Linux-Advocacy Digest #296, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 13:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Bob
Hauck)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Bob
Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:06 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
> >This doesn't exclude a second OS, for three reasons:
> >
> >The costs are small enough that they can be
> >eaten if needed.
>
> The real world proves you wrong.
It's fairly obvious they didn't need to
eat the costs.
> >You can ship *two* OSes on a computer. This
> >is actually a popular configuration with the
> >techno-elite.
>
> And conversely not popular with the vast majority of non-techno-elite.
Right. *Windows* is popular with them.
> >The vendor can go for a different license if
> >their particular business is ill-served by the
> >per-processor license.
>
> So MS offered all OEMs the same licensing options at the same rates?
No way. But then, if they were selling a minority
of Windows systems, a per-copy license might be
the cheapest for them.
Of course in the real world that virtualy
never happens; Windows is far too popular.
But *if* Windows were widely disliked, it
would be true.
> Just because you can quibble doesn't mean you have a point, Daniel.
I never let that stop me! :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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:07 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >> >> That's because it is built into the phrase "restraint of trade".
> >> >
> >> >Oh. If so, Microsoft is clearly innocent by even hostile
> >> >accounts.
> >>
> >> If only "restraint of trade" weren't illegal, you might have a point!
> >> Doh!
> >
> >No, I mean that if "restraint of trade" necessarily implies
> >excluding competitors through legal agreements, then
> >even MS's accusers think MS is innocent *of restraint
> >of trade*.
>
> I did not say that restraint of trade necessarily implies excluding
> competitors; I said the matter of exclusion is inherent in restraint of
> trade.
Hmmm. Your argument seem to presuppose that
if MS is engaging in "restraint of trade", then they are
excluding competitors.
Is that not so?
> It is only a trivial category error that you are making, but it
> is obviously you would sorely love to blow it up into a full-fledge pile
> of bullshit.
Well, why think small? :D
> None of MS's accusers join you in your assumption that
> they have not excluded competition, regardless.
The sensible ones claim that MS's pricing strategies
were unfair to them, a view that I have no sympathy
for. But not one that is *entirely* disconnected
from reality. Microsoft did have per-processor
licenses, after all. That much is true.
But many of MS's accusers are smart enough not to
pretend that they were excluded through legal
agreements.
> Just because you can quibble doesn't mean you have a point, Daniel.
Damn the torpedoes! Full troll ahead! :D
> >This makes no sense. I don't think your definition of
> >restraint of trade will fly.
>
> Bullshit; you're just lying.
You mean that I *do* think your definition of
"restraint of trade" will fly, and I am lying
when I claim otherwise?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:08 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> For the other sixth graders besides Daniel who didn't get the joke: I
> >> consider comparison with Aaron Kulkis an insult, and Daniel knew this,
> >> which is why he is pretending that he didn't mean it as an insult.
> >
> >Actually, no, I didn't know it. I apologize for saying that.
>
> No apologies for back-pedaling with dishonest intent will be accepted,
> I'm afraid.
That is your problem. I can only offer the olive branch, when it
is called for; I can't make you accept it.
> >I guess I crossed the line that time. I'll try not to do it again.
>
> No you won't, and I will not be foolish enough to believe you will try.
Ah, such pessimism. I'll try to be good anyway.
> This is the problem with being dishonest; like the boy who cried wolf,
> the troll cannot suddenly convince anyone he is a reasonable person.
Goes with the territory. A neutral observer I'm not. :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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
> >You're bluffing, Max. I know exactly how Windows 3
> >did this stuff.
>
> No, Daniel, I am not bluffing. I know exactly what kind of stuff
> Microsoft does.
You have your, um, theories, but so far you've
shown little technical knowldge of Windows to date,
I'm afraid.
[snip]
> >Word is doing something funny.
>
> Word is rather notorious for doing that, in case you haven't noticed.
They are notorious for putting *future* control versions
in present beta code. You seem to be arguing that
it was the other way around. Weird of them to do *that*.
> Your observation that the scroll bars were "messed up" in a pre-release
> version is very obvious evidence for the fact that this is not a recent
> development, and has been with the product since its original release
> *with Windows 3.0*.
Who said anything about a pre-release version?
I think the available evidence says that Word was available
for Windows 2.x *at least*.
The only thing that contradicts that is you own personal
say so.
That's *it*. You've got Greg Cox's word for what was in
the Word manual, and I've given you a cite that supports
it indirectly.
[snip]
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> They encouraged it in IBM by refusing to license Windows development
> >> tools to them unless they agreed that they would not use anything
> >> developed with them in any OS/2 product. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! <*SPANK*>
> >
> >I think you are trying to hard to force the facts to fit;
> >your grammar has broken down.
>
> I know that you are trolling, and my grammar is fine, thanks. Sorry you
> couldn't follow the pronouns; try reading it over again, slowly, until
> you figure it out.
Perhaps you mean "with IBM" or "in IBM's case"?
But it still makes little sense. IBM can just drop by
the corner Egghead to pick up the tools. What's MS
gonna do about it?
> >On the face of it, this does not seem to contradict
> >what I said; MS appears to be demanding that IBM
> >used Windows development tools to make
> >Windows software.
>
> To make *only* (note the exclusionary nature; exclusive contracts and
> restraint of trade; this activity is part of why MS was convicted of
> violating section 1 of the Sherman Act last year) Windows software.
That's not what you said the first time. Or at least, if it
was what you meant your grammar was too distorted for it to
come through.
> A rather telling difference, eh? Splitting hairs, no doubt, like the
> difference between self-defense and mass murder.
Saying "you can only use our SDK if you create only
Windows software" is a flat out poison pill; doing that
would destroy IBM overnight.
I doubt MS said that. It would be silly.
[snip]
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:10 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
> >> No, they didnt. You are plainly not worth any more time. You ignore
> >> evidence, including quotes from M$ executive.
> >
> >If you've got a quote from an MS excutive who says that
> >the customers did not want Windows, I'd like to see it.
>
> Quotes from customers aren't enough?
Well, Rick says that there are quotes from "M$
executives" to support this.
There are certainly a small number of customers who
do not want Windows. Getting a few "Windows Suxors"
quotes from *them* should be very easy.
Getting MS to admit it would be another story, though.
MS's whole pricing structure is predicated on Windows
being very popular. I think that alone shows they think
that it is popular.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:11 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > What "better product" would that be?
> >
> > That'd be Windows.
>
> You are insane.
Oh yeah! We'll maybe you should
take that up with the voices in my head!
Yeah!
So there!
:D
> Hope that helps.
Oh, immensely.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:11 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> People like Daniel Johnson are closet-dicatators and wannabe slavemasters,
> just like all those Marxist nerds salivating every night over a chance to
> wreak revenge over their high school classmates who bullied them.
>
> How about, Max, when the anti-enslavement revolution comes, we throw
> Mr. Johnson up against the wall with all the commie assholes?
Now now, a point of order: I'm really very right wing,
politically.
If you want to attack me with political insults, you should
be calling me a *nazi*, not a commie.
*Especially* on economics. I think trusts are good and unions
bad. Down with the minimum wage! Up with sweatshops! :D
I just love George W.
Mind you, I'm not saying we should have an off-topic
political discussion here.
I just want you to get your insults straight.
I'm not a bleeding-heart pinko punk. I'm a capitalist
running-dog swine-pig.
Got it? :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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:12 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d4c2k$g9v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:%IeJ6.7032$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I'm sorry that the existance of some who appreciates
> > Windows pisses you off.
> >
> > But really, it's a very good product.
> >
> > It *is* better than GEM or DOS or Unix or OS/2
> > or the MacOS... for the desktop app market, if
> > nothing else.
>
> Okay, I can understand GEM & DOS & Unix, on desktop. OS/2 also, although
> I'm not familiar with it very mcuh.
> But why do you think that Windows makes a better desktop platrom than the
> MacOS?
MacOS does provide most of the important stuff. But it's
implementations tend to be relatively poor.
MacOS does have a device independant printing
layer, for instance. As with Windows, it is possible to
using screen drawing code to print.
But there are problems. QuickDraw presumes a fixed
set of fonts whose properties are independant of
where you print them; this isn't true, since fonts offen
render differently on high-resolution printers than
on low-resolutions screens. Indeed, sometimes entirely
new fonts are substituted. This problem appears
first on PostScript printers on the Mac. The solutions
available are workable, but kludgy.
The MacOS does not let you work in arbitrary
co-ordinate systems on screen. You work in
physical pixels. Printers can have other co-ordinate
systems but not screen drawing.
This makes WYSIWYG harder, because you wind
up needing *fractional* pixels in order to match the
exact layout of a bit of text as it will print.
QuickDraw does have a sort of fractional pixel
support for text. It's kludgy, but it gets by.
This kind of thing festers up all over the MacOS;
the software is old and kludge after kludge has
been built up over the years to address problems
like these. Windows has seen major API updates
that have helped it overcome its weaknesses in
less kludgy ways.
Apple has been trying to deal with this. It has, until
recently, been *failing*. And the kludges
built up while they did.
The existance of Quartz says to me that Apple
realizes that their printing and rendering was not
where it needed to be. But Carbon still uses
QuickDraw.
There are other issues, I've been flogging on
printing for a while on this thread, so I thought
I might start with that.
Shall I go on? I have a lot of stuff to belyache
about. :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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:13 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 7 May 2001 02:16:36 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I *know* what Ghostscript does, Rick. I'm trying to make a point here.
> > You need to take extra steps to setup GS as an interupter for the
> > printer.
>
> Not any more steps than setting up a printer on Windows. IOW, the
> printer is set up when you install. You don't specifically have to do
> anything about Ghostscript.
>
> It is not even an extra step in terms of computing. In Windows you
> have:
>
> GDI calls->printer driver->printer
>
> And in Linux:
>
> Postscript->ghostscript->printer
This isn't accurate. Information flows *both ways*
for GDI. And the Postscript case *does* have
a "driver", doesn't it? It's not like the set of printers
ghostscript can run is hardcoded?
I expect the GS "driver" is really a user mode
program that embeds a bitmap into appropriate
printer language. Easy stuff, next to a GDI
driver. But still, it's there, isn't it?
> > But according to Denial, GS isn't a good way to use a printer. Got any
> > info about it?
>
> It has always worked just fine for me.
>
> The big problem with Linux printing is not filtering through GS, it is
> that you often can't take advantage of special printer features like
> job notification, mailboxes, staplers, etc. This isn't due to GS, but
> to the lack of a standard way of connecting these features to apps.
It's part of the basic problem with GS: GS information flows
from the app to the printer, only. Some features just can't
be supported like that.
The problem is more general than that, though. Consider
printing on your HP PCL printer. These are very
popular. Using PCL, HP printers can reduce the
data to be transmitted and take load off the main CPU-
just like with PostScript.
But, as with PS, the printer has its own fonts. These
fonts vary from printer to printer- some HP printers
let you install more fonts using cute little cartidges.
If you emit PostScript, you must assume you'll get Adobe's
fonts; there's no way to discover otherwise.
This means that GS has to render everything itself,
using fonts that at least have the right metrics (does
it use genuine Adobe fonts?); it can't just translate
to PCL.
GDI gives the application access to printer specific
font metrics; you can use them not only when printing
but when laying out text for screen display. This gives
you a shot at WYSIWYG even when font substition
happens.
The PS approach also limits you to printers
that *can* emit PS or bitmaps; if you've got some
lousy printer that just outputs text, GDI
can handle it (forget WYSIWYG though) and
GS can't.
Fortunately those printers are extremely rare, so
it's not a huge problem in practice.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:14 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d4c2a$g9v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Linux, however, you need to have seperate code that does it, which
is
> > > much harder than adding few "if"s for page-breaks.
> >
> > Only for GUI apps.
>
> Since most (all?) printers can accept fprintf commands, then *of course*
> we are talking about GUI apps.
> Or, at least, of printing non text stuff.
"WinPrinters" don't accept fprintfs like that; they accept
only bitmaps. No problem with GDI or GhostScript, but
you can't just spit out characters and expect it to render
them.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:15 GMT
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > So does Windows. Remove "Command.com" from a Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.1,
> > > 3.11, 95, or 98 system, and tell us what happens.
> >
> > Command.com is a shell. It's like /bin/sh in Unix. This
> > doesn't mean Unix "runs on" /bin/sh.
>
> OK. How about this: I remove /bin/sh from my linux system and reboot,
> and you remove ~\command.com from your Windows 9x system and reboot.
> Then we check which one of us actually can get any work done.
>
> And _then_ I suggest you study up on what "shell" actually means and
> come back when you know.
Okay. Right now I am running with command.com
moved out of my path. (I want it back, so I didn't
delete it completely). I rebooted- no problem.
Newsreading works fine. I can run DOS programs
in a dos box. WINFILE.EXE, a Windows 3.x
program included with Windows also works fine.
Windows Me no longer uses Command.com during
bootup. I can't open an "MS DOS Prompt" window,
but everything else works.
One disapointment: Windows System File
Protection did *not* put command.com back,
as I expected it would. Apparently it's not
considered important enough.
Previous Windows versions *did* use it during
bootup, in order to load DOS drivers, TSRs
and the like. Windows Me does not support
this anymore. It's a real stretch to say that
Windows "runs on" command.com because
of that.
I guess you could argue, at most, that
*prior to* Windows Me, Windows
"ran on" command.com. But it's a bit of
a stretch. It was a bit of a stretch in
*Windows 1*, for that matter. It's just
a shell, after all.
It's your turn. Remove /bin/sh from your
path and reboot. Let us know how Linux
makes out.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:51:03 GMT
On Mon, 7 May 2001 04:38:36 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Windows 3.1 was released in 1992. OLE1 was just a library add on to
> Windows 3.0, IIRC.
OLE1 was just a particular set of DDE conventions used by Excel and
Word. At some point there was a library provided to codify things, but
prior to that you had to do everything by hand.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 16:54:36 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> :The vast majority of human beings are bisexual, with most of them
>> >> :having a preference for one sex or the other.
>> >
>> >If your claim were true, then most bars, at the end of the night,
>> >would be the majority of men who failed to snag a women to hook
>> >up with each other and go home.
>>
>> No, that's not true at all.
>>
Aaron> Really? If the majority of men are bisexual, then why aren't they
Aaron> hooking up with other guys after failing with the women?
How many men in jail for long terms voluntarily engage in same
sex sexual acts? That percentage might give you an idea of
how many are to some degree bi-sexual.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 7 May 2001 16:58:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>
> Aaron> chrisv wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> :The vast majority of human beings are bisexual, with most of them
> >> >> :having a preference for one sex or the other.
> >> >
> >> >If your claim were true, then most bars, at the end of the night,
> >> >would be the majority of men who failed to snag a women to hook
> >> >up with each other and go home.
> >>
> >> No, that's not true at all.
> >>
>
> Aaron> Really? If the majority of men are bisexual, then why aren't they
> Aaron> hooking up with other guys after failing with the women?
>
>How many men in jail for long terms voluntarily engage in same
>sex sexual acts? That percentage might give you an idea of
>how many are to some degree bi-sexual.
Trading sex for protection != being bisexual
Being raped != being bisexual
Being desperate because you will never again see a woman != being bisexual
What you propose is like trying to determine if men like killing wild pigs
based on episodes of "survivor".
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:59:10 GMT
On Mon, 7 May 2001 01:52:57 +0000, Richard Thrippleton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe Quakeforge _used_ to be a problem in this area, but have
> since cleaned up their act. D1X (Descent), and Crimson Fields,
So, mostly games and multimedia. I can't say I'm surprised by that.
> Big Endian, yes, though I wasn't aware that PPC could do small.
It can, although IIRC it boots in big. I know that gcc can compile
PPC code either way for embedded targets (-mlittle).
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:02:07 GMT
On Sun, 6 May 2001 22:55:15 -0500, Steve Sheldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Yes, I know this. It is not as convenient as just dragging the window
> > to a new size and it doesn't really do the same thing either.
> Hmm, I just took my mouse dragged my cmd window to be the size of my screen
> and ran edit.com in there. Now edit didn't like the size and decided to
> change it to an 80x50 window, but that's still larger than the default
> 80x25.
Isn't that nice. The app knows best, eh?
> You know Bob, have you ever stopped and considered that maybe this isn't all
> that important of a feature?
It is not any more trivial than having a pop-up history list vs
scrolling through with the arrow keys. And it happens to be a feature
that I use. If you want to sell me on Windows, you gotta provide for
my needs.
> At least it isn't in the Windows 2000 world, where a GUI means a lot more
> than a way to open up multiple xterm windows and cut and paste text between
> them, like X11 represents.
Whatever you say Steve.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:04:02 GMT
On 7 May 2001 08:14:06 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Considering that ALL DOS applications written are written with the knowledge
> of these fixed screen sizes and therefore written specifically for these
> sizes - what value is there to 81x26?
Well, none apparently. 132x90 is equally valueless, as is every other
size but the three "standard" ones. One could hope that NT console apps
aren't limited by old DOS limits, but I guess that's of no value either.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.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
******************************
