Gene Buckle wrote:
>
> > Gene Buckle wrote:
> > >
> > > > > As long as the royalties are paid in a timely manner, I don't care. The cost
> > > > > is .4 cents per use, rounded down on each one to the nearest penny.
> > > > >
> > > > > [IOW, free ;-)]
> > > >
> > > > I will mention, though, th
Jon S. Berndt writes:
>
> > Twins == Full time diaper changer?
>
> Almost, because there are several more steps than merely changing the diaper
> with newborn boys because ... well, I'll forego the explanation. Suffice it
> to say that it takes a good ten minutes to complete the entire task.
Ca
> > I will mention, though, that you're infringing on my US Patent
> > #09860987, covering the use of bitmapped images for representing the
> > initiation of sequences of machine-encoded instructions stored on a
> > personal computing device. Please feel free to contact my law firm to
> > make ap
Gene Buckle writes:
> > > As long as the royalties are paid in a timely manner, I don't care. The cost
> > > is .4 cents per use, rounded down on each one to the nearest penny.
> > >
> > > [IOW, free ;-)]
> >
> > I will mention, though, that you're infringing on my US Patent
> > #09860987, c
> > As long as the royalties are paid in a timely manner, I don't care. The cost
> > is .4 cents per use, rounded down on each one to the nearest penny.
> >
> > [IOW, free ;-)]
>
> I will mention, though, that you're infringing on my US Patent
> #09860987, covering the use of bitmapped image
Jon S. Berndt writes:
> > Jon Berndt is the artist, but I can't imagine that he'd have a problem
> > with us distributing it.
>
> As long as the royalties are paid in a timely manner, I don't care. The cost
> is .4 cents per use, rounded down on each one to the nearest penny.
>
> [IOW, f
> Jon Berndt is the artist, but I can't imagine that he'd have a problem
> with us distributing it.
As long as the royalties are paid in a timely manner, I don't care. The cost
is .4 cents per use, rounded down on each one to the nearest penny.
[IOW, free ;-)]
Jon
David Findlay writes:
> > Sorry a little slow on reading the list lately. This is one I've been
> > using for quite a while as a desktop icon...its just something hacked out
> > of the webpage logo:
> >
> > http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/fgfs-jims-icon.png
>
> I'm not one to criticise Da
I like the new icon. As windows can't use png files directly as icons, I
converted it into a format Windows can use:
http://www.geocities.com/pmb.geo/fgfs-jims-icon.ico
Have fun!
Michael
--
Michael Basler, Jena, Germany
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/pm
> Sorry a little slow on reading the list lately. This is one I've been
> using for quite a while as a desktop icon...its just something hacked out
> of the webpage logo:
>
> http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/fgfs-jims-icon.png
I'm not one to criticise David Megginson's artwork, I think this one is
Jim Wilson writes:
> Yeah that's what i meant to say...i hacked it from the logo at the top of
> the flightgear.org page. As far as freely redistributable you'll have to
> talk to the webmaster ;-)
Jon Berndt is the artist, but I can't imagine that he'd have a problem
with us distributing it.
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Megginson writes:
> > Jim Wilson writes:
> >
> > > Sorry a little slow on reading the list lately. This is one I've
> > > been using for quite a while as a desktop icon...its just something
> > > hacked out of the webpage logo:
> > >
> >
David Megginson writes:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > Sorry a little slow on reading the list lately. This is one I've
> > been using for quite a while as a desktop icon...its just something
> > hacked out of the webpage logo:
> >
> > http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/fgfs-jims-icon.png
>
> Tha
Jim Wilson writes:
> Sorry a little slow on reading the list lately. This is one I've
> been using for quite a while as a desktop icon...its just something
> hacked out of the webpage logo:
>
> http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/fgfs-jims-icon.png
That's a nice icon. What logo is it hacked o
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Graphic Artists
> ---
>
> We also need a couple of good icons, one for the application and one
> for its data files. I made a crappy one depicting a 3/4 view of a
> inexplicably greenish Cessna 310 in a steep turn, and will use it if
> no
Alex Perry writes:
>
>SO, ANY PROGRAM THAT NEEDS TO BE PORTABLE TO ALL VERSIONS OF
>WINDOWS (that are capable of 3D support) NEEDS TO ALLOW FOR THE
>FACT THAT IMPORTANT FILES MAY APPEAR TO HAVE 8.3 NAME LIMITATIONS.
for those REALLY interested a definitive document
http://msdn.microsoft.com/libra
throttle1000 wrote:
>
> The DOS is dead after 95. I know because I had
> lot of problems since the WIN32 dos in WIN95 was
> not any more a real dos. It was a WIN32 emulating dos.
>
> The file name header was no more kept as it was in the
> real DOS. I kept some secret bytes in the file header
>
The DOS is dead after 95. I know because I had
lot of problems since the WIN32 dos in WIN95 was
not any more a real dos. It was a WIN32 emulating dos.
The file name header was no more kept as it was in the
real DOS. I kept some secret bytes in the file header
space on the real DOS .. and it worke
> Not true!
I dispute that.
> All windows should be equal after 95.
Yes, they should.
No, they aren't.
> They all use the same WIN32 core.
No, they don't.
> And they even
> run the same exe files!
Yes, they do, but
I don't see what that has to do with the filesystem.
> For a programmer the
throttle1000 wrote:
>
> Not true! All windows should be equal after 95.
> They all use the same WIN32 core. And they even
> run the same exe files!
>
> For a programmer there should only be one system:
> WIN32 (95, 98, 2000, NT etc)
>
> Additional to NT etc. in 95/98/etc there is a dos window
>
Not true! All windows should be equal after 95.
They all use the same WIN32 core. And they even
run the same exe files!
For a programmer there should only be one system:
WIN32 (95, 98, 2000, NT etc)
Additional to NT etc. in 95/98/etc there is a dos window
and the dos is simulated by the WIN32 co
Jon S. Berndt writes:
>
>Norman wrote:
>
>> Please stick with 8.3 or else Win9X development will be 'hampered'
>> in a way that would be similar to what Unix development would
>> experience if we were to allow spaces in filenames.
It seems to be a non-issue in W2KPro.
Indeed but ...
Win9X is
Norman wrote:
> Please stick with 8.3 or else Win9X development will be 'hampered'
> in a way that would be similar to what Unix development would
> experience if we were to allow spaces in filenames.
I'll stay out of this one except to say that I don't stick with the 8.3 rule
in filenames and I
Norman Vine writes:
> It is the CLI that has potential problems i.e
>
> C:\tmp>dir jnk*
>
> Volume in drive C is NHV_233
> Volume Serial Number is 000F-
> Directory of C:\tmp
>
> JNK~1MEG10 01-05-02 10:53a jnk.megginson
> JNK~2MEG10 01-05-02
David Megginson writes:
>
>Erik Hofman writes:
>
> > As far as I know, only dos (and Windows3.1) do have this
>restriction.
> > OS/2, MacOS, BeOS, all Unices and Win9x+ support more than
>3 characters
> > in the extension.
>
>I know that VFAT and FAT32 allow extensions greater than three chars,
Norman Vine wrote:
> This is exactly the reason to stay with 8.3 file names
> i.e. the paramount rule in practical user interface design
> THE USER DOES NOT HAVE TO GUESS -- EVER !!
>
> Supporting the Point and Click Interface of Win9X is not enough
> the underlying file system is DOS no matter
David Megginson wrote:
> Erik Hofman writes:
>
> > As far as I know, only dos (and Windows3.1) do have this restriction.
> > OS/2, MacOS, BeOS, all Unices and Win9x+ support more than 3 characters
> > in the extension.
>
> I know that VFAT and FAT32 allow extensions greater than three chars
Erik Hofman writes:
> As far as I know, only dos (and Windows3.1) do have this restriction.
> OS/2, MacOS, BeOS, all Unices and Win9x+ support more than 3 characters
> in the extension.
I know that VFAT and FAT32 allow extensions greater than three chars,
but does the desktop manager allow l
Christian Mayer writes:
>
>David Megginson wrote:
>>
>> Norman Vine writes:
>>
>> > The general rule of thumb for portable applications is to use
>> > the lowest common denominator or in the case filenames
>> >
>> > use the 8.3 rule
>>
>> The question is whether any operating systems that h
David Megginson wrote:
>
> Norman Vine writes:
>
> > The general rule of thumb for portable applications is to use
> > the lowest common denominator or in the case filenames
> >
> > use the 8.3 rule
> >
> > max 8 letters for a file or directory name
> > max 3 letters for a file extension
David Megginson wrote:
> Norman Vine writes:
>
> > The general rule of thumb for portable applications is to use
> > the lowest common denominator or in the case filenames
> >
> > use the 8.3 rule
> >
> > max 8 letters for a file or directory name
> > max 3 letters for a file extension
David Megginson writes:
>
>Norman Vine writes:
>
> > The general rule of thumb for portable applications is to use
> > the lowest common denominator or in the case filenames
> >
> > use the 8.3 rule
> >
> > max 8 letters for a file or directory name
> > max 3 letters for a file extension
> >
>
Norman Vine writes:
> The general rule of thumb for portable applications is to use
> the lowest common denominator or in the case filenames
>
> use the 8.3 rule
>
> max 8 letters for a file or directory name
> max 3 letters for a file extension
>
> do not use case to differentiate n
David Megginson writes:
>
>Erik Hofman writes:
>
> > I think the idea is to select the icon, and the start FlightGear from
> > there I guess?
> > Is there actually *any* reasun not to use extentions other than 3
> > characters, e.g. like .fgfs ?
>
>I don't know. There's none under the Linux des
Erik Hofman writes:
> I think the idea is to select the icon, and the start FlightGear from
> there I guess?
> Is there actually *any* reasun not to use extentions other than 3
> characters, e.g. like .fgfs ?
I don't know. There's none under the Linux desktop managers I've
tried -- does W
David Megginson wrote:
> I think it's time to think of a TLE for FlightGear situation files, to
> make it easy to associate them with FlightGear in a GUI environment.
> We can rule out "xml" or "sav", since they're too common. Here are
> some unimaginative suggestions:
I think the idea is to
David Megginson wrote:
> Graphic Artists
> ---
>
> We also need a couple of good icons, one for the application and one
> for its data files. I made a crappy one depicting a 3/4 view of a
> inexplicably greenish Cessna 310 in a steep turn, and will use it if
> no one develops anyth
I think it's time to think of a TLE for FlightGear situation files, to
make it easy to associate them with FlightGear in a GUI environment.
We can rule out "xml" or "sav", since they're too common. Here are
some unimaginative suggestions:
fsf - "Flightgear Save File"
fgf - "FlightGear File"
fgd
38 matches
Mail list logo
