Linux-Advocacy Digest #355, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 07:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Rick)
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (pip)
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (robert bronsing)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (pip)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (pip)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (JamesW)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:08:33 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > >COM existed before SOM as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >SOM was first introduced with OS/2 2.0, which came out in early
1992,
> > > > just
> > > > > >weeks before COM was officially launched in Windows 3.1. They
were
> > > > > >contemporaries, created independantly at about the same time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is it? First you say that COM 'existed before SOM', and
then
> > you
> > > > > say they were 'created at about the same time'. What besides the
> > donuts
> > > > > at the sock puppet briefings leads you to believe that MS didn't
do
> > what
> > > > > they typically do, and just "steal IBM's ideas", implementing
their
> > own
> > > > > technology more as vaporware than anything else, to scare off the
> > > > > competition? You know, like the way they stole pen computing from
Go?
> > > >
> > > > I can no longer find the reference, but the basic workings of COM
were
> > > > developed in 1988, however, they didn't at the time know what to do
with
> > it.
> > > > In 1990, when they began work on Windows 3.1, that work was put to
use
> > to
> > > > make OLE 2. In other words, COM existed before OLE 2, it had to,
since
> > OLE
> > > > was based on COM.
> > >
> > > Why did they develop COM if they didn't know what to do with it??
> > > I have the Windows Software Development kit and docs. Copyrighted
> > > 1987-1992.
> > > No where do I find any mention of COM.
> >
> > As I said, it was released until they released OLE 2 in 1992 (the same
time
> > IBM released SOM).
> >
> > COM was not originally marketed as a stand-alone technology, it was only
> > marketed as OLE 2. In 1994, they actually formally released COM as a
> > seperate technology (then called Common Object Model, later changed to
> > Component Object Model).
>
> Right now I'm looking at the OLE docs. Trying to catch the gist of any
> differences between OLE and COM. ( My weakest subject) Left in 93, so
> I'm only now beginning to do catch up studies in this area.
Sounds like you're reading OLE 1 docs to me.
> From what I can get out of the SDK "A file can be more compact, because
> linking to objects allows a file to use an object without having to
> store that object's data."
> From that point in the SDK it doesn't say where the object data is
> located or stored.
> I'm also trying to see if there is a comparable feature in the Solaris
> libraries.
> The OLE seems to allow a security hole by the description or example
> that was being given in the SDK ... "Linked and embedded objects also
> lend themselves to implementations such as animated drawings, executable
> macro scripts, hypertext, and annotations."
> (???)
>
> Another one ... "The OLE libraries do most of the work when an
> application is using the clipboard to copy and paste links or exchange
> objects." This feature is unified under CDE of Solaris. They don't
> call it OLE under Sun, but I need to find their correllary.
> Interesting to say the least.
>
> Around that time I've heard of IBMs SOM but were eyeball deep in VAX VMS
> programming and didn't have anytime to look into it.
>
> --
> V
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:14:21 -0400
Brent R wrote:
>
> Chronos Tachyon wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 07 May 2001 08:10, Mad.Scientist wrote:
> >
> > > This topic is about why you made the switch to Linux.
> > >
> > > I made the switch mostly because of what I learned about recent M$
> > > practices. I really resented their paranoia, and their need to control
> > > everything. Their statements against Open Source were very fraudulent,
> > > especially as I read upon it. I believed in the OS model, and that made
> > > me think about what M$ really did. So I became skeptical of them, and
> > > decided to research Linux and M$. The more I read upon it, the more I
> > > was interest. I am a geek to the core, so I really wanted to try it.
> > > The final straw came when I learned of M$ plans for WinXP, such as the
> > > uses of .NET, I lost all hope for them. Then came the news of their
> > > crackdown of casual copying. And then accusing Open Source as being
> > > "un-American". So I installed Linux. Now, M$ has fucked AOL over,
> > > starting a war, and the industry is turning against M$.
> > >
> > > My reason for switching is more ideological, as my WinME runs well, but
> > > does crash every few days still.
> > >
> > > What are your reasons?
> > >
> >
> > My first introduction to non-toy computers came when my parents bought a
> > Packrat Bell for Christmas in 1993. It took quite a bit of scraping
> > together of cash, but they felt it would be useful for education and
> > schoolwork. No Internet access, since that hadn't come into fashion yet.
> > Even though I had no idea how to use it, I gravitated toward it. My mother
> > bought a book called _DOS 6 Secrets_, and I absorbed every page. I
> > stumbled quite a bit (I still remember the epiphany when I finally realized
> > why the "CTTY NUL" command from an example of a .BAT virus would lock up
> > the computer when typed at the command line), but I quickly became a fairly
> > proficient batch file writer. QBasic would have blown my mind had I known
> > how to use it.
> >
> > I signed up for computer programming classes in high school as soon as they
> > were offered, and quickly snapped up both QBasic and Turbo Pascal.
> > Entranced by programming, I decided to leave behind my previous plan to
> > learn electronics. I read Windows Magazine (sadly, it only exists today in
> > online form at www.winmag.com), savoring every issue, and learned enough
> > about PC hardware to start doing my own upgrades. I asked my parents to
> > buy me a copy of Visual C++ for my birthday, then set about learning C/C++
> > over the summer.
> >
> > As I became aware of Microsoft and their position in the PC industry, I
> > realized that they were the 800 lb gorilla of the industry and prone to
> > abuse their position; however, their products seemed, if not the best, at
> > least passable. It wasn't until I left for college that I began to hear
> > about Linux. Linux, the PC clone of UNIX, the OS that the _Secrets_ book
> > had called "The only operating system that makes MS-DOS look warm and
> > fuzzy," the OS that my computer teacher had spoken of in hushed and
> > reverent tones. It intrigued me. Within months of learning the PC, I had
> > been drawn away from the pretty pictures to the command-line interface of
> > DOS, and now the idea of something even more powerful was entrancing.
> >
> > Toward the end of my freshman year, I picked up a book on programming for
> > Linux, but the experience was disappointing. A badly outdated copy of
> > Slackware 2.0 came with the book, and it couldn't recognize most of my
> > hardware or my FAT32 partition. Discouraged, I put it aside since I still
> > had schoolwork to do. That summer, I mail-ordered a copy of Slackware 4.0
> > from Walnut Creek CDROM, and never looked back except for the occasional
> > game of Duke Nukem, Populous: The Beginning, or StarCraft. I spent all
> > summer geeking out as I learned the ropes of the POSIX C API, Perl, and
> > Apache. I began to see all the little nuances of incompatibility and
> > brokenness in Windows and other Microsoft products, and the gilded and
> > sacharrin-sweet words Microsoft used to sell their overpriced and overhyped
> > products. I swore off Windows for my own computer, and purged my hard
> > drive of all Microsoft products. It means I have to do without StarCraft,
> > but it's a small price to pay to be rid of their lies and FUD.
>
> It has never ceased to astound me that people would do away with their
> favorite apps just for a moderate increase in OS quality. That's one
> thing I've never really understood about this movement I guess.
>
> To me, I like Linux but Windows has so many great apps that I cannot do
> without it.
>
VMWare might be the answer for you.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:16:12 +0100
Chaparral wrote:
>
> We can all say what we want about how Windows sucks and that Linux is the
> end-all-be-all, but after trying almost every Linux version to date, the
> bottom line folks is that Mr Gates has made operating a home computer easy
> enough for my great uncle to run. The Penguin still doesnt come close!
If your uncle has a Linux box setup with the programs he needs then
there is just no difference. He will not however be able to buy those
off-the-shelf programs that people do. Also adding new hardware _IS_ an
issue. But a pre-installed box should be no more difficult than anything
else - in fact easier because you can ssh into his box and help him out
to tweak things. In windows you'd have to shell out for two copies of
Laplink or PC-Anywhere - and what is the most important thing for a
newbie - support? Well have a think about this.
> What Linux is VERY good at is the handling of servers... this is stuff that
> you are expected to fiddle with and fine tune. Home users don't want to
> fart around all day trying to figure out what to click and then having
> barely predictable responses.
You mean like in Windows?
> So, Linux sucks hard for the home user but beats the hell out of WinBlows on
> the server farm... especially when you can tell a client that full-blown
> server software will only cost him $75 compared to $2000 plus for
> 2000Server!
Well, Linux _is_ king of the server-space.
> Microsoft will rule the home front for many years I think, but their
> exorbitant pricing and draconian licensing policies will soon cause the
> server market to dry up.
Well, we'll see. But I think you are right.
------------------------------
From: robert bronsing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:24:29 +0200
Chaparral wrote:
>
> We can all say what we want about how Windows sucks and that Linux is the
> end-all-be-all, but after trying almost every Linux version to date, the
> bottom line folks is that Mr Gates has made operating a home computer easy
> enough for my great uncle to run. The Penguin still doesnt come close!
>
> What Linux is VERY good at is the handling of servers... this is stuff that
> you are expected to fiddle with and fine tune. Home users don't want to
> fart around all day trying to figure out what to click and then having
> barely predictable responses.
>
> So, Linux sucks hard for the home user but beats the hell out of WinBlows on
> the server farm... especially when you can tell a client that full-blown
> server software will only cost him $75 compared to $2000 plus for
> 2000Server!
>
> Microsoft will rule the home front for many years I think, but their
> exorbitant pricing and draconian licensing policies will soon cause the
> server market to dry up.
>
> Im done now.
I disagree. Most users buy their computer with windows pre-installed and
quite nicely configured for the internet, wordprocessing and some games.
And that's pretty much it. Most users never have to do any tweaking of
the box because it works and why wrestle with it if it works, right?
But the minute this user installs a new soundcard, and there are all
kinds of conflicts, what do most users do? They contact the nearest
windows guru and ask him/her for help.
I bet that if you take a linux box (with an up to date distro),
configure it properly for the internet and put in an office suite and
some games most users would never have to be root, unless they install a
new soundcard or something. Then they'll need a linux 'guru' (well, I
could do it and I'm no guru) for help too. And, under linux this type of
user wouldn't be able to wreck the box by clicking on things they have
no business clicking on, as he/she could do in windows.
And I think this goes for most operating systems. It's difficult,
because it's unfamilliar, not because it really is difficult. Using KDE
or Gnome is just as simple as using w98 as a normal user. It's more to
do with fear than with ease of use.
--
Robert Bronsing
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:37:40 +0100
"Mad.Scientist" wrote:
>
> This topic is about why you made the switch to Linux.
Well, I am happy to say that I use both Linux and Windows - so I have
the best of both worlds. I don't think there is any rule that says that
if you enjoy the latest hardware gadgets and games you should feel any
betrayal by keeping windows on your HD. It's just a case of being
pragmatic.
> I made the switch mostly because of what I learned about recent M$
> practices.
Erm, an ethical standpoint is as good as any, but are you not cutting
off your nose? As my Windows came pre-installed, the only direct money I
have given to M$ is for their very good Flight Simulator software and
their very good force feedback joystick (notice a theme here? :) ). Oh
yes and Age Of Empires. The rest goes to third party software.
> I really resented their paranoia, and their need to control everything.
Don't we all. But you can't get the game "Black & White" under Linux yet
:)
> Their statements against Open Source were very fraudulent, especially as I
> read upon it.
Well, everyone should know by now that M$ talks crap. They have had
literally years of practice honing their skills at this.
> I believed in the OS model, and that made me think about what M$ really did.
You mean introduce the first popular OS to the world? No-one said the
big guys are nice.
> So I became skeptical of them, and decided to research Linux and M$. The
> more
> I read upon it, the more I was interest. I am a geek to the core, so I
> really wanted to
> try it. The final straw came when I learned of M$ plans for WinXP, such as
> the
> uses of .NET, I lost all hope for them. Then came the news of their
> crackdown of
> casual copying.
What you mean that you were offended that they should want to make money
from their own software? Give me a break - M$ is CLOSED SOURCE - THAT IS
WHAT THEY DO, that is what they WILL ALWAYS DO. and you should not
PIRATE software, especially as there is are so many wonderful free
(beer/price) alternatives.
>And then accusing Open Source as being "un-American".
We've heard worse.
>So I
> installed
> Linux.
Good! - What distro?
>Now, M$ has fucked AOL over, starting a war, and the industry is
> turning against M$.
Erm - MESSAGE TO OP - the industry turned against M$ already because
they act like a bunch of tossers. Do you not think that ANY company
would shaft M$ as soon as they got a chance to? The industry has long
memories.
> My reason for switching is more ideological, as my WinME runs well, but does
> crash every few
> days still.
Mine does not - but then again I moved from doing any real work(TM) on
windows quite a while ago. So it has no reason to as much (yet it still
does crash sometimes! - very annoying)
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:54:08 +0100
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
> Toward the end of my freshman year, I picked up a book on programming for
> Linux, but the experience was disappointing. A badly outdated copy of
> Slackware 2.0 came with the book, and it couldn't recognize most of my
> hardware or my FAT32 partition. Discouraged, I put it aside since I still
> had schoolwork to do. That summer, I mail-ordered a copy of Slackware 4.0
> from Walnut Creek CDROM, and never looked back except for the occasional
> game of Duke Nukem, Populous: The Beginning, or StarCraft. I spent all
> summer geeking out as I learned the ropes of the POSIX C API, Perl, and
> Apache. I began to see all the little nuances of incompatibility and
> brokenness in Windows and other Microsoft products, and the gilded and
> sacharrin-sweet words Microsoft used to sell their overpriced and overhyped
> products.
Interesting! My first Linux experience was with Slackware. It came with
a book which I promptly did not read as I had got used to doing things
the "easy" way. I had a hell of a time installing the thing and
reluctantly read the book and took my first steps. I found silly things
confusing as I was so used to C: D: and E: that /dev/hda1 /dev/hda2
seemed like an alien planet. Also I didn't really "get" the concept of
open source - just that there was this Unix system that I could play on.
I also didn't realise that there were so many wonderful programmers
tools! Anyway, finally got Linux installed and there I was at the Bash
prompt (or maybe it was the c-shell prompt - I forget). And, erm I
thought - eek no graphics? No windows like things? I gave up thinking
that I would not get anything useful out of it - but then a few more
magazine articles a year or so later prompted me to try RedHat. From
that point everything has slid into place and I haven't since not had a
Linux partition on my HD or a Linux box. As I found out more about open
source, X and the programmers paradise that Linux is - I felt - well -
"at home". Also I was VERY impressed by how helpful all these Linux
people were. If I had a question they would normally give a very
detailed explanation or at least point me to some documentation so that
I could read-up on it. I think the "community" aspect of this is what
struck me the most. There is just not the same atmosphere in the windows
world, just not to the same extent.
>I swore off Windows for my own computer, and purged my hard
> drive of all Microsoft products. It means I have to do without StarCraft,
> but it's a small price to pay to be rid of their lies and FUD.
I have not done this - mainly because I have not seen that much of a
need to. I like netscape for news posting (PAN is the only real
alterative) and IE for web-browsing and playing 'em games 'an gadgets.
------------------------------
From: JamesW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 11:44:00 +0100
In article <dB3K6.374$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data. I'll
> give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the keys
> value is 1.
>
> The encoded data is (just the one line, not including carriage return):
>
> 2jhGjyD<qYwDgilj0sohkVuAy.
>
> Hell, I'll even give you hints when you need them. Here's the first, it's
> plain text words, but the values are not in ASCII.
>
> So, show me how simple it is to crack. Hell, after a week, I'll even tell
> you what the clear text is, and let's see if you can figure out a way to
> recreate a second encoded text that is encoded using the exact same
> algorithm. I'll bet you can't.
>From earlier posts by Erik I suspect his definition of a 1 bit key is a
flag to encrypt using some other method or a line in a file containing
random characters that are munged somehow with the plain text. Of course
this is not an encryption key but a pointer to the true encryption
method.
Erik was wrong with his original security by obfuscation claim. Adding
more and more layers of complexity in no way guarantees additional
security if the underlying key is weak - and a one bit key is certainly
weak. Maybe Erik thinks that ROT13 applied twice is twice as hard to
decrypt?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:42:50 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> Of course, if you mix your code with GPLed code and just sold the
> binaries who is going to know the difference?
> This question is an open one as I'm not sure if anyone has ever been
> caught doing this yet.
Strings or find are allways applicable, and something MS or Sun size *will*
leak, not to mention that disassembling is always nice.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 9 May 2001 12:48:35 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xx5K6.12400$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > >Not too simple, just untrue in the programming case. Code calling
> > >functions
> > >from another library is not a derivative of that library any more than
a
> > >playlist
> > >is a derivative of the songs mentioned. [...]
> >
> > Okay, I can live with that. Code calling functions from a library are
> > not a derivative of the library. That doesn't prevent the program from
> > being derivative of the library, according to the FSF's position. You
> > disagree with that position, and you have made the position very
> > comprehensible. I certainly consider it a reasonable position, when you
> > state it like that. I still consider it mistaken, based on a
> > metaphysical concept of copyright which denies the reality of the
> > conflict between software and copyright which makes it a defensible (and
> > thus legally correct) position. Just because no literal copying is
> > going on does not prevent infringement from occurring.
>
> You are free to believe anything you like but if you want someone to
> agree it would help to find any evidence that copyright law covers
> any case where nothing is copied, or any other case where a program
> using a library automatically becomes a derivative of that library
> even though it did not include it in the distribution. Considering
> that nearly every program requires at least the host system libraries
> it would seem that the case would have come up a long time ago
> if the system vendor had a chance of controlling competing application
> vendors or getting royalties from them.
That is not quite probable, after all, you would chase all your developers
away, doing this.
See Amiga for what happens when a platofrm has no developers.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 9 May 2001 12:57:03 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001
12:10:27
> >
> > > >Can you answer the question, not as daniel, obviously, but still.
> > >
> > > Let me ask you a question, Ayende. If, just pretend, Microsoft were
to
> > > port Windows to the Mac, would that make the Mac a PC, and Apple no
> > > different then Dell or Gateway? Why or why not?
> > >
> >
> > No, a Mac wouldn't be a PC, and since Apple makes their own OS and
plenty of
> > software, no, I don't think that it would make Apple into an OEM.
> > BTW, just for general education, there *was* a prot of Windows to the
Mac.
> > Apple killed it together with the clones, IIRC.
>
> windows? On the Mac? Where, when?
NT4, it has 4 archtectures on the CD, on of them is PPC.
Apple killed the idea along with the clones, basically no one bought it
because Alpha (which NT also run on) was faster, and x86 was cheaper.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 9 May 2001 12:59:30 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pI3K6.377$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 8 May 2001 16:25:52 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >Workplace OS was an actual product. I talked to the lead Workplace OS
> > >developer at Comdex in 1993. He assured me it was a cool product, and
> would
> > >include such things as "personality modules" to allow it to run
multiple
> > >OS's simultaneously, among other things.
> >
> > What happened?
>
> IBM canned it, same reason they canned OS/2 PPC.
OS/2 was built around x86, not to be portable.
Why would they try doing it? It means writing a lot of code from scratch.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:03:59 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9davhb$qme$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I'm not familiar with this object. Could you provide some pointers (I'm
> >> genuinely curious).
> >
> > Basically, you are taking advantage of NTFS5 (avialable in NT4 with SP4,
> > I think). You get a Reparse (can't really recall the name) point on
> > %SYSTEM%\PS2PRN which mean that when a program tries to access this
> > file,
> > NTFS will invoke a program (a function? can't recall how they call it),
> > which will handle the request, it's possible, I guess, to build PS
> > interepter that would print to printer this way.
>
> Do you print to this device as if it were a file or as if it were a
> printer?
Same way you would print to /dev/lpr or PRN, I assume.
You feed it PS, it prints it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:07:51 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Zm4K6.12393$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9d84g5$r4u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > DOSEMU is in fact very good at running DOS apps under Linux, although
> > > you have to configure it to permit the level of hardware access you
> > > need. Commercial DOS-under-unix versions were around long before
> > > dos-under-winNT or Win9x existed.
> >
> > How good? That is the question.
> > Again, we are talking about needing 99% success here, and ease of
> > configuration.
>
> The question is where to position the tradeoff between a stable
> system's need to control access to the hardware and DOS programs'
> need to access hardware directly. Win9x doesn't bother trying.
> DOSEMU tries but lets you override it with configuration settings.
I think that they didn't want to let it happen, if you can open up hardware
access one way, you can open it in other ways too.
How does linux handle it, btw?
> > Can I run DOS games on Linux? (MK3 is a good example)
>
> Probably, if you give it direct access to at least the video memory.
Ouch!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
