Re: staroffice
Nick Croft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: staroffice:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, David Teague wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > > StarOffice is a bloated stuck pig. It handles MS file formats fairly
> > > well though.
> It may be the only use for SO, take a Word .doc and turn it into
something
> Unix or universal like html.
> How fast does a computer need to be? I thought 133mh was slow. Put it on
a
> 333mh box today and it's no faster. Even at 600+ it would be slow if
> processor is the clue to speed.
500 mhz works fairly well. Memory seems to be really important. I
started getting good performance at around 128 megs. {linux and win}
Admitted... the program's no speed demon and startups are slow as hell...
I does run pretty nicely once it is started. This package is as capable
as you make it... which makes it as good as anything on the market in my
book. Nothing that's geared to working in HTML with all its attendant
capabilities and is as well implemented and well organized as Star Office
is should be written off as a format converter.
I don't need anything else {tho some sort of dict program would be nice
but... that's available through an HTML interface anyway} for office,
mail, HTML, database, etc, etc functions. Many people could get by with
this program alone. {which would make that startup problem a bit less of
an issue.}
This is, durn near, the perfect office interface. {whatever that means.}
Re: Hardware question - motherboards
> From: Bud Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> The s1834 >> is a little faster and uses the via apollo pro133a chipset. The >> s1832 uses the intel 440bx chipset. > >I just ordered an 1834 for a box at work. I looked around for a while >and it seemed the best choice for what I wanted to do. I'm using one at this very moment... I've not tried to set up linux on it yet. None of the "reviews" out there look favorable on that count. I'll just have to see how that goes though. Do pay attention to their "approved" memory requirements. It makes a world of difference. Though this thing was fairly stable with 128 megs of noname stuff it would occasionally give me errors. http://www.axiontech.com/cgi-local/hardware.asp?category=memory%5Fmodules Has Corsair chips fairly cheap.
WYSIWYG HTML Editor was Re: Rebooting is foolish ....
> From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, William Leese wrote: >> mmm, i'll give it a try. Just hope someone will come along with a good >> WYSIWYS-editor for linux (GPL-ed.. ofcourse, unlike Bluefish) some time. > >Give Amaya a tryout, done by the w3 folks. Amaya's really good... it's got some tricks up its sleeve that no one else has considered yet. Check out Screem as well. And... try a scan of freshmeat.net. >Nothing in opensource is going to be close to DreamWeaver of course -yet >anyways. That depends on whether you hand write your code or let a wysiwyg editor approximate it for you. Most pros will tell you that the only proper code is hand written. Dreamweaver does do a nice job when it comes to working up sketches. Then you have to go back and put things together correctly. If you want the site managment stuff as well as preprocessors that will properly generate code for you... linux has just as good if not better. It's just not all in one package. Which... gives you the option to build your own package from your own choice of components. Take a look at linux pages... start at freshmeat and wander around a little... then, do the same through a few bloated, layered, overly graphic, gimmick enhanced, wysiwyg dreamweaver sites. You'll no longer have the opinion you seem to have now.
Re: WYSIWYG HTML Editor was Re: Rebooting is foolish ....
> From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Richard Taylor wrote: > >> >Nothing in opensource is going to be close to DreamWeaver of course -yet >> >anyways. >> >> That depends on whether you hand write your code or let a >> wysiwyg editor approximate it for you. >> >> Most pros will tell you that the only proper code is hand >> written. >> >> Dreamweaver does do a nice job when it comes to working >> up sketches. Then you have to go back and put things together >> correctly. > >Nada, a lot of pros use Dreamweaver as it's very good with code and server "Nothing"? >side stuff, guess you haven't used UltraDev eh? ;) Dreamweaver makes messes. Redundant tags, nonsense, etc... It builds thing the way it has to which is not always the best way of doing things. this is why most new editors on the windows side use the sort of interface that Arachnophilia and Homesite use... a text screen and a preview. The are much more efficient ways of handling site functions like synchronization ftp, etc. You're not going to try to tell me that Dreamweaver's FTP program is even decent, much less "good," are you? >I'm not involved in doing html stuff myself, I'm the sys admin, but the >company I work for has a division that does fortune 500 co's web sites and >they do use Dreamweaver Ultra Dev extensively. I don't think you'll find >many people hand coding a 500+ page website. ;) Why not? With copy and paste I can do that many basic pages in just a few minutes. With search and replace and decent text tools I can make the necessary revisions in not all that much longer. This is basically text we're talking.. there are many ways to manipulate it quickly. If you're talking anything reasonably complex... people are going to want to spend enough time on it to get it right... coding time is going to be the least of it. 500 pages with no content is pretty useless... ya know. With a program like a pre-processor that writes things the way I want them written, at least I have the assurance that things will be done my way if not the proper way. Generally, they're one and the same.
Re: Debian or Redhat 7???
This may help you as well. http://www.securityportal.com/lasg/ http://www.cert.org/ >> Steve here, >> >> Well first, I repent of calling Linux 7: Redhat 7. Yes I am new. I have >> been maintaining my own box from a su level for about 3 months. That is why >> I was calling in an expert to install Debian tomorrow. It has become quite >> obvious to me that I am way over my head in trying to get my server secure.
Re: QuarkExpress equivalent on Linux?
> From: "Eric G. Miller" >On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:47:08AM +0100, Jonathan Gift wrote: >> Would that be the Latext system? Considered professionally acceptable? > >LaTeX is nice, but it is *not* a desktop publishing programming like >Quark. There's Adobe's port of Framemaker or the Corel stuff... WordPerfect and so forth.
Re: [OT] Re: WYSIWYG HTML Editor
> From: "Keith G. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Steve wrote: >> It's like the argument that b4 good page layout apps like Quark were as >> good as they are that the pros used to write their own postcript. Now most >> pros use a professional page layout app like Quark because it truly is >> WYSIWYG and almost no one writes their own postscript anymore. =) >> >> Why? Because it's faster and makes fewer mistakes, in business time is >> money. >> >> That's why most pros now do use a quality html layout app like DreamWeaver >> UltraDev, because it does the whole enchilada and is really very good. >> >It's certain that purely hand-editing a large site wastes a lot of >time. But the thing left out of this discussion is templating systems It's not "certai" at all. >like Template Toolkit. They can get rid of all your redundant hand >editing. Like copy and paste. >And HTML generation is easy to automate with one of those, where I'm >sure postscript wouldn't be, so the above analogy doesn't really extend >to those. > >Not saying UltraDev isn't good. I rather liked the standard >DreamWeaver, but I have no interest in a WYSIWYG tool now. http://freshmeat.net/browse/751/
Re: QuarkExpress equivalent on Linux?
> From: "Michael P. Soulier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:24:04PM +0100, Jonathan Gift wrote: >> Richard Taylor wrote: >> > There's Adobe's port of Framemaker or the Corel stuff... WordPerfect >> > and so forth. >> On Linux? I didn't know. Same name? > >WordPerfect, yes, but Adobe has cancelled the Beta of Frame on Linux, and >word is that they don't plan to continue. I saw that right after I posted the above... It looks like Deneba's pulled Canvas as well. On the brighter side... Corel's got Corel Draw ported and I managed to find this stuff: Koffice, lyx, klyx www.kde.org impress http://www.ntlug.org/~ccox/impress/index.html Star Office at www.sun.com These office programs here: http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/Office/ here: http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/Wordprocessors/ and here: http://chpc06.ch.unito.it/linux/G/3/ And... then, you got the Gnome Office stuff... www.gnome.org
RE: [OT] Re: WYSIWYG HTML Editor
> From: Joris Lambrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sorry for the ignorance but how does this template system work ? >I can't imagine the benefits from this kind of approach. I thought you knew Dreamweaver. It's just copy and paste... you build a basic form for the page. When you want a new page you copy the template and fill in the content. I don't really think this is appropriate to this list though. This is about Debian.
Re: QuarkExpress equivalent on Linux?
> From: "Michael P. Soulier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:26:11PM -0800, Richard Taylor wrote:
>
>> And... then, you got the Gnome Office stuff... www.gnome.org
>
>The most recently is at Ximian, www.ximian.com. Abiword is maturing but
>it's got a ways to go yet.
>Staroffice 5.2 impresses me not. I still can't get it to save as word 97
I've never had a problem with it... that surprises me.
>without crashing, and I _hate_ the virtual desktop idea.
Have you tried the Open Office stuff? {openoffice.org} I still
don't think it will save in word but it seems to be a bit "lighter."
--
http://www.freespeech.org/apophysis/
How to install woody
Pardon me for being dense, folks, but due to some advice that I received from this list I decided to try Woody out. Now: where are the install floppy images. I tried ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/woody/disks-i386 and a couple of the mirror sites just to check, and well, came up dry. So back to my original point: Am I being dense, or how do you install woody? Do ya have to do an upgrade from potato? - Richard Taylor: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 16952744 -
Re: How to install woody
>Pardon me for being dense, folks, but due to some advice that I
>received from this list I decided to try Woody out. Now: where are
>the install floppy images. I tried
>ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/woody/disks-i386
>and a couple of the mirror sites just to check, and well, came up
>dry. So back to my original point: Am I being dense, or how do you
>install woody? Do ya have to do an upgrade from potato?
You poor guy. :}
You can just change the directory you've got apt pointed to.
{}Rick
Re: How stable are the XFree86 4 packages?
Date sent: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:54:02 -0500 From: Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: How stable are the XFree86 4 packages? Send reply to: Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 03:56:11AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Also, now that I have a good, reliable internet connection, I was > > wondering about installing over the internet - just download the > > base system to start with, and the install-floppies, and let > > apt/dselect get the rest over FTP. Are there any documents about > > this, HOWTOs, stuff like that? > > I'm sure there is info in the Users Guide and/or Installation Guide which > unless I'm mistaken are under the Documentation section on www.debian.org. > > It is pretty easy though ... essentially when you do your base install, you > just have to make sure you load the modules for your nic card or simply run > pppconfig (if you're using a modem), and then add the appropriate entries > into apt-get (ftp://ftp.debian.org...etc) and then apt/dselect will simply > pull everything from the net. > Thanks. I never had an internet connection on the machine I use for Debian before, so all this setting up the internet, and apt-get is very new to me... - Richard Taylor: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 16952744 -
Email questions
Hi, Is there a way that I can copy the archives of mail I have received using a Windoze client into a linux mail prog? I have no intentions of using the Windows client, which BTW is Pegasus, much anymore, and would not like to loose my old mails. Thanks. - Richard Taylor: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 16952744 -
RE: Perl compatibility question
This has been niggling at me for some time now, and when I did a fresh install recently it jumped out at me. When you install the Perl- 5.005 packages, the package scripts say something like: "Warning old DBs will not be compatible with new versions of perl, please use DB dump to convert." Something like that, I'm sure you know the one. My question is, what if anything do I need to do about this to ensure no system breakages. If this is a daft question, or a case of RTFM then I'm sorry, but I would like to know what it means. Thanks --------- Richard Taylor: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 16952744 -
3dfx kernel module
I was wondering, if you want to use the 3dfx kernel module with a kernel other than 2.2.17, what do you have to do? When I needed to install the module I just grabbed the source, because there is no binary (of course) from the debian archive and then followed the simple instructions. These build the module for a 2.2.17 kernel as I said, which I recall being quite put-out about at the time, because I was using a 2.4.test series kernel, and saw no reason to downgrade.I still don't. So to reiterate: What must I do to get this module working with my 2.4.test or any other kernel for that matter? I mean, being stuck to 2.2.17 is not going to be satisfactory for much longer. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Richard Taylor
Re: Woody Progress
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 11:31:30AM -0700, Rando Christensen wrote: > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Richard Taylor wrote: > > > ObDisclaimer: IANADD > > > > First off, I would like to apologize if this is not the right list to ask > > this question, and secondly, I would like to apologize if it is not > > appropriate for a non-developer to ask this question. > > I have been impressed with the progress of woody recently, to the point > > where > > I now keep it installed myself, for the fun of experimenting with XF86 4, > > and > > what I would like to know is: Does anyone have any theories as to when the > > code freeze will start. I mean, getting a new realease out, with KDE 2 > > packaged and ready to go, plus XF86 4, would do a lot to restore the Debian > > Project in the eyes of joe-average linux-user. > > The problem with this line of thinking, i think, is that debian isn't > aimed toward 'joe-average linux-user' .. It's aimed really towards the > debian developers, and others like them. Debian isn't trying to "restore" > themselves, in anyone's eyes. they are going forward as they feel correct. > Ok, if Debian is not aimed at Joe, then why do we bother having a mailing list where we discuss publicity for the system. I mean, isn't what you are saying, that we should just stick with the users that we have got? If you are, then I, for one, cannot agree with you. > The big difference between debian and alll those other distro's (possibly > slack excluded), is that the debian project will go forward when nobody > gets a paycheck. Debian is (probably) the biggest volunteer software > project in the world. Most linux distributions are in it for the > money > > Just my thoughts. > > > *gets into asbestos suit* > > Before you all jump on me, the Debian linux distro has somewhat of a > > reputation for being behind the times, due to it's long and rigorous > > testing process. Personally, I prefer this, and the extended testing period > > is one > > I prefer it, too. in fact, I wouldn't give it up. > Clarification: I don't prefer the fact that in some cases we trail two or three minor revisions from the upstream source. I am for testing just as much as anyone else... but I do think that rublic relations should be a concern too, as should staying on the cutting edge. > > of many reasons Debian is the only linux I use. > > Also, those of us who read the lists understand what the reasons are, and > > to my mind, they were sound, but up until recently, the `man on the street' > > still sees us as the last distro to not have KDE. > > And it's a true statement. But, IMHO, Kde is crap anyway. ;) > But as I keep trying to explain, the views of you and others like you matter - they matter a lot, but so do the views of Joe Average... IMHO, of course. > > He doesnt care about ideology, and while right has won out in the end, it > > But we DO care. What does that mean? That debian is NOT for everyone, and > he'll be perfectly happy with another distribution. > > > has set our public image back somewhat. > > Had I the power, I would _not_ change any of the decisions that have > > brought Debian to where it is now, but to my mind, now would be a good > > time to consider when the new release will come out. > > Nah, potato just stabilized. just BARELY. We don't need to rush out with > this. I wouldn't even expect seeing the release until at least the end of > 2001. and that doesn't even seem likely to me. > I can only ask, what do you mean? I wouldn't call it just barely - I admit it was recent, but you know darned well that potato was stable for _months_ before it was officially dubbed stable. I was using it for six months before the release, with not one show-stopping problem. Besides, isn't that the way that it should work. One out, give the next one a month or two, then freeze? I mean a code freeze is _not_ a release, it doesn't mean we stop testing, and it doesn't mean we stop bugfixes. I admit, I could be very wrong here, but another year, before Debian Woody comes out, seems a long time. Potato is a fine release. A FINE release. Woody just has some stuff in it that is far too nice to make users wait a year for. :-) > The thing is, debian is NOT going to throw together a distribution release > and just call it stable. RedHat would. They consider rh7.0 to be a nice, > stable release. Any debian user/developer would SCOFF at that. > One hundred percent true, RH7 is a cow. I find it hard to believe they are using a _known to be unstable_ GCC. This would never happen in Debian. I can't dis
Re: Woody Progress
Sorry folks, my brain must have suffered a power-outage, I have posted the preceding message to the wrong list. Sorry.
Re: debian on a red hat system
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
>If you can't be helpful, be silent.
>On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Veit Waltemath wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 07:49:06PM -, Pat Woolley wrote:
>> > I use mandrake 7 and I am very happy with it. However I
} would like to be able to install debian packages on my system
} As I see it there are two ways possible. Convert debian to rpm
} or install dselect on my system.
>> > Can you help with one or both of these solutions please.
>> > Regards Pat Woolley
>> >
>> Why do you want install debian packages on a rpm-system. The sense escapes
>> me.
It's part of switching over to 1oo% Debian. A worthy cause in anybody's book.
I'm doing the same with Corel... {'course it's a tiny bit easier}
With Mandrake, you've got to change some paths though... move a few programs
around, etc...
Personally, I'd install dselect... or, just, reinstall with Debian and
add the rpms that you need. To me, that seems a little easier. Not knowing
how much you know about linux or how easily you can do the transition...
I can only say how I'd go about it. {:} Which is probably the hard way}
Re: no wonder...
On 4/7/2000, 10:56:59 PM, "loki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: no wonder...: > On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:48:18AM +0700, Oki DZ wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Richard Taylor wrote: > > > My mileage varies. I find that the program simplifies what can be a > > > vastly more difficult process... that of tracking dependencies, versions, > > > file locations, etc, etc... It does it > > > fairly well and it does it accurately. > Which doesn't explain why there is a project to create a better top-level > package management tool called "apt"? :) No, it doesn't. Dselect works with apt as far as I know. Nothing's so perfect it can't be improved. > > I think the problem in dselect that it doesn't show the dependency tree. > > The listing of the packages is useful, of course, but it's just a list. > Agreed; it's a plain list, which can be viewed in various ways. What I > think would be better would be the ability to collapse parts of the list > that you're not viewing, like a directory tree. That would be a help as well as filters... > Then you come to the actual conflict resolution part. Possibly it'd be > great if it could detect these conflicts in real-time (I guess this might > not be trivial or speedy to implement), and prompt you. > For example, you select a package and it pops up saying "This package also > requires: foo bar baz wibble snafu... do you wish to install them as well or > cancel installation of xyz?" This lets you select/cancel the whole operation > (and it is one operation really, after all.. people just say "grr.. need > that as well.. alright" so it's not really an independent choice anyway.) > For conflicts, "This package conflicts with the following: foo baz. Do you > wish to proceed (removing those packages), or cancel this install? [y/n]" Ummm... how does your dselect work? Mine does pretty much what you've described above. > Recommendations and suggestions are a little more difficult (since it's > something people are more likely to pick and choose over) but still quite > doable and could be simpler IMO. Also already implemented.
Re: no wonder...
On 4/7/2000, 10:00:40 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: no wonder...: > > What could be more intuitive? > Something that works. Your statement highlights the reason that when I ask > for directions on how to drive somewhere, I will NOT ask someone that has > lived there all their life but a relative new person. The person that has > been there for all of their life _ASS_U_ME_s that you know what they learned > several years ago. You've not answered the question.
Re: Package Info
On 4/21/2000, 1:27:40 PM, "Irish, Jon D"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Is there a comprehensive list somewhere, of all of the available
Debian
> packages, that describes them in detail? Being new, sometimes I am not
too
> sure what exactly I need to install to acomplish what I want to do
(vague, I
> know ;-). The DSELECT program is pretty much overwhelming for me, thus
I am
> searching for this documentation.
You can just open the packages list that dselect uses in an editor.
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
Re: Win98 and Linux can't keep apart on /dev/hda!
"tristan misseri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> You told about mounting different fs on both systems : linux and
win98. How
> can U mount ext2 partitions on win98?
http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
Re: are there any good free 3d modeling tools?
Felix Natter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding
Re: are there any good free 3d modeling tools?:
> Chris Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Blender (www.blender.nl) is a very good tool for
3D-modelling/animation.
> It is free (as in beer) and not open-source, but version 2.0 will
probably
> be. Currently you have to get a C key to export meshes (this will not
be
> required when 2.0 comes out in July). The idea is that you pay for the
> manual.
http://www.bmrt.org/
Free until you start making money. Cheap after that. Not "free."
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
Re: are there any good free 3d modeling tools?
Felix Natter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding
Re: are there any good free 3d modeling tools?:
> Chris Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Blender (www.blender.nl) is a very good tool for
3D-modelling/animation.
> It is free (as in beer) and not open-source, but version 2.0 will
probably
> be. Currently you have to get a C key to export meshes (this will not
be
> required when 2.0 comes out in July). The idea is that you pay for the
> manual.
http://www.bmrt.org/
Free until you start making money. Cheap after that. Not "free."
Oh, compatible modelers are on their links page.
http://www.bmrt.org/rmanlinks.html
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
Re: Emacs - was Re: Mail/news software
"Kovacs Istvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(snip)
> Emacs, vi, development tools are fine for developers (I also decided
to
> learn Emacs and vi -- not at the wizard level, but to be able to use
> them when needed), and it's reasonable not to expect the masses to use
> them, but it's not the same case with Linux (I hope :-)
Emacs is far more useful than that... It's still the best
mailer/newsreader/text based office program in existence.
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
Re: Re[2]: Emacs - was Re: Mail/news software
Graeme Mathieson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Re[2]:
Emacs
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ snipped ... ]
> > Simply stated, anything which requires Emacs to run
> > is instantly lower than something that requires Windows to run because
at
> > least it /IS/ an OS and not an editor that is a wannabe script
interpreter
> > and OS rolled into one.
> Has anybody ever tried to graft emacs directly on top of oskit?
_Then_ you
> would have your operating system. :)
It would be a great OS period. Perfect for laptops, PDA's,
writers, programmers, etc...
I'd like to a graphical version though... sort of a cross
between Oberon and emacs. Run w3 in a frame, gnus in another,
mail could update in a little sliding window at the bottom
of the screen... maybe you could just use it as a desktop
and run applets in floating windows above it.
Object oriented... document centric... run it on
the Mach kernel...
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
Re: Emacs - was Re: Mail/news software
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Monday, May 01, 2000, 11:59:24 AM, Richard wrote:
> > Emacs is far more useful than that... It's still the best
> > mailer/newsreader/text based office program in existence.
> That is highly debated, esp. for people who prefer not to have
huge
I've had several debates featuring this very subject.
Some very long and drawn out and heated.
> bloated pigs in memory, don't want to learn a speech impediment on top
of
> other languages and actually prefer to have separate, specific
programs for
> their individual tasks. Simply stated, anything which requires Emacs
to run
> is instantly lower than something that requires Windows to run because
at
> least it /IS/ an OS and not an editor that is a wannabe script
interpreter and
> OS rolled into one.
This one... several times. It's no longer interesting.
{and never really was all that valid.}
If you don't like emacs... don't run it. If you don't
want to add anything to the thread... I'm sure you've
got a killfile somewhere nearby.
> > My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
> And this one is running, what? Amiga?
Windows... DV {for a while yet}
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
{3d, animation, sound, stills, text, fiddling with X,
learning scheme, emacs, tcl/TK, etc, etc...}
Re: Emacs - was Re: Mail/news software
Re: Emacs - was Re: Mail/news software
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > "Pat" == Pat Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pat> For me, Linux makes me think. For others, windows may make
> Pat> them think. For still others, something else (not computer
> Pat> related) may make them think. If linux makes you think,
> Pat> good. If windows makes you think, good. If something else
> Pat> makes you think, good. If nothing makes you think, then I you
> Pat> truly have my sympathy.
> For me, the problem with Windows is you have to think when thinking
> should not be required. Take for instance, autoexec.bat.
> I know a Windows computer, that whenever it starts, it flashes up
> with the message "Bad command or filename" for a few seconds until
> it goes away. However, it doesn't give the important information:
> what command cannot be found? what line is it on?
Not that I actually want to come to the defense of Winanything...
Turn echoing on.
> Perhaps Windows 2000 won't require autoexec.bat, I will believe it
> when I see it. However, I encounter similar problems throughout
> Windows (especially device drivers).
Win hasn't required an autoexec.bat since '95.
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
Re: Emacs - was Re: Mail/news software
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Emacs - was Re: Mail/news
software:
> >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard> Win hasn't required an autoexec.bat since '95. -- My
> Richard> other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
> I think you need it in order to setup the environment (compilers
> seem to require this) and/or load doskey.
That's dos and specific software not windows. You can
do that all with batchfiles anyway.{Strange you've got
to use it for the first install on a CD, much decent
software, etc...} I imagine that if you run only win
'95 {Ms} specific software that you can actually get
away with it.
At any rate... this is a Debian list. :}
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
Re: finding which packages installed
Lance Hoffmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding finding which
packages installed:
> What package can I use to determine which packages I have installed
and
> a description of what they do? How would I use this package?
Use dselect.
{Which reminds me... How does one patent copyrighted material?}
--
My other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
Re: bigots - was Emacs - was Mail/news software
Jonathan Markevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > I think the best comment over the emacs thing was; someone said "it's not an > editor, it's a virtual machine" Now that makes great sense! Now someone > needs to come up with something as clever to explain vi... :) It's just an editor?
Re: X on MS?
On 4/4/2000, 8:55:45 PM, "Eric G . Miller" wrote
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:41:30PM -0700, Bart Friederichs wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While reading a page on X, I was wondering, should it be possible to
> > kick out Microsoft's window system and run Windows (??) 98 with X? It
> > says it is portable to various systems. Or maybe just the manager. So,
> > that I can make Win98/NT look like one of the X windows Wmanagers.
> >
> > Just wondering... I am not really wanting to do this, but it might
> > give me more knowledge about MSwin, X, WManagers, Desktops etc.
> >
> Microimages makes an X server that runs on Windows and Macs (MI/X or
> something). They used to allow free use, but now they charge I think.
> It's part of their cross platform GIS/RS package TNTMips (which is
very
> good, but ). It basically opens a full screen window and runs
> something like MWM for the window manager -- so it's not real pretty.
I
> don't know if there are other X servers, or free ones for that matter
> for windows. I don't think you could get most Window Managers to run
> under windows without special recompilation. And I have no idea if
MI/X
> supports the full XDMCP type thingies.
A goodly chunk o' UNIX
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ported.html
Xservers for win32
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/xfree/
IBM's Data Explorer :}
http://www.opendx.org/download.html
{Sorry 'bout that extra copy. :}}
Re: no wonder...
On 4/6/2000, 9:03:41 PM, Oki DZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: no > On 5 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > No wonder people say that Debian is the most difficult > > Unix-clone distro to install and use... > ... > > Another thing, is the dselect program: it is quite > > difficult to use... As compared to something like... say... notepad? What's difficult about selecting things from a menu?
Re: Mutt questions (Was: Looking for a good mail program)
On 4/6/2000, 7:31:18 PM, Chanop Silpa-Anan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
> Once upon a time, I heard Viktor Rosenfeld say
> > I recently switched my working environment from Windows to Debian only
> > and I've been using Netscape Mail so far. And I *hate* it!
> Me too, it's too slow!
:} Tried 6?
Anyway... there are about a zillion of them... Gnus is wonderful,
Postillion is great, there's a command line thing which I've forgotten
the name {initials} of which you could probably set up to do anything
you want, TKRat's pretty nice...
If you really can't find anything you like go to freshmeat.net and go
through their listings...
If that still doesn't work... there's always the code to tkmail.
This {staroffice} isn't too bad... seeing as it's integrated into the
office package you've got a lot of capabilities at your fingertips...
and... 5.2's up now.
Re: Mutt questions (Was: Looking for a good mail program)
On 4/7/2000, 5:26:43 AM, Chanop Silpa-Anan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
regarding Re: Mutt questions
> Once upon a time, I heard Richard Taylor say
> > On 4/6/2000, 7:31:18 PM, Chanop Silpa-Anan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Once upon a time, I heard Viktor Rosenfeld say
> >
> > > > I recently switched my working environment from Windows to Debian only
> > > > and I've been using Netscape Mail so far. And I *hate* it!
> > > Me too, it's too slow!
> > :} Tried 6?
> Even slower than M14 :P
:} It runs a bit faster on my system... I never did care for their
mailer anyway. Somehow, my brain doesn't make the "browser/mail"
connection... I've got no problem with the "office/mail" one.
> > This {staroffice} isn't too bad... seeing as it's integrated into the
> > office package you've got a lot of capabilities at your fingertips...
> > and... 5.2's up now.
> But, it's vey bulky.
Yeah... unfortunately. With a largish amount of memory it's not a real
problem though. And... once the thing loads it's reasonably fast. I'm
used to emacs {tho' I never really noticed the slow starts with that one
that folk always complained about.} and used to having everything sort of
"attached".
Considering that I've got ready access to everything from a decent
wysiwyg html editor to a browser, databases, etc, etc... I can't really
complain.
Re: no wonder...
On 4/7/2000, 1:41:56 PM, Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: no wonder...: > Richard Taylor wrote: > > On 4/6/2000, 9:03:41 PM, Oki DZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: > > > On 5 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > No wonder people say that Debian is the most difficult > > > > Unix-clone distro to install and use... > > > ... > > > > Another thing, is the dselect program: it is quite > > > > difficult to use... > > As compared to something like... say... notepad? > > What's difficult about selecting things from a menu? > 1. Nothing's difficult about selecting things from a menu. It's when those selections > bring up other screens wanting to add/delete other things, which affect other things, > which makes the user want to get out, and none of the keystrokes seem to work like a > beginner (not someone who has read the docs and EXPERIENCED the experience) would > expect. There's just a host of things that are difficult about deselect and apt. My mileage varies. I find that the program simplifies what can be a vastly more difficult process... that of tracking dependencies, versions, file locations, etc, etc... It does it fairly well and it does it accurately. The docs are readily available... the explanations of what, why and so forth in regards to the files your working with are fairly clear... the program itself is pretty simple and requires you to use maybe a half dozen commands in normal use. It does everything for you. If there's any part of Debian I'd target as being difficult it certainly wouldn't be dselect. Personally, I think it's one of the best things the distribution's got going for it. > There's a host of good about these products also; they're just not intuitive for the > non-initiated. What could be more intuitive?
re: Re: debian and win2k
-- Original Email -- >Bye >Romain > >PS in case you encounter a problem here is a patch: "format c:" :-) Wouldn't that be d:? ... Ok... where did I put my damnable cigarettes!
