On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 03:39:54PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> I am not saying I prefer xv over free software, I am saying I found
> a situation where free software fails, while xv does not. (and I
> want to have the bug found and fixed, so that I need not use xv, but
> until then, I have to)
Radovan Garabik wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 09:28:19AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Radovan Garabik wrote:
> >
> > > I just made some png files, and neither xzgv nor gqview can
> > > display them. xv is fine.
> >
> > Try imagemagick's display.
>
> does not work.
> xzgv and di
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 09:28:19AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Radovan Garabik wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 08:58:48PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > Let's try this: everything that you can do with xv you can do with
> > > either gqview or GIMP.
> >
> > I just made some png
Radovan Garabik wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 08:58:48PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Let's try this: everything that you can do with xv you can do with
> > either gqview or GIMP.
>
> I just made some png files, and neither xzgv nor gqview can
> display them. xv is fine. I am going to
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 08:58:48PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 13-Jun-00, 18:14 (CDT), Chris Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW, everything that you can do with xv can be done with some
> > > combination of the GIMP and xzgv pa
> On 14-Jun-00, 02:31 (CDT), Pablo Baena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is just one step required for non-free software to become
> > propietary in some cases. i.e.: wine. It had some kind of home-made
> > license and then went to the BSD license. The guy owning wine could
> > just sell wine to
On 14-Jun-00, 02:31 (CDT), Pablo Baena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is just one step required for non-free software to become
> propietary in some cases. i.e.: wine. It had some kind of home-made
> license and then went to the BSD license. The guy owning wine could
> just sell wine to any compa
On 13-Jun-00, 18:14 (CDT), Chris Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> > FWIW, everything that you can do with xv can be done with some
> > combination of the GIMP and xzgv packages in woody.
> >
> > The only advantage to xv is that the visual schna
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> FWIW, everything that you can do with xv can be done with some
> combination of the GIMP and xzgv packages in woody.
>
> The only advantage to xv is that the visual schnauzer is probably more
> fun to use than the GIMP's file selector, which (in 1.1.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miguel Wooding SF Ten.Union) wrote:
>Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> All make less, some make more (like transparency). I allways wanted to
>> have a replacement thats fully free, but I can use xv for free, so why
>> bother. Thats one of the programs I would writ
On Jun 13, Miguel Wooding SF Ten.Union wrote:
> I can only encourage you to add the functionality you need to one of
> the free viewers.
FWIW, everything that you can do with xv can be done with some
combination of the GIMP and xzgv packages in woody.
The only advantage to xv is that the visua
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * xv: do alternative viewer make what xv does? gtksee, gqview,
> > imagemagick
>
> All make less, some make more (like transparency). I allways wanted to
> have a replacement thats fully free, but I can use xv for free, so why
> both
Now you got a point. I just made a mistake, based on the examples people
gave, all that stuff seemed propietary software. I was wrong. Anyway,
my point is still valid for non-free software as well. It is just one
step required for non-free software to become propietary in some cases.
i.e.: wine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pablo Baena) writes:
x
> I'm not hardly following the thread, somebody probably already
> mentioned this, anyway: stop trying to find replaces for propietary
> software as a reason for not supporting it.
I would like to end one fallacy now: Debian's definition of "non-f
Hello!
I'm not hardly following the thread, somebody probably already
mentioned this, anyway: stop trying to find replaces for propietary
software as a reason for not supporting it. We'll never be completely
free of propietary software. We'll get more propietary software in
the future, an
>On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:13:08PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
>> > " " == Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As a conclusion one can only say, we need non-free.
>
>no matter how some people do not like the idea, you are right
surely we need it. if we don't need a cc wh
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:13:08PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > " " == Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 06:30:10PM +0200, David N. Welton
> > wrote:
> ...
> > Maybe popularity-contest could help us. We know that pine and
>
> " " == Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 06:30:10PM +0200, David N. Welton
> wrote:
...
> Maybe popularity-contest could help us. We know that pine and
> netscape are very important. Mozilla exists, but what about
> pine? It
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 06:30:10PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> If people really want to do something useful, which will show in a
> practical way that we can do without non-free software, why don't you
> take all of the programs in non-free, and make a hit list. Examine
> them and see if the
[ please cc replies to me ]
If people really want to do something useful, which will show in a
practical way that we can do without non-free software, why don't you
take all of the programs in non-free, and make a hit list. Examine
them and see if there is a free replacement that is every bit as
20 matches
Mail list logo
