Linux-Advocacy Digest #535, Volume #34 Tue, 15 May 01 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Microsoft Admits To Backdoor In IIS [updated] ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Rich Soyack")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:17:12 +1200
> It doesn't have a native filter, but the add ons are free.
>
> Download the generic postscript printer driver from Adobe and download
> GhostScript (which comes with ps2pdf). Print to a file then ps2pdf the
> file, and voila[1].
>
> Personally, I think people should use (La)TeX instead.
>
> [1] I have actually had to use this method to import a worddraw prctire
> in to LaTeX (don't ask), but the PostScript annoyed my version of GS
> under Linux, so I had to hack the PS code.
>
>
Why does this have be done the hard way on Windows? why not just go, file,
save, pdf (for file format), then click "save", thats how I do it on
Wordperfect for Linux.Word really does need to catch up.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:43:07 -0500
MS uses encrypted data so that activation can't be spoofed. Otherwise, you
could simply watch the data, and generate your own "activation".
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Ok, from c't, issue #9 (23/4-6/5/2001), german edition:
>
> "Our attempt to use a man-in-the-middle attack to listen in on the HTTPS
> connection between Windows-XP and Clearing House...failed: not only does
> XP encrypt the data, but it receives new certificates used for further
> communication...
> Extremely questionable is why Microsoft would go to such lengths to
> simply exchange a few numbers, especially since the numbers are already
> tied to the PC hardware.
> ...The amount of data exchanged during activation leaves all possible
> options open in the light of the complexity of the process: It is
> possible that aside from the necessary data...other information is
> exchanged, it is also possible that the bloat in the data traffic is
> caused by the certificates alone. C't advises not to use the online
> activation until Microsoft makes the process more transparent. In the
> meantime you're better off using the telephone."
>
> Translation and some paraphrasing by me. I'm sure Peter Kohlmann (sorry
> Peter, no umlauts on this keyboard) can confirm that this translation is
> as exact as I can make it.
> One thing is for certain, Microsoft Germany is not going to be happy with
> this article. C't is fairly widely read, and this will mean that their
> callcenter will have some busy times ahead.
>
> Mart
>
>
>
> --
> Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
> Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
> For that icy feel when you start to swerve
>
> John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:45:43 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9drc2q$3p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Just did it then. Give me another challenge.
> >
> > Really? You can in-place edit the spreadsheet from within the word
> > processing document? I'd be quite surprised to see that on Linux.
>
> Now I've got virtual screens, it's another thing I find I have no need
> for, since I can edit in another virtual screen. All the fancy OLE stuff
> and edit in place and all that seemes to be necessary under Windows since
> it doesn't have a widely supported device independent display format.
> Under UNIX, just export as a postscript file and include that, and it
> works fine.
How else would you edit an embedded document that you already have open?
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:23:56 +1200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Under Linux? Lots. Embed a spereadsheet document into a word
> processing
> > > document, for instance.
> >
> > Just did it then. Give me another challenge.
>
> Really? You can in-place edit the spreadsheet from within the word
> processing document? I'd be quite surprised to see that on Linux.
Just imported a Access table into Pardox without any problems. Quattro
Pro is handling MS Excel with any formatting issues, and Wordperfect is
as stable as the pope. Please, yet again I stress, where are the
so-called features that MS Office has that Wordperfect hasn't.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 02:24:40 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >You can't detect the bug unless you're looking for it.
> > > > > ----------------------^-------------------------------
> > > > > |
> > > > > BINGO
> > > > >
> > > > > Regression tests look for bugs just like all other tests. You just
> don't
> > > > > run the full suite of tests and concentrate on the area changed *and
> its
> > > > > interactions with other software components*. You can't possibly
> test
> > > > > every path through a program affected by a change. I always try to
> > > > > include in the subset chosen for testing some remote and subtle
> paths
> > > > > through the program. I am very happy if the test result clears the
> fixed
> > > > > bug and finds a new one, not introduced by the fix. If the fix
> > > > > introduces a new bug it is rejected.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't that what testing is about? the point of testing is to look for
> > > > bugs, try to confuse the program and cause problems by trying things
> in
> > > > different ways, isolate the bugs, fix the problem, then repeat the
> test
> > > > again. If you have written out a program, and you have no bugs, you
> > > > have obviously not tested the program properly.
> > >
> > > That's unit testing, or black box testing.
> > >
> > > Regression testing tends to be done with scripts, and is based on
> previously
> > > discovered bugs. You regression test to make sure that old bugs don't
> creep
> > > back in.
> > Pressman ("Software Engineering, A Practitioner's Approach, 3rd ed.")
> > defines regression testing as "repeating past tests to ensure that
> > modifications have not introduced faults into previously operational
> > software" and as being conducted to "ensure that new errors have not
> > been introduced". Watts Humphries("Managing the software Process") "run
> > a subset of previously executed integration and function tests to
> > ensure that program changes have not degraded the system". I could go
> > on, but note that none of the definitions say anything about previously
> > discovered bugs.
> >
> > I like to add in a few paths that weren't tested before, just in case a
> > bug was missed last time. Another thing regression tests help with is
> > what I like to call "uncovered" bugs. Those are bugs that were hidden by
> > the bug that is being fixed, but now come into play.
>
> http://www.planetit.com/techcenters/docs/management_issues/expert/PIT2000101
> 8S0033
>
> What exactly do you think the "past tests" are determined from? Previously
> reported bugs, which are incorporated into the test plans.
I disagree with the answer, but agree with the member comment. See your
response to Donal K Fellows below to see why.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:51:42 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9drcap$3p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> And why shuold there be more names hosted by UNIX than WinNT?
> >
> > Because Unix is used primarily in ISP's which have traditionally the
> > highest number of hosts per server, while Windows is used primarily in
> > corporations where the number of hosts per server is often < 1 (many
> > servers to one host).
>
> So why do corporations use NT when ISPs use UNIX?
Because of MS's backoffice support one would guess. Perhaps because they
have Windows programmers, but not Unix programmers? Perhaps they can find
third party tools they need for NT and not Unix? Any number of reasons.
> >> Mabey because it is a lot better at it?
> >
> > Not so, For instance, Webjump is running NT4 and hosts over 300,000
> > hosts on the same IP. But despite the few large instances of this on
> > NT, the vast majority of ISP's that house thousands of hostnames are all
> > run by Unix.
>
> Because its better?
That's pretty subjective.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:54:00 -0500
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <xwCL6.725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hey Funky boy keep your hair on. What are you implying by
'hosts,
> > not
> > > > > >> servers'? I presume you are referring to multiple web servers
being
> > > > > >> hosted on a single machine? The fact that Linux/Unix servers
are so
> > > > > >> capable at this is just another embarrassment to Microsoft.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Windows is just as capable, however Windows is used more often
in
> > > > corporate
> > > > > > environments than ISP environments. ISP's often have hundreds
or
> > > > thousands
> > > > > > of web sites (hosts) on a single machine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In any event, you're avoiding the question. What is your proof
that
> > > > there
> > > > > > are more physical non-Windows servers on the internet than
Windows
> > > > servers?
> > > > > > Stick to the topic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where did I ever mention 'physical non-Windows servers'? You
really
> > are a
> > > > > pratt.
> > > >
> > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > You do realise that Microsoft are a minority when it comes to
Internet
> > > > > servers
> > > >
> > > > Clearly you were talking about actual servers, not hostsnames.
> > > >
> > > > Don't weasel out of it. What is your proof?
> > >
> > > http://www.netcraft.co.uk/survey/
> >
> > Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same server
can
> > server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
>
> Each running its own software.
Uhh.. no. The same server software can host any number of hosts. Never
heard of name or IP based virtual hosts?
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:30:48 +1200
GreyCloud wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > > Hell, Matthew, Jan doesn't even know what the terms s/390 mean, let
> > > alone HP-UX.
> >
> > Jans so thick she probably doesn't even know what a VAX (not the Vacuum cleaner),
> > Alpha, R12K or 900z is. Jan is just a simple office clerk who thinks that because
> > she can use MS Word, that makes her some sort of genius, whilst the rest of the
>office
> > just mocks her over the fact that she requires the clippy to help her right a
>letter.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
>
> You mean Jan is a Sheila??
>
>
Too bloody right she's a bloody sheila! what sort of bloke would call themselves Jan
of all
the bloody names! and go onto a news group being "too bloody lippy, too bloody smart"
(Once
Were Warriors). Shes the only one that thinks because she uses Word and Windows, that
makes
her an admin. The most experience shes has had is re-installing Windows after a crash,
well whip-de-doo,
/sarcasm on "We're not worthy, we're not worthy! oh Jan you are so smart I wish I
could use
a MS Word wizard as good as you can" /sarcasm off
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft Admits To Backdoor In IIS [updated]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:55:55 -0500
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:u2gM6.24132$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue 15 May 2001 08:41, Neil Cerutti wrote:
>
> > Chronos Tachyon posted:
> >>On Mon 14 May 2001 05:10, Roy Culley wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/entrepreneur.html?
> >>> s=smallbiz/articles/20010514/microsoft_ackno
> >>>
> >>> Is there no end to this company's negligence?
> >>
> >>This is old news, a rehash of the "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN"
> >>backdoor in FrontPage extensions.
> >
> > Is a silly message embedded in a binary equivalent to a backdoor?
> > Don't lie to me, 'cause I've seen War Games and I'll know.
>
> Nope, not always, it just happens that *this* embedded message is also
used
> as a backdoor password that gives you complete control over the site.
No, it isn't. It's already been debunked a year ago. The message is
embedded, but it's not a password. There does exist a buffer overrun
vulnerability in the code, but that was not intentional.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:32:23 +1200
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
> On Tue 15 May 2001 04:22, Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >>
> >> That sounds either incorrect or inefficient, but since I don't have an
> >> SMP machine handy to test your claim, I'll take it at face value.
> >
> > Would you like a link to documentation on this or would you rather take it
> > at face value now?
> >
> > NT4 needs uni2mp.exe while W2K does it itself.
> >
> >
>
> Err, I just said I'd take it at face value.
>
Atleast with QNX, which is older than NT 4, you get to choose what kernel you
want to boot using.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:33:30 +1200
> If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
30 Minute installation, gee, that was time wasted, NOT!
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 02:33:59 GMT
"Ray Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dsnp3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> >> >> >> If you're a man, and your have sex with another man who does not
have
> >> >> >> AIDS, your chance of getting AIDS is?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And you know that he's not infected with AIDS how, exactly?
> >> >>
> >> >> The same way we know that YOU are not infected with AIDS.
> >> >
> >> >Since I don't engage in homosexual acts
> >>
> >> So you claim. Besides, that's not the only way to get AIDS, nor even
> >> the most common way of getting the disease.
> >
> >You're asking me how *I* know that I don't have AIDS.
>
> Learn to read.
>
> >> > and I haven't had a blood transfusion since
> >> >1973 (if at all -- appendix operation)...
> >>
> >> But those $10 hookers...
> >
> >False premise #1: that I use hookers
> >False premise #2: that men can get AIDS from women in normal vaginal sex.
>
> That's how it spreads in most of the world, dimwit. Through
> heterosexual intercourse.
But the most common vector is not vaginal sex but anal sex, when it comes to
sex.
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:37:22 +1200
> 5 9's is not theoretical. There are servers left and right achieving 5 9's
> on multiple OSes.
If it is achievable on multiple OS's, then how come people use Windows 2000 for
their servers? hmm, do I here ANOTHER small-medium NZ business move to a Linux
solution? oh, yes did, using a Cobalt Qube with Linux, and admin tasks
completed via web browser. Sold many of them, not one return. Maybe you should
start living in reality where cash is precious, and no one likes to waste it
on substandard products such as Windows 2000 Server.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:04:05 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> If it's old news then Charlies right... you've been spreading FUD for
> quite a while now.
> But charlie has already provided you Trolls the correctly dated articles
> ... and you still can't read.
No, apparently Yahoo fucked up an reposted an old article as new. If you
notice, the article does not appear on the front page.
This *IS* the > 1 year old vulnerability, and it wasn't a backdoor, despite
MS originally thinking it was. They later retracted it saying that the
message was not a password at all, but simply embedded into the code while a
buffer overrun vulnerability did in fact exist.
Yahoo is the *ONLY* news service that has this story, and guess what? It's
disappeared. It no longer is on the link. You'd think someone, even the
register would have picked this up. But they didn't. In fact, the register
posted a story about how Yahoo fucked up.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18975.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: 16 May 2001 10:33:25 +0800
>>>>> "Pete" == Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You need a web browser, Linux has netscape and Mozilla.
Pete> Browsing on Windows seems a little better.
Only because many web pages are designed to be "best viewed with IE".
Imagine one day they turn to say "This page is best viewed with Adobe
Acrobat. Please download the free Acrobat Reader <here>.". Now,
would Windows still seem better? Huh? And you could replace that
with Ghostscript/ghostview. Haha... :P
>> Linux has built in version control.
Pete> Does it have file versions? As in x.a;1, x.a;2, x.a;3 ?
No, not the built-in VC like VAX. What he means is the *add-on*
version control provided by CVS or RCS. Linux has no built-in version
control.
>> Linux has dozens of HTML authoring tools.
Pete> Where?
Does PSGML+Emacs count?
Does vi count?
Then, how about "cat > index.html"?
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:12:32 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Under Linux? Lots. Embed a spereadsheet document into a word
> > processing
> > > > document, for instance.
> > >
> > > Just did it then. Give me another challenge.
> >
> > Really? You can in-place edit the spreadsheet from within the word
> > processing document? I'd be quite surprised to see that on Linux.
>
> Just imported a Access table into Pardox without any problems. Quattro
> Pro is handling MS Excel with any formatting issues, and Wordperfect is
> as stable as the pope. Please, yet again I stress, where are the
> so-called features that MS Office has that Wordperfect hasn't.
That's not what I said. I said, In-place edit an embedded spreadsheet
within the word processing document. What you are doing is converting the
excel spreadsheet into a database format, which is something totally
different.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: 16 May 2001 10:44:09 +0800
>>>>> "Norman" == Norman D Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Norman> Actually, this is one of the things I miss from VMS. In
Norman> the non-VMS world applications often create .bak or
Norman> similar but a single backup version won't help when you're
Norman> on a roll then realize you accidentally deleted a chunk of
Norman> code/text/whatever 3 versions ago.
That's why I now use CVS (or at least RCS) for any serious work. The
ability to roll back to any version by tag or by date gives me the
confidence to continue modifying and polishing the work. I can
confidently delete obsolete code (or text, when I'm working on a LaTeX
document) fragments instead of uglily keeping them as (lengthy) blocks
of comments.
Norman> And I have "safe" versions of a few utililities
Norman> like cp and mv. Of course the overhead is high, and it is
Norman> not suitable for bulk copies and moves (just use the
Norman> standard commands for those), but when you're working on a
Norman> few files in a project the overhead is negligible and pays
Norman> off in terms convenience, recovery, and peace of mind.
If your files are text, you'd be much better off with RCS and CVS
rather than the ~1, ~2 files. Firstly, it's much more space
efficient, because RCS or CVS only keeps the diffs, not the whole
files. Secondly, they let you easily diff any two versions, or even
merge the diff into yet another version. I don't use branching often,
but that is really useful when you need such a thing.
Norman> It
Norman> is of course extremely easy to clean up the mess with rm
Norman> *~? when you're done. CVS/RCS is fine, but I think it
Norman> makes more sense for relatively stable versions as opposed
Norman> to every little code experiment.
Not necessarily. RCS is fine for minor, experimentals revision, too.
RCS supports deleting old revisions. So, you can easily remove any
"stupid" experimental versions that you don't want anyone to discover.
:)
Norman> Maybe this is not for everyone but it works for me.
I used to work that way, and I even frequently tar+gzip the files and
put, via the network, a copy of the .tgz file on a physically remote
machine... until I discovered RCS.
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: 16 May 2001 10:47:42 +0800
>>>>> "Edward" == Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> btw, please email me once MS Office has a native PDF filter so
>> I can save my documents to PDF format without the need to buy
>> expensive add-ons.
Edward> It doesn't have a native filter, but the add ons are free.
Edward> Download the generic postscript printer driver from Adobe
Edward> and download GhostScript (which comes with ps2pdf). Print
Edward> to a file then ps2pdf the file, and voila[1].
Exercise for the interested people:
Write a "friendly" native filter that combines the postscript printer
driver and Ghostscript to make the generation of PDF more convenient.
Edward> Personally, I think people should use (La)TeX instead.
You mean pdflatex? Yeah! That's great! With the "hyperref" package,
it automagically generates links from table of content to the
referenced sections, from citation to the reference items, from
footnote marks to the footnote entry.
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:51:41 +1200
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
> >> I think YaST is a mighty fine admin tool. I consider it a loss for the
> >> people at large that this tool cannot be reused in other distributions /
> >> OSes.
> >maybe they (SuSE) could license YaST to other distro's?
>
> That would be nice, unless of course, it would render the other distro's
> just as undistributable as SuSE...
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
Why do you have an anti-suse agenda? because you actually have to spend money?
because unlike Redhat, they are actually making a profit? they are actually
producing a better quality distro than Redhat? they have actually produced
some software rather than riding on the back of GPL developers? they actually
support projects that are worthwhile? such as reiserfs and kde.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:53:38 +1200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Under Linux? Lots. Embed a spereadsheet document into a word
> > > processing
> > > > > document, for instance.
> > > >
> > > > Just did it then. Give me another challenge.
> > >
> > > Really? You can in-place edit the spreadsheet from within the word
> > > processing document? I'd be quite surprised to see that on Linux.
> >
> > Just imported a Access table into Paradox without any problems. Quattro
> > Pro is handling MS Excel with any formatting issues, and Wordperfect is
> > as stable as the pope. Please, yet again I stress, where are the
> > so-called features that MS Office has that Wordperfect hasn't.
>
> That's not what I said. I said, In-place edit an embedded spreadsheet
> within the word processing document. What you are doing is converting the
> excel spreadsheet into a database format, which is something totally
> different.
what part of "Just imported a Access table into Paradox" don't you
understand?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
