745 lines
30 KiB
Plaintext
745 lines
30 KiB
Plaintext
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
|
|
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 03:13:20 EDT
|
|
Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #955
|
|
|
|
Linux-Misc Digest #955, Volume #2 Mon, 17 Oct 94 03:13:20 EDT
|
|
|
|
Contents:
|
|
Re: Weakest Linux Box (David E. Fox)
|
|
Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (David E. Fox)
|
|
Re: What is Linux good for? (Daniel Woodard)
|
|
Re: Help getting HP Deskjet 500 to work under Linux (zachary brown)
|
|
Re: Copyright Violations Plague the Net (Hutsel Barry E)
|
|
[INFO WANTED] Memory required for 100 terminals? (Harmon Seaver)
|
|
Re: [INFO WANTED] C/SLIP vs. PPP (Harmon Seaver)
|
|
Re: Linux doesn't like my cache (Sean A. Long)
|
|
Which file to auto-run X programs in? (Jay Ward)
|
|
Word Processors for Linux (John S Walker)
|
|
Re: Fintronic ---> VERY impressive!!! (Marc Fraioli)
|
|
Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (Byron A Jeff)
|
|
Joy of recycling (root)
|
|
Re: Copyright Violations Plague the Net (just another theatre geek)
|
|
Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom (Guess who?)
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: root@belvedere.sbay.org (David E. Fox)
|
|
Subject: Re: Weakest Linux Box
|
|
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 19:14:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
I started out with a 386SX/16, 4 megs RAM, and a Cyrix math coprocessor,
|
|
and ran Linux on it quite nicely for sometime. Although I upgraded to 8
|
|
megs of RAM sometime ago, I still use a 386SX/16; and since it is my
|
|
only machine I do everything on it - news/mail processing, compiling, and
|
|
whatever else that I do.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
David Fox root@belvedere.sbay.org
|
|
5479 Castle Manor Drive
|
|
San Jose, CA 95129 Thanks for letting me change
|
|
408/253-7992 magnetic patterns on your hard disk.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
|
|
From: root@belvedere.sbay.org (David E. Fox)
|
|
Subject: Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processors for Linux?
|
|
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 19:45:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Mat Ballard (m.ballard@forprod.csiro.au) wrote:
|
|
|
|
: more seriously, i'd like to suggest that what is needed, particularly
|
|
: to appeal to the average dos/win user, is a series of useful and capable
|
|
: applets, in roughly this order of need:
|
|
|
|
: 0. a very simple editor, like "notepad";
|
|
|
|
FWIW, notepad becomes rather useless as the user progresses. Perhaps it's
|
|
easy, perhaps it's suitable for small changes to files (which happen to be
|
|
small, of course) but I wouldn't want to use it. What's wrong with vi? I
|
|
know it has a steeper learning curve than does Notepad, but one doesn't
|
|
have to learn all of vi's commands at once. And, the number of needed
|
|
commands that you need to do most typical edits in vi is probably roughly
|
|
the same as those in Notepad.
|
|
|
|
So, stick with vi. People won't need to relearn when they find out that a
|
|
Notepad-like editor can't do the editing that they need.
|
|
|
|
: 1. a word processor: maybe similar to "write";
|
|
|
|
ez is quite likely superior to write. Personally I prefer document
|
|
formatting programs such as troff/TeX over word processors. The reason is
|
|
simple - the editing process (i.e, moving cursor around, deleting &
|
|
inserting text etc.) should be divorced from the word processing process
|
|
(flushing text, centering, etc.) The reason for this is simple - in my
|
|
experience with DOS/Windows, one usually finds nice word processors which
|
|
excel in the processing department but are limited in the editing
|
|
department.
|
|
|
|
: 2. a spreadsheet: similar to "quattro pro dos";
|
|
|
|
While 'sc', 'oleo' and 'xspread' are nice, they just don't look as nice as
|
|
do the DOS spreadsheets. I agree with this point mostly for the reason
|
|
that I've used DOS spreadsheets so much that touch-typing 123-style
|
|
commands is second nature, but not so with things like oleo (although they
|
|
do use emacs-style keystrokes for some things, which is a win).
|
|
|
|
: 3. a paint program: similar to "paintbrush";
|
|
|
|
xpaint does a rather good job.
|
|
|
|
: 4. a draw program: something the drawing package in "amipro";
|
|
: 5. a pim / calendar: something better than "calendar", but simpler
|
|
: than "organiser";
|
|
: 6. a database: like DBase 3;.
|
|
|
|
There are databases (but not like dbase) for linux such as Postgres. I
|
|
don't use them. For most needs, I'm not sure databases are as necessary
|
|
under Unix, since you can use all the unix text-processing tools (that are
|
|
largely nonexistent under DOS) to manage data.
|
|
|
|
: they would need to have certain abilities and properties:
|
|
|
|
: a. a "common look and feel" (which one ? hell, pick a popular
|
|
: GUI and copy it; other people have);
|
|
|
|
Well, there's plenty of that type of thing common in the X-windows world,
|
|
such as Athena widgets, Motif, etc.
|
|
|
|
: b. ability to read and write the common formats: eg: the word
|
|
: processor must have filters for text, RTF, ps, Word (in as
|
|
: many incarnations as possible), etc; the spreadsheet must do
|
|
: .wk1, .wk3, .xls, etc.
|
|
|
|
I _hate_ proprietary data formats. Flat ascii is preferable - it's likely
|
|
much easier, for instance, to generate a sc-spreadsheet file with filters,
|
|
shell scripts, or C than it is to generate something in a DOS spreadsheet
|
|
format.
|
|
|
|
But since this cancer is so prevalent under DOS, some data interchange
|
|
format is a necessity. Flat Ascii doesn't cut it usually -- I've had quite
|
|
a few problems reading Ascii files into WP for instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Mat Ballard
|
|
--
|
|
David Fox root@belvedere.sbay.org
|
|
5479 Castle Manor Drive
|
|
San Jose, CA 95129 Thanks for letting me change
|
|
408/253-7992 magnetic patterns on your hard disk.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: SA073@getty.onu.edu (Daniel Woodard)
|
|
Subject: Re: What is Linux good for?
|
|
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 23:06:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
>I "found" the linux news groups yesterday also. However, I read the
|
|
>FAQ and the HOW-TOs before this, my first posting. I found the FAQ on
|
|
>comp.os.linux.announce yesterday. So they are there. No excuses for
|
|
>not seeing them. On the other hand, some of you linux advocates may
|
|
>want to be a little nicer with potential brethren. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How come the FAQ is not even in this newsgroup? I haven't ever seen
|
|
another newsgroup that keeps the FAQ in another newsgroup, and doesn't even
|
|
post it in their own.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: zbrown@lynx.dac.neu.edu (zachary brown)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
|
|
Subject: Re: Help getting HP Deskjet 500 to work under Linux
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 1994 23:56:27 -0400
|
|
|
|
In article <kiddykidCxsJ8w.LB8@netcom.com>,
|
|
Ren B. Bitonio <kiddykid@netcom.com> wrote:
|
|
>Trying to fix the staircase effect of my HP DeskJet 500 printer,
|
|
>I modified my printcap with an inclusion of a filter.
|
|
>
|
|
>However, I got nothing and I got a status saying
|
|
>"waiting for myprinter to become ready (offline?)" but it is online.
|
|
|
|
GENERAL INFO:
|
|
In the Owner's Manual, there should be an appendix with HP PCL Printer
|
|
Command Summary, which in turn should have a section under Printer Control,
|
|
called Line Termination. The last entry of that section is the relavant one.
|
|
It indicates sending, with the escape character represented by Ec,
|
|
Ec&k3G
|
|
to the printer before printing.
|
|
|
|
SPECIFICS:
|
|
In practice, I have to send that escape sequence every time I bring the
|
|
printer online, which is usually every time I turn it on. To be on the safe
|
|
side you should have the sequence sent before every print job.
|
|
|
|
To generate the sequence is easy.
|
|
|
|
echo -e "\033[&k3G"
|
|
|
|
is one way
|
|
|
|
#include <stdio.h>
|
|
void main(){
|
|
printf("\x01b\x026\x06b\x033\x047");
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
is another.
|
|
|
|
-ZB-
|
|
|
|
p.s. read the docs before you post to the net.
|
|
Printing-HOWTO section 3.11
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
>Ren
|
|
>--
|
|
>< Ren B. Bitonio (kiddykid@netcom.com, rbitonio@scudc.scu.edu, et. al. ) >
|
|
> "On your own admission, you raised up the knife
|
|
> And you brought it down ending another man's life."
|
|
> -- David Gilmour
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: 3beh5@qlink.queensu.ca (Hutsel Barry E)
|
|
Crossposted-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc,misc.legal,gnu.misc.discuss
|
|
Subject: Re: Copyright Violations Plague the Net
|
|
Date: 17 Oct 1994 04:45:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Binesh Bannerjee (binesh@panix.com) wrote:
|
|
|
|
: And noone has yet told me any tangible
|
|
: way that Paramount is getting hurt... I've heard "potential loss"
|
|
: I've heard "it's not the writers final draft" etc. etc, but no real
|
|
: way that Paramounts wallet is hurting... Certainly not per EACH
|
|
: copy that is made (cause I've heard about the 1% of the population
|
|
: who reads the script and says "I ain't paying to see that", which
|
|
: if Paramount counts that, they should bring libel suits against
|
|
: every reviewer also... Unless people tell me that reviewers all
|
|
: have to be registered with Paramount before they do a review.)
|
|
|
|
The fact remains that under the copyright legislation Paramont does not
|
|
have to prove any loss. The original poster of the scipt violated the
|
|
law and any subsequent posters (whether or not they were the ones who
|
|
stole the script) are also in violation. Paramont's loss is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
However, if you do want to consider loss (say for example if Paramont was
|
|
to sue the poster of the script in tort), the amount of loss would only
|
|
be relevant to the amount of damages awarded. All Paramont would have to
|
|
prove to be awarded judgment would be some loss. All it would have to
|
|
prove is that one person who might have purchased the script or bought a
|
|
ticket to the movie did not do so because of the unauthorized
|
|
publication. AND, I think even YOU would have to agree that this would
|
|
be an easy thing for Paramont to do (I dare say that it might be the law
|
|
that Paramont would only have to prove potential loss, but I'm not
|
|
certain on that point and therefore do not assert it here).
|
|
|
|
Hope this helps....
|
|
|
|
--Barry
|
|
|
|
=============================
|
|
Barry E. Hutsel O___
|
|
2-542 Frontenac _.>/ _
|
|
Kingston, Ont. (_) \(_) ................
|
|
K7K 4M2
|
|
ph (613) 531-8819 "... I'd rather be on the road."
|
|
3beh5@qlink.queensu.ca
|
|
hutsel@mbnet.mb.ca
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: hseaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harmon Seaver)
|
|
Subject: [INFO WANTED] Memory required for 100 terminals?
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 1994 07:34:40 -0600
|
|
Reply-To: hseaver@nyx.cs.du.edu
|
|
|
|
I'm doing a class project to try to convince various grade and high
|
|
school officials that they would be much smarter to buy a 586 and 100
|
|
dumb terminals and run Linux/Xwindows/Motif than buying 100 macs. Or even
|
|
just running Linux in text mode, since mostly what school computers are
|
|
used for is just word processing anyway, and have a few macs or whatever
|
|
for the other stuff.
|
|
So here's my question: How much RAM and how much swap space does a 586
|
|
need (or a 486 even) to run 100 terminals, either in text mode or Xwin
|
|
mode? And can I even run Xwin on dumb terminals? Also, does anyone know
|
|
of any good cheap vga res terminals w/color? Last time I looked, a few
|
|
years ago, the cheapest was about $800. Also, what would you use for
|
|
ports for that many terminals?
|
|
|
|
Thanx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harmon Seaver
|
|
hseaver@nyx.cs.du.edu
|
|
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
|
|
<> "The Way of the Samurai is death." - Jocho Yamamoto 1710 Hagakure <>
|
|
<> "Let no man's life stand in the way -- especially your own." <>
|
|
<> Miyamoto Musashi 1584-1645 <>
|
|
<> "The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here <>
|
|
<> and you are out there." Yasutani Roshi <>
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: hseaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harmon Seaver)
|
|
Subject: Re: [INFO WANTED] C/SLIP vs. PPP
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 1994 07:34:43 -0600
|
|
Reply-To: hseaver@nyx.cs.du.edu
|
|
|
|
In article <37naoq$ck@myrddin.imat.com>, nelson@seahunt.imat.com wrote:
|
|
> Harmon Seaver wrote in article <X8TliqUp4b8N073yn@nyx.cs.du.edu> :
|
|
> >
|
|
> > I'm doing a class project to try to convince various grade and high
|
|
> >school officials that they would be much smarter to buy a 586 and 100
|
|
> >dumb terminals and run Linux/Xwindows/Motif than buying 100 macs. Or even
|
|
> >just running Linux in text mode, since mostly what school computers are
|
|
> >used for is just word processing anyway, and have a few macs or whatever
|
|
> >for the other stuff.
|
|
|
|
(Stuff deleted)
|
|
|
|
> Personally, if they have the money, I think their solution with
|
|
> 100 Macs is a better idea. Linux and Xwindows aren't particularly friendly
|
|
> for novice users. They'd probably be far more productive with the Macs.
|
|
|
|
You've got to be kidding! Number One -- a hundred Macs is a 1/4
|
|
million dollars. The problem is that -- if you haven't noticed -- the
|
|
school systems in this country are broke. They need new solutions,
|
|
and real quick.
|
|
>
|
|
> Mind you, personally I don't like Macs, and much prefer the Unix
|
|
> style environment... but I don't deceive myself into thinking it's the
|
|
> right environment for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Number Two -- you obviously are very new to the unix
|
|
world. If you take a look around, you will find that 90% of unix end
|
|
users are clueless computer illiterates -- secretaries, file clerks, and
|
|
people using the computerized card catalog at college and public libraries.
|
|
You only need one person to administer the system --- the users just
|
|
do word processing, databasing, etc from a menu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harmon Seaver
|
|
hseaver@nyx.cs.du.edu
|
|
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
|
|
<> "The Way of the Samurai is death." - Jocho Yamamoto 1710 Hagakure <>
|
|
<> "Let no man's life stand in the way -- especially your own." <>
|
|
<> Miyamoto Musashi 1584-1645 <>
|
|
<> "The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here <>
|
|
<> and you are out there." Yasutani Roshi <>
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: LONGSA%DFCS@dfmail.usafa.af.mil (Sean A. Long)
|
|
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't like my cache
|
|
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 18:58:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <3728q4$7vk@nntp1.u.washington.edu> dcflood@u.washington.edu (David Flood) writes:
|
|
>>Try increasing the cache read/write wait states... I have a similiar
|
|
setup >>and at 33 Mhz, works nicely but at 40Mhz, get errors compiling and
|
|
random >>other little faults which eventually hose something important and
|
|
the >>machine dies a rather entertaining death...
|
|
|
|
>Well, the default is write is 1. When I try 2, lilo bombs with a crc error
|
|
>during uncompress. The only other availible setting is 0. The only read
|
|
>setting is one called 'Cache Read Cycle'. It is set to 2-1-1-1 and can be
|
|
>set to 3-2-2-2 or 2-2-2-2. I'll try the others with a 1 write setting and
|
|
>get back to you.
|
|
|
|
Me again... I upgraded my 386dx33 to a 486dlc40, simple chip swap since my
|
|
MB directly supports the chip. Well, 70ns main memory appears to be a bit
|
|
slow, while my 20ns cache works fine at 40 with no wait states. After
|
|
trying bunches of stuff, it turns out that I NEED 1 read and write wait
|
|
state on main memory, but no wait states on cache. I had thought that 70ns
|
|
memory was good up to 40 mhz, but I guess 60 is REALLY required. I tested
|
|
this by (grin) compiling the kernel over and over. If it compiled, the
|
|
combo worked. If it bombed (usually late in "make dep" or early in "make
|
|
zlilo", I needed to change something. Got to try on a lot of kernels that
|
|
way... got compiles down to around 40 min thou... (486DLC/8meg ram).
|
|
|
|
Good luck finding problem.
|
|
|
|
-=>Sean Long
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: jayward@cs.pdx.edu (Jay Ward)
|
|
Subject: Which file to auto-run X programs in?
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 1994 21:39:18 -0700
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi folks!
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to start up some programs (xclock, xbiff, etc.) when X
|
|
starts, but everything in my .xsession is being ignored. Does fvwm
|
|
use some other file in my home dir to load from? I've modified the
|
|
system.fvwmrc in /usr/X11/lib/X11, but that's just for menus, colors,
|
|
etc. right?
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
|| Jay Ward || jayward@rigel.cs.pdx.edu ||
|
|
||=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-||
|
|
|| Portland State University ||
|
|
|| Portland, Oregon ||
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: jsw9c@virginia.edu (John S Walker)
|
|
Subject: Word Processors for Linux
|
|
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 17:47:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Just thought I'd throw my two cents worth into the fray.
|
|
|
|
Does anybody remember a word processor put out by Lotus in the mid '80s
|
|
called `Manuscript'. It was a damn good processor with an emphasis on
|
|
structured documents like academic papers. It followed the same trend
|
|
as LateX by using logical formatting rather than a WYSIWYG interface.
|
|
It also had an integrated outline processor that makes all the other
|
|
outliners look weak (even now). It had an equation language somewhat
|
|
similar to TeX and could produce excellent output. It had a page preview
|
|
function which gave a reasonable but not excellent indication of how the
|
|
final document would look. It could import graphics and produce post-
|
|
script output. In short it was a high-end wordprocessor with
|
|
all the bells and whistles PC users had come to expect.
|
|
|
|
The program was dropped by Lotus when AmiPro was aquired.
|
|
I'm no programmer, but it might be worth tracking down whatever happened
|
|
to the source code to see if it could be ported to Linux.
|
|
If it could be ported over It would come close to serving
|
|
everybody's needs; a text based interface that could be used
|
|
over a modem, a page previewer that could run under VGA mode
|
|
or in an X-window. Until someone with a lot more programming
|
|
capability than I come up with `Manuscript for Linux' I'll just
|
|
have to content myself with running it in DOSEMU and printing the
|
|
postscript files using aps.
|
|
|
|
Just a thought! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Walker
|
|
Dept of Physiology
|
|
University of Virginia
|
|
|
|
`A total Newbie to Linux, and loving it!'
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: mjf@clark.net (Marc Fraioli)
|
|
Subject: Re: Fintronic ---> VERY impressive!!!
|
|
Date: 14 Oct 1994 22:31:06 GMT
|
|
Reply-To: mjf@clark.net
|
|
|
|
In article A9L@news.cern.ch, danpop@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
|
|
>In <37hu3f$f5k@clarknet.clark.net> mjf@clark.net (Marc Fraioli) writes:
|
|
>>Wow, for that money you're in low-end RISC territory. You can get entry
|
|
>>level RISC boxes from Sun, HP, or IBM for less than that, all with 16MB
|
|
>>RAM and at least 16" color monitors. True, they have smaller disks (Sun
|
|
>>gives you a 535, IBM a 260, not sure about HP) and no tape, but you
|
|
> ^^ -- it's 260, too.
|
|
>>get a _much_ faster CPU. Of course, they don't include source to their
|
|
>>OSes either...
|
|
>
|
|
>Have you ever tried to work on one of these entry level workstations?
|
|
|
|
Yes, a SPARC 5/70MHz, running SunOS 4.1.3.
|
|
|
|
>They're severely underconfigured, especially as far as disks and memory
|
|
>are concerned, which means that they swap madly when you try to do
|
|
>anything. And a system with a 260 MB disk can be used only in a network,
|
|
>where almost everything is stored on a remote file server. You can't fit
|
|
>the full OS and a decent swap partition on such a disk, don't even think
|
|
>of users home directories. The graphics hardware (adaptor and monitor)
|
|
>usually sucks, too.
|
|
>
|
|
I found the SS5 to be pretty good. True, it swapped, but it was fast
|
|
enough that it didn't seem to matter much. Doing the basic editing,
|
|
compiling, word processing and e-mailing that I do, the 5/70 with
|
|
16MB of RAM was faster than the SPARC 10 Model 30 with 32MB RAM that
|
|
I had sitting next to it. I considered it a pretty good machine.
|
|
|
|
>When you start considering adding another 16 MB RAM (a must) a decent
|
|
>disk and a better display (if you want better resolution you usually
|
|
>have to add some video memory, too), you find out that the price of the
|
|
>system has doubled (at least).
|
|
>
|
|
Again, I didn't find the 16MB too bad, although I only used the system
|
|
for two weeks. The disk would be a little tight, I agree, if I didn't
|
|
have my home directory and apps NFS-mounted (but I did, so I had some
|
|
200MB of empty space on that 535 disk).
|
|
|
|
>Compare this with a pretty well configured PC, that works like a
|
|
>charm with a nice OS. I won't hesitate a single moment if I had to make
|
|
>a choice between a PC and a workstation having the same price. The
|
|
>workstation could be a winner only if all you have to do is number
|
|
>crunching. But even in this field, a P90 system beats most entry level
|
|
>workstations (especially Sun's):
|
|
>
|
|
>MACHINES MHz SPECint92 SPECfp92
|
|
>
|
|
>SUN/SPARC/5/70 70 57 47.3
|
|
>SUN/SPARC/5/85 85 64 54.6
|
|
>SGI/INDY/R4000SC 100 57.5 63
|
|
>IBM/RISC/6000/250 66 62.6 72.2
|
|
>DEC/3000/300LX 125 63.5 75.5
|
|
>HP/712/60 60 58.1 79
|
|
>
|
|
>Pentium 66 64 57
|
|
>Pentium 90 86 77
|
|
>
|
|
These numbers are fine, but keep in mind that the system under discussion
|
|
was a 486/66 which cost $4100 (pretty well decked out). To make that machine
|
|
a Pentium would have bumped it up some more, possibly into the next price
|
|
class of RISC machines.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
Marc Fraioli | "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist- "
|
|
mjf@clark.net | - Last words of Union General John Sedgwick,
|
|
| Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, U.S. Civil War
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: byron@gemini.cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
|
|
Subject: Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processors for Linux?
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 1994 22:32:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <1994Oct16.194547.12627@belvedere.sbay.org>,
|
|
David E. Fox <root@belvedere.sbay.org> wrote:
|
|
-Mat Ballard (m.ballard@forprod.csiro.au) wrote:
|
|
-
|
|
-: more seriously, i'd like to suggest that what is needed, particularly
|
|
-: to appeal to the average dos/win user, is a series of useful and capable
|
|
-: applets, in roughly this order of need:
|
|
-
|
|
-: 0. a very simple editor, like "notepad";
|
|
-
|
|
-FWIW, notepad becomes rather useless as the user progresses. Perhaps it's
|
|
-easy, perhaps it's suitable for small changes to files (which happen to be
|
|
-small, of course) but I wouldn't want to use it.
|
|
|
|
-What's wrong with vi?
|
|
|
|
Um the first word I think of when vi comes up is "brain-damaged". vi simply
|
|
didn't have the advantage of the human interaction research or the
|
|
benefit of other full-screen editors to get ideas from. But honestly it's
|
|
the most counter intuitive piece of software ever developed.
|
|
|
|
BTW I still use it everyday and can run it as effortlessly as I drive my
|
|
car. However I'd never ever ever recommed that someone learn it. JED, Joe
|
|
and emacs are all infintely better.
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
-: 1. a word processor: maybe similar to "write";
|
|
-
|
|
-ez is quite likely superior to write.
|
|
|
|
True.
|
|
|
|
-Personally I prefer document
|
|
-formatting programs such as troff/TeX over word processors. The reason is
|
|
-simple - the editing process (i.e, moving cursor around, deleting &
|
|
-inserting text etc.) should be divorced from the word processing process
|
|
-(flushing text, centering, etc.) The reason for this is simple - in my
|
|
-experience with DOS/Windows, one usually finds nice word processors which
|
|
-excel in the processing department but are limited in the editing
|
|
-department.
|
|
|
|
That doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact is that most of the
|
|
users of a wordprocessor expect wordprocessors to work the same way.
|
|
So a wordprocessor is needed.
|
|
|
|
More importantly a wordprocessor that functions using standard tools like
|
|
terminals, consoles, modems, telnetting, and the like because there are
|
|
a bunch of situations where these are the only tools available.
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
-: 2. a spreadsheet: similar to "quattro pro dos";
|
|
-
|
|
-While 'sc', 'oleo' and 'xspread' are nice, they just don't look as nice as
|
|
-do the DOS spreadsheets. I agree with this point mostly for the reason
|
|
-that I've used DOS spreadsheets so much that touch-typing 123-style
|
|
-commands is second nature, but not so with things like oleo (although they
|
|
-do use emacs-style keystrokes for some things, which is a win).
|
|
|
|
I think Linux is fine in this area.
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
-: 3. a paint program: similar to "paintbrush";
|
|
-
|
|
-xpaint does a rather good job.
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
-: 6. a database: like DBase 3;.
|
|
-
|
|
-There are databases (but not like dbase) for linux such as Postgres. I
|
|
-don't use them. For most needs, I'm not sure databases are as necessary
|
|
-under Unix, since you can use all the unix text-processing tools (that are
|
|
-largely nonexistent under DOS) to manage data.
|
|
-
|
|
-: they would need to have certain abilities and properties:
|
|
-
|
|
-: a. a "common look and feel" (which one ? hell, pick a popular
|
|
-: GUI and copy it; other people have);
|
|
-
|
|
-Well, there's plenty of that type of thing common in the X-windows world,
|
|
-such as Athena widgets, Motif, etc.
|
|
-
|
|
-: b. ability to read and write the common formats: eg: the word
|
|
-: processor must have filters for text, RTF, ps, Word (in as
|
|
-: many incarnations as possible), etc; the spreadsheet must do
|
|
-: .wk1, .wk3, .xls, etc.
|
|
-
|
|
-I _hate_ proprietary data formats. Flat ascii is preferable - it's likely
|
|
-much easier, for instance, to generate a sc-spreadsheet file with filters,
|
|
-shell scripts, or C than it is to generate something in a DOS spreadsheet
|
|
-format.
|
|
|
|
Agreed. In fact propritary data formats foremost purpose is to make it
|
|
difficult for other folks to duplicate tools that manage those files. And
|
|
that is exactly what we want here. ASCII is definitely the way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
-But since this cancer is so prevalent under DOS, some data interchange
|
|
-format is a necessity. Flat Ascii doesn't cut it usually -- I've had quite
|
|
-a few problems reading Ascii files into WP for instance.
|
|
|
|
YUP. We need converters.
|
|
|
|
Later,
|
|
|
|
BAJ
|
|
--
|
|
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
|
|
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
|
|
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (root)
|
|
Subject: Joy of recycling
|
|
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 02:44:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
I bought a big box of used floppies from an ad on the net for 5 cents
|
|
apiece. Some of them are factory labeled "Microsoft Windows
|
|
Operating Environment." (This was in the days before uSoft had the
|
|
audacity to call its kludge an OS.) It gives me great pleasure to
|
|
|
|
mke2fs -c -m0 /dev/fd1h1200 1200
|
|
|
|
and make these units useful again.
|
|
|
|
Cameron
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: gwangung@u.washington.edu (just another theatre geek)
|
|
Crossposted-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc,misc.legal,gnu.misc.discuss
|
|
Subject: Re: Copyright Violations Plague the Net
|
|
Date: 17 Oct 1994 06:11:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <37riod$44k@panix.com>, Binesh Bannerjee <binesh@panix.com> wrote:
|
|
>Gina Goff (GINA@ricevm1.rice.edu) wrote:
|
|
>: I'm following the perhaps conservative but undoubtedly safe assumption
|
|
> ^^^
|
|
>: that Paramount may have a legal basis for their objections. You, Binesh,
|
|
>: are the one who's so convinced no further damage can be done by continuing
|
|
>: to circulate the script. Until you call someone at the legal department at
|
|
>: Paramount and convince them you're right, I'll continue to believe that you're
|
|
>: just talking out your ass.
|
|
> ^^^
|
|
>
|
|
>(We all know what happens when you make assumptions)
|
|
|
|
Yes, which makes wonder why you continue to spout your drivel.
|
|
|
|
There aint no assumption about it; Paramount DEFINITELY has a
|
|
legal standing to protect there copyright.
|
|
|
|
>Well, I'm not the one making assumptions about an incremental damage
|
|
>that may or may not exist, in the absence of any evidence that it
|
|
>does (by your own admission).
|
|
|
|
Irrelevant. (You love to attend to irrelevancies, don't you).
|
|
|
|
>I can't see any proof for incremental damage, despite your fervent
|
|
>FAITH that there is such a thing.
|
|
|
|
This is simply because you have no WISH to see any.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
|
|
|
|
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: someone@s96120.u96.stevens-tech.edu (Guess who?)
|
|
Subject: Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom
|
|
Reply-To: jmcphers@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
|
|
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 01:48:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Jeff Kesselman (jeffpk@netcom.com) wrote:
|
|
: In article <36ujf0$hvn@hacgate2.hac.com>, Ken Sorensen <ksore@atr-14> wrote:
|
|
: >Thomas Gschwind (tom@csdec1.tuwien.ac.at) wrote:
|
|
: >: Sujat Jamil (sujat@shasta.ee.umn.edu) wrote:
|
|
: >: : I'd really like to know why does Linux DOOM run significantly slower
|
|
: >: : on Linux than it does on DOS for the same machine. Is it because it
|
|
: >: : has to go through multiple layers of X and Linux? I've also played it
|
|
: >: : on a SGI workstation, where it is reasonably fast. Of course, the
|
|
: >: : machine also had a 150 MHz MIPS processor. Is there any way to
|
|
: >: : make doom run faster on Linux besides getting a faster machine?
|
|
|
|
One thing I've noticed--
|
|
It runs a HELUVA lot faster in XFree3.1 than it did in previous versions...
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
#------------------------------------------------------------------------#
|
|
| //\\ Jim McPherson | someone@s96120.u96.stevens-tech.edu |
|
|
| << >> Business Manger, WEXP | jmcphers@menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu |
|
|
| \\// IDC Rep., Palmer 3rd. | jmcphers@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu |
|
|
#>----------------------------------------------------------------------<#
|
|
| "Insanity is necessary for understanding." |
|
|
#>----------------------------------------------------------------------<#
|
|
| GCS/MU d?>! H-() s+:++ g-(+)>! p1+ !au>- a-- w+ v(-)(?)@>--- C++(+++) |
|
|
| UL++++S+U+X(-) P? L++>+++ 3- E- N(-) K- W(---)>! M-- V-(--) |
|
|
| -po+ Y+ t+ !5 j R(+) G'''>'''' !tv() b+ D+ B-- e+(++)>+++ |
|
|
| u(-)(**) h()@ f+@ r++ n- y+(**) |
|
|
#------------------------------------------------------------------------#
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
** 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: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU
|
|
|
|
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
|
|
|
|
Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU
|
|
|
|
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
|
|
nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux
|
|
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
|
|
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
|
|
|
|
End of Linux-Misc Digest
|
|
******************************
|