brain-dead
as the keyboard they're typing on.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:41 GMT
Said carl@cx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>
>>
>>It should be a matter of clicking on an icon and changing between the
>>various dpi.
>
>I think anything to do with X server configuration is really hard on
>linux. if it was easy, we would have a easy to use GUI interface
>to click couple of buttons and be done with it (like the Display
>panel on windows).
>
>The reason no one has been to do this on linux, means only it is
>very hard, but someone will be able to do it one day.
I can't see what would be hard about building a simple GUI for the
configuration files which must be manipulated to handle this stuff; just
like the Display panel on Windows (but of course I'd expect it to be
more logical; the Display panel on Windows is the most pathetically
horrendous design of any of the controls save the dial-up networking.)
The fact that it has not been done is not, I think, because it is
somehow tougher on Linux than on Windows. I'd expect the opposite is
true, in fact. I think the reason it has not been done is because of
(get this) Microsoft's monopolization.
Here's how I see the relationship:
Microsoft's shenanigans over the last two decades have resulted in the
computer manufacturers being unwilling and unable to produce their own
OSes (a scenario which may seem natural to those who only look at the PC
market, but a casual examination of any other computer market shows that
this is not very efficient, even for other computer markets based on
standardized or common hardware platforms.)
OEMs make a lot of different models, but want to use the same software
on all of them.
Distro developers have only one default configuration, but it is used on
an unlimited an unknown number of different models of computer.
Since de-uglifying fonts requires knowledge and coordination of both the
software and the hardware, neither OEM nor distro developers have the
power and capability to "fix" the problem alone. Attempts to work
together will merit Microsoft's wrath, though, and thus cost the OEM or
developer money over and above the work (lost revenues, enhanced
marketing to combat FUD, perhaps even a court case), so it simply
doesn't get done.
Or, rather, it doesn't get done at a profit. It still gets done, and
within a couple years the problem will be forgotten, just as it was
forgotten on Win3, Win3.1, and Win95, when they caused even more trouble
trying to get fonts to work correctly and present an attractive
appearance.
>I think using xconfigure and all those like it, are just too low
>level for the users (I have no idea what frequency my monitor runs
>at, or how many MBytes my graphics card has). On windows, I never
>have to know these things , and my display and the fonts and the
>whole desktop looks much nicer on windows than linux.
That's just a side affect of illegal activity, I'm afraid. Yes,
monopolization makes it look easy, because you don't actually have to
"get it right", you just have to do it however you want, and that
becomes the 'right' way because you have a monopoly.
>But I still think this is just a matter of time. We need true type
>fonts that come preinstalled and the user should not have to do
>anything. Just like on windows.
No, we need something decisively better than Windows; Windows font
handling is really incredibly bad, we've just all gotten used to it over
the last few years.
>may be next version of X will solve these issues? anyone knows?
No "next version" of anything is going to "solve" these issues. Every
day is a winding road, and we simply get a little bit closer.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:42 GMT
Said pookoopookoo in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 22:44:32
-0400;
>> http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html#fn43
>
>Wow, this is way too dense, could you just gimme the gist of it?
I kind of did.
Anyway, basically Reynolds licensed some software from Lasercomb
America; software which ran die-making equipment and included a
non-compete clause in the license (licensees agreed not to produce
die-making equipment or software). Reynolds reverse engineered the
software, modified it slightly to 'hide the origin' (actually, they just
adapted it to their equipment, similar but distinct from Lasercomb
America's, I think) and started selling it as their own product!
The surprising part (to those who believe in the metaphysical integrity
of copyright) is that Reynolds was not only found not guilty of
copyright infringement, but Lasercomb America lost *all* protection,
both copyright AND contract, for their software, because their original
license had been "over-reaching". The judge determined that since they
had attempted to use copyright in a way that was anti-competitive, their
copyright protection vanishes. Because they had attempted to prevent
their licensees from actually gaining benefit (according only to the
desires of the licensee and in keeping with copyright law) from their
license of the copyrighted works, they lost their rights to their own
software.
The apparent precedent is that if you have licensed a piece of software
in order to reverse engineer it and learn how it works, nothing in the
license can prevent you from using it for that purpose. Reynolds was
convicted of fraud, and it may have been because they therefore licensed
the product under false pretenses (Lasercomb probably argued that
accepting the license included affirming this was not the intended use,
I'm not sure) but I have not read the decision itself, so it may be
because Reynolds *didn't* sign the license (though they were still
considered bound by it, so to speak).
The court stated that "[t]he question is not whether the copyright is
being used in a manner violative of antitrust law (such as whether the
licensing agreement is 'reasonable'), but whether the copyright is being
used in a manner violative of the public policy embodied in the grant of
a copyright."
That last phrase, "the public policy embodied in the grant of a
copyright" is something that really scares copyright attorneys, I think,
and most people who argue about copyright and software are shocked and
surprised by the Lasercomb decision.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:43 GMT
Said pookoopookoo in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 22:48:15
>> Don't mind yttrx, Freddy. We're all on a bit of a hair-trigger around
>> here, and many of the Linux advocates are developers, not users, so they
>> don't have much patience for those who would like to see more
>> Linux-driven consumer PCs. If its got compilers, it's complete, as far
>> as they're concerned, because for them it is.
>>
>> This is why market capitalization is so important, even for a "free"
>> operating system. We'll go find someone who wants to make some honest
>> profit off of us, once the monopoly is remedied.
>
>He can't do too much damage, it's an advocacy group man, I'm supposed to get
>at least a little bit roasted. Otherwise it wouldn't be any fun =)
Actually, I find the reasoned conversation to be more than enough
entertainment; if all the trolls walked away, advocacy groups would be
all the better, regardless of how traditional it is to pretend
otherwise.
>Besides, I'm wearing DuPont(tm) Brand Edible Asbestos underwear =)
>
>What monopoly? =)
LOL! You almost got me. :-D
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:44 GMT
Said pookoopookoo in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 22:52:36
>> I'm not an expert, but if you're talking professional stuff, I think
>> FrameMaker would be a good start. You want to get yourself a graphics
>> workstation, not a PC. Of course, if you're comfortable with the rather
>> rough and ugly output you get from a Windows box, that might be a
>> different thing. As for the service bureau, it doesn't matter to them
>> what OS you use. If they are professional, they'll appreciate
>> postscript output; if not, they can use pdf.
>
>Oftenb they can't use PDF, at least not around here. BTW, output from a
>windows box is fine, I've done it tons of times. Output quality's not really
>an issue. The issue is actually compatibility of color settings, fonts,
>color spaces etc. Not actually what you use to create the things.
Just because you are unaware of the degradation doesn't mean it isn't
there. I'm afraid I've got to insist you are mistaken; the output
quality is an issue, though it might not be an issue of much importance
in your circumstance.
>> Audio professionals use professional systems. The low end are all
>> Windows, of course, because of the lawbreaking my Microsoft to prevent
>> any other options. They can't even touch the high-end, of course, so
>> that's all Unix or some specialty OS.
>
>Actually, high end audio uses hardware mixing boards, all driven and
>coordinated with a Mac or PC at the center of the whole show.
"Coordinated" maybe. 'Driven', I think, might be an overstatement.
>You can get
>away with fairly old computers doing this too, I know guys that are still
>mixing music with their little performas plugged into the high-end hardware.
That all sounds a bunch like what I said; I never said you couldn't hook
a low end PC to high-end audio equipment. I was talking about the
computer AS audio equipment, not the computer WITH audio equipment.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:45:45 GMT
Said pookoopookoo in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 00:16:38
>> > Sadly Windows is NOT a real time OS.
>>
>> True.
>
>But...I have a buddy in computer engineering at McGill university, and he
>said it was...what is the difference between a real-time system and a
>non-realtime one?
I'm not really the one to ask, but it has to do with the scheduler in
the kernel. Your buddy was extremely confused, or just mistaken about
the terminology. "Real-time" can sometimes be like "synchronous" and
"asynchronous"; terms which are applied generously across multiple
specialists' domains and perspectives, with only a vague concept, not
any demonstrable characteristics, to join all the various uses. Any one
thing can be called synchronous (or "real time") by one expert in one
context, and just as validly and simultaneously called asynchronous (or
"non-real time") by another expert in a different context.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
