Linux-Advocacy Digest #350, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 02:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Pesky lack of support (Ray Chason)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Dave Martel)
Re: Linux Users...Why? ("Flacco")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chad Everett)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Dave Martel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 05:23:57 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 21:06:14
> >The rules of copyright have always involved copying something, not
> >necessarily literally, but something recognizable as a translation or
> >derivative.
>
> Hence the name, "copyright", I would imagine.
>
> >If nothing but the API is involved on either side (as a
> >correct program should be written), then no copying is involved.
>
> I find something recognizably being copied here, whether you do or not.
Name it. The API doesn't count, not only because it consists of
material necessary to use the library on the other side which the
user has the right to use and is thus covered by fair use, but also
because the FSF does not claim an interface copyright.
> >The 'rules' for a claim would be to show what covered item(s)
> >had been copied which in this case would be impossible.
>
> So the FSF's position should fold in court at the first challenge. As
> soon as someone has the balls to make that challenge, we can see what
> happens.
Someone also needs a lot of money to make that challenge.
> But this is FUD; GPL involves only open software, so it is only
> predatory infringement, not honest development, which is 'threatened' by
> this approach.
Why do you keep making this obviouly untrue claim. The RIPEM case
was not predatory - they simply wanted to give away unrestricted code
and the FSF made it difficult for them.
> It is positively trivial to bring the matter to court,
> if you are in the right and there is money at stake.
I have never heard anyone say that aboug a court case before.
>The only time that copyright has been over-ruled,
> that I am aware of, is when it was used anti-competitively. Not being a
> commercial producer, it is kind of hard to pin the label of "monopolist"
> on the FSF.
But have you seen a case before where nothing covered was copied
in any form?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pesky lack of support
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 05:29:17 -0000
kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A newgroup is not the best plaec for these questions.
More precisely, an *advocacy* newsgroup isn't the best place; other
groups in comp.os.linux.* would be a better choice.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:18:13 -0600
On Tue, 08 May 2001 22:14:28 -0400, "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> I was still a bit undecided about linux a month later SuSE 7.0 Pro came
>> out. It shipped with defective NVidia video drivers. The problem was
>> easy to fix, but still at $69 for a "free" OS I felt the package should
>> have been better-tested. Also SuSE was talking about shipping three
>> revisions yearly, which would have meant $210 a year to stay on top of
>> the latest releases. Yikes!!! I could see where THIS was going.
>>
>No one forces you to upgrade.
>
>Why upgrade to every single version they released?
Because it's my computer and I feel like it.
>There is no point in it.
Then you don't have to do it.
> If they are using the same kernel u can't use that argument ("i want
>to upgrade my kernel").
"I wanted to upgrade my kernel". SuSE tweaks the kernel code to
provide hooks for YAST and other "user friendly" tools and features.
As a result, they lag a bit farther behind kernel updates than Debian
and Slackware.
> Even if you did wnat to upgrade the kernel you
>dont need to spend $70 to do it. Download the 22 meg source tarball, or
>even the rpm. The newer versions of Suse, and other distros, are just
>repackaged upgrades of various programs. You could download the new
>version of just the programs you use w/o having to pay $70 to get them
>all, only some of which you may want.
I didn't need to spend $70 to upgrade my kernal under Slackware,
either. In fact, I'll never have to spend another dime again to stay
current with Slackware, although I do contribute some money now and
then.
Also, I can freely copy and distribute the Slackware CD's to all the
people I'm helping to get into linux. You can't do that with SuSE
(read the license).
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 05:31:16 GMT
> I made the switch mostly because of what I learned about recent M$
> practices.
<snip>
> My reason for switching is more ideological
This is pretty much my experience too.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 05:31:17 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Okay, that makes more sense, I guess.
> >Can you patent an API?
> >(Why do I bother asking, you can patent *anyting* in US of A?)
>
> Its the "API", not the patent, which is a floating abstraction, Ayende.
The API is the least abstract part of the program. It is specifically
what the components *must* use to correctly interoperate. Perhaps
you are confusing it with the documentation or description which might
also be called the API, but in terms of what is included in the program
it is a very specific thing.
> The reason you can't copyright an API is because an API is simply a
> listing of 'features', so to speak, of a library or platform.
No, you can copyright it but you can't stop people from using it anyway
because it is a necessary and non-arbitrary thing that has to be used
to make the component work. As such it has to be allowed by fair
use.
> You could
> write a patent saying "here is a process for performing X" and part of
> that patent could be a description of an API helpful in implementing
> that process. This doesn't make the API patentable, but it might well
> be described that way, rhetorically.
This is irrelevant to the FSF claim that code calling an API may or
may not be a derived work of the code on the other side, depending
on how many implementations there are of that code.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 00:39:02 -0500
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d6put$g9n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> They could have done as they promised - dropped DOS after Win95. Or maybe
> done as they next promised - dropped DOS after Win95 OSR2. Or after
Win98.
> Or Win98SE. Or Windmill. They have had NT - a mostly backwards
compatible
> OS family for years, which everyone knows is better in virtually every way
> than Win9x, and they have been promising for years that they will drop the
> Win9x line and move to the far superior NT kernel. Yet they have
> consistently failed to do so. What I propose is that MS, for once in its
> existance, actually delivers on a promise and makes XP a single code base.
> I also propose that you don't consider it to be something marvelous when
> (and if - I'm not holding my breath) they get it right.
XP is available in beta and from this we can determine that, yes, it really
is what they claim. There are absolutely no new versions of the Win9x line
being worked on. That team is dead and moved on. The W2K team remains
skeleton like only to provide fixes and service packs. There is a single
moving forward Windows team - the XP team. This is just true and while it
may have taken a long time with, perhaps, some broken promises along the
way - the time has finally arrived.
>
> >
>
> It is a good thing - I am not arguing that. I just can't see why you are
so
> impressed that MS are finally getting the finger out and fixing a problem
of
> their own creation that has been an enormous burden to everyone else since
> Win95 first arrived. I also can't see why you, despite all the historical
> evidence against it, are so ready to believe MS this time.
>
Well - there are several answers but instead consider: a racer declares "I'm
gonna win the Indy 500" and then comes in 2nd from last. Next year announces
the same and comes in 100th. The next he says the same and comes in 5th. And
finally he tries again and comes in 2nd. Now he's been claiming 1st four
years in a row and failing utterly to deliver. So, he again announce's he's
going to win. Do you think: this guy has never done it so obviously he
cannot and will not this time. Or do you think: gee, he's come a long way -
he may be annoying but looks like he's finally about to do it.
That's how I see MS. Sure, they've been tooting their horn loudly since day
1. I don't pretend that they've been as good as they claim for every claim
they make. We know they sure aren't perfect and even being a monopoly (if
they are) doesn't mean you are the best. But only the most stubborn liar
would claim their products haven't improved dramatically in past years and
especially in the last year.W2K is a huge leap forward for MS OSes. XP is an
upgrade to W2K and one undertaken with the greatest care, investment and the
largest beta testing cycle I think ever in all PC computing. It's sure
looking like a winner (lets not forget that XP is being released in home and
pro version first (the clients) and then with further feedback from this
initial release - only then will the server releases finish beta and proceed
to RC and RTM). W2K is solid enough that MS could rest of it's laurels but
thankfully they are not - but they don't have to rush XP - there is no
schedule set of any kind for XP - it'll be released "when it's ready" I for
one am prepared to see them finally win the race.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 00:41:03 -0500
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d6qb6$gh0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Jan Johanson wrote in message <3af69816$0$12207
>
> >tiny itch of competition from them when usually the Japs take an american
> >idea, improve and repackage it and beat us at our own game.
> >
>
> As compared to the Americans, who take a European idea, step up quantity
and
> better marketing while dropping quality down the toilet, and spend so much
> on marketting that people think they invented it in the first place. Just
> think of television, computers, hamburgers, cola, organized crime, ...
>
> To be fair, there are a good number of ideas and inventions that have come
> out of American, but I've got news for you - there are lot of ideas and
> inventions that came from Japan too.
Perhaps these things are true - but also true is the fact that more
innovation and inventions come out of the US than anywhere else. The Sony
robotic dog doesn't impress me much for a "new invention"
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 07:54:09
> >"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:9coaa0$k34$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >
> >> > > "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > news:3aef6b26$0$41693$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > > Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [snip]
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > It's a hardware-based registration system. Perhaps they'll
> >overlook
> >> > a
> >> > > > > > single hardware change, but I tend to change several things
at a
> >> > time.
> >> > > > > > No use getting a bigger meaner video card if your MB & HD
don't
> >have
> >> > > > > > the necessary throughput. Or at least, that's my excuse for
> >buying a
> >> > > > > > lot of expensive new toys all at once. :-)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Can you say CPU Serial ID??
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Sure: CPU Serial ID disabled in BIOS. Hmm???
> >> > >
> >> > > It can be changed when the OS is loaded without needing to reboot.
> >> >
> >> > Via a 3rd party piece of software - if you loaded that software and
> >enabled
> >> > the serial number then what would be your worry? i hardly suspect you
> >would
> >> > claim MS is going to override your BIOS setttings to extract the CPU
> >Serial
> >> > ID without permission and documentation - the fall out if such a
thing
> >was
> >> > done and done secretly is too huge for MS to even THINK about doing.
> >> >
> >> > MS makes mistakes but they are not blindly stupid.
> >> >
> >>
> >> See my previous post on this. It would hardly be stupid and can in
fact
> >be
> >> justified. After all, they are already tell people, unofficially, that
> >your
> >> system is going to be uniquely identified. Hardly a leap of faith to
> >assume
> >> that it will be overlooked. In fact, please find anything from
Microsoft
> >that
> >> states they will *NOT* be using the CPU ID as part of the XP's
> >identification
> >> and classification of the system.
> >
> >Don't make that mistake please - I mean, I can't find ANYTHING from
Redhat
> >that states they do not spread the ebola virus upon opening the shrink
wrap
> >but that doesn't mean it's so.
>
> Wow. You ARE clueless, aren't you? You have some reason to believe
> that Redhat spread ebola? Or you have no idea that MS is routinely
> dishonest? Either way, I think you pretty much got the lock on the
> "Most Clueless Person Possible" award for this decade.
I really laughed out loud - I can't even stop laughing enough to type a
reply to this. Ask some kid to explain why you sound so funny...
>
> >And, see my previous reply where I ask; even if this were so - SO WHAT?!
>
> Duh! So people don't want them to do it. That's SUPPOSED to be enough.
> What gives MS special privileges?
>
Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 05:46:10 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 20:59:47
> >"Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> My point is that while the lack of law suits is probably not a
convincing
> >> arguement for the the FSF's position, it is even weaker evidence that
> >> the code is of limited value.
> >
> >The nature of the GPL has kept most of the value in standalone
applications
> >which are not greatly affected by the restriction against combining with
> >other components. Would you risk a lawsuit, even one you expected
> >to win, to save rewriting something like readline?
>
> I don't know. Would you? AFAIK, there are a great number of
> applications that use readline. What's your point; that you should be
> able to use something someone else wrote, without their permission, for
> your own work?
No, my point is, and always has been, that if I get my own copy of readline
and either agree to the GPL not to redistribute it, or don't bother agreeing
to the GPL because I'm not forced to as I obtain my copy, it is still my
copy to use any way I want (i.e. any way not prohibited by license terms
that I have agreed to.) Assuming I agree to the GPL terms for this copy
of readline, it gives explicit rights to use it. Now, for any program
that
dynamically links to this copy of the readline library on my computer or
that I statically link myself, I am exercising my right to use my copy of
this library whether I or someone else wrote the calling code. I don't
understand how you are confusing this with programs that simply call this
library's functions. Anyone has a right to write and distribute programs
that call other program's interfaces. It is up to the end user to obtain
the rights to use any other needed components.
> >If they are right, then Microsoft would automatically gain control of
> >everything their competitors in application programs have written that
> >call any system dlls.
>
> No, there is nothing "automatic" about copyright, as you've observed.
Yes, the FSF claims that their interpretation is inherent in copyright
law. That is, by their definition the calling code is a 'derived work'
in the sense controlled by copyright law (even though nothing similar
supports their position).
> Microsoft could claim control over everything (to what purpose?), and
> then it would be up to the app developers to argue against it in court.
They could stop distribution of any application that competes with their
own and/or demand royalties for it.
> Obviously Microsoft is familiar with this kind of thing; it sounds
> almost exactly with what they did recently with their non-US hotmail
> "license agreement". (You need a license to use a website???)
I'd hate to see what they would do, given such an opportunity.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 00:10:47 -0500
On 9 May 2001 00:17:03 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>> > It continues to amaze me that the ONLY people having these sorts of
>> > absolute failures under Windows are linux users.
>> >
>> > Are linux users that univerally inadept at running Windows?
>> >
>> > I haven't had a bad CD since the last time I had a 2x write speed burner
>> > with 256 Kb buffer under Win95.
>> >
>> > Your system has to be so broken to fail a burn on a current gen burner -
>> > AND with the latest Burn-Proof technology people like Lite-on and
>> > Plextor use, it's literally impossible to fail the burn. You can pause
>> > the entire system with the pause key and the buffer can go to 0% for an
>> > hour and then resume and continue burning the CD flawlessly.
>> >
>> > Of course, I'm sure this support isn't in linux yet...
>> >
>> > Really people - at least learn how to setup and use an OS before
>> > attempting to disparage it.
>> >
>>
>> Jan at his best, dumb and without any clue whatsoever.
>> Did you ever think that the overwhelmng majority of these linux-users did
>> use windows before they switched or are still using it today in addition
>> to linux?
>
>I considered it but you are obviously too dumb and entirely clueless about
>what I wrote. Sure these linux users used windows before switching. It's
>these same lusers that couldn't make windows work for them that I'm talking
>about. I mean, how stupid does one have to be to fail to get Windows running
>right? My child runs it, children in 2nd grade install it successfully. My
>mother has installed it and used it successfully...
>
I think Microsoft better go to your home and your Mother's home and do some
license checking......and that 2nd grade classroom too.
Oh, by the way, my two year old installed Linux for me the other afternoon.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 00:48:05 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 08:00:07
> [...]
> >> You have some verification this software isn't already in the Windows
> >> update software?
> >
> >You have some proof it is?
>
> Yes. I have LOTS of proof it is. Not proof that you would find
> convincing, I know, but I'm not in a contest to see which of us is more
> clueless, as much as you might find that amusing.
OK - share some proof.
I claim it's not there so my proof is simple. I can't show you any. See...
look.... nothing there. I said it's not there and I can't show you any -
lookin' good to me. So, now, make me wrong, prove me wrong: show me that
it's there.
>
> >> >i hardly suspect you would
> >> >claim MS is going to override your BIOS setttings to extract the CPU
> >Serial
> >> >ID without permission and documentation - the fall out if such a thing
> >was
> >> >done and done secretly is too huge for MS to even THINK about doing.
> >>
> >> Some would say the same about MS's recent actions staking their claim
on
> >> their customers' intellectual property.
> >
> >And some would say there are alien bodies at Area 51.
>
> And some say there's a sucker born every minute.
Actually one guy said that first and everyone else quoted him.
>
> >> >MS makes mistakes but they are not blindly stupid.
> >>
> >> No, but they are a monopoly, and therefor dishonest, and not to be
> >> trusted.
> >
> >You've made a factual error and revealed your blind hatred for anything
MS.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. You'll notice it can't be one or the other. Simple
> error and I'm reasonable, a bias against MS doesn't refute the evidence,
> we have to be BOTH ignorant AND dumb to believe MS breaks the law and is
> dishonest.
>
> >A monopoly is not illegal nor inherently untrustworthy or dishonest.
>
> Well, both monopolizing and attempting to monopolize, as well as
> restraining trade (according to anti-trust theory, the only way to gain
> or sustain a monopoly) are all illegal, so the first one goes. The
> other two follow from there, or are the cause of that, depending only on
> your teleology.
No - a monopoly is NOT illegal. Period. YOU look it up and find out that I'm
right. I state that as a fact - prove me wrong.
>
> >There
> >are many monopolies in the world today, it's not so uncommon. Watch Pro
> >football one day and look at the name on the helmet on the front.
>
> Which pro football? The NFL? The XFL? The Canadian league? What?
The NFL.
>
> >Keep
> >watching - notice something - it's always the same name. Not even the
team
> >name can go there. You'll never see a different manufacturer. But go and
try
> >to buy some football helemet - dozens of makers to choose from. Try to
play
> >pro football with one of those other manufacturers - be prepared to be
sued.
> >A monopoly? Yes.
>
> Ummm... no. Perhaps you are ignorant of the legal definition of
> monopoly, but I am not. Get a clue.
Um. yes. but you'll perhaps learn one day.
>
> >Illegal monopoly? No.
>
> That's redundant; the law does not provide for exceptions; all
> monopolization and attempted monopolization, as well as the restraint of
> trade necessary for any monopoly, are all illegal! "Illegal monopoly"
> is always "yes" because "monopoly" is always "illegal", yes.
And that is where you continue to be wrong. A monopoly is not illegal.
Period. End of story. Look it up - better yet, hire someone to look it up
and explain it to you.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: 9 May 2001 00:51:02 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d6ud3$n4i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> WSH is just one step below programming, if at all. But people call what
> >> perl does scripting. Oh, well.
> >
> > Actually - WSH IS programming. You can write more than just simple
> > command line scripts in WSH.
>
> Yep, Windows is beginning to approach the functionality UNIX had 20 years
> ago or more.
Even if we accept your lame comment - so? How does what you say in any way
make it a bad thing?
OK, so now it does something that unix did 20 years ago - ok, great. Windows
does even more - this is bad? ahahah, I think you so totally underestimate
Windows that it will simply just glide right on past you typing away at your
little green screen CLI.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: 9 May 2001 00:53:03 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
What you need to understand is that no one gives a shit about "console"
apps - Command line utilities to do stuff from scripts - ok, some value.
Writing a program that runs in the console for a windows PC? Now that is
stupid and that's why no one bothers anymore and THAT'S why 132x90 is of no
value.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: 9 May 2001 00:54:05 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 7 May 2001 22:42:33 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Text base applications would adjust automatically, it's those
applications
> > that makes assumtions about screen size (Edit.com, as you mention) that
> > can't be resized.
>
> The applications you refer to as "text based" don't adjust, they just
> have no idea how big the screen is in the first place bacuse they just
> write lines of text to stdout.
>
> The ones like edit.com are the ones that ought to adust. Hey, I fully
> understand why old DOS apps don't adjust, I just do not get why they
> ship old DOS apps with NT or why even new console apps don't seem to
> know about resizeable windows.
Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run edit.com - DOH!
WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text based
interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any size you can
imagine are right there on your desktop?
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:47:55 -0600
On 9 May 2001 00:39:02 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is just true and while it
>may have taken a long time with, perhaps, some broken promises along the
>way - the time has finally arrived.
<insert cartoon of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
