It is indeed an impressive feat that they were able to get gnome to compile under the UWIN Posix library.
I suspect that Interix would have made the job much easier.
Interix (formerly OpenNT) was a posix-compliant subsystem for NT that provided many utilities and for all intensive purposes, a mostly complete unix subsystem for the NT platform. I managed to port WindowMaker and AfterStep, among other things, to run under Interix. Some of you may remember, but the people at softway systems once ran an add in a Linux magazine, announcing a 'bounty' system for people who could port certain things to their subsystem. Gnome was one of them, but I guess no one took up the challenge.
Unfortunately, Interix (Softway Systems) was bought by Microsoft last year some time last year. Microsoft said that they were going to roll the Interix package in with their "Unix Services for Windows", but I have not seen anything come of that. I often wonder if Interix was bought just to stop their progress?
I have some screenshots of the two window managers I managed to port, running in NT via Exceed: http://billimek.com/interix/
I will never forget the ignorance I was met with when I went into efnet's #linux asking about porting a window manager to interix. All of the people in there ridiculed me and told me I was stupid. Some even said such clever things like 'man X' and other such nonsense. Thanks to their zealotry, I was determined to prove them wrong. And when I posted the first screenshot of a successful port for them to see, all I got was stunned silence.
Why should I care that the government will have access to that sort of information for myself and about 400 million other law-abiding citizens? I'm not breaking the law so I don't have anything to HIDE.
So the government DOJ prosecutors are a bunch of heroes when they try to regulate Microsoft and try to tell Microsoft what they can and cannot bundle with their own operating system.
But the majority of the posts I read here are by people complaining that the government has "no business telling AOL what they can do with their protocol!!!!111"
Does anyone else sense a DOUBLE STANDARD here by some of the left-wing close-minded slashdot crowd?
Are you saying that a 8-way Intel box with Win2k ran that job nearly twice as fast as a Sparc E-10k w/24 processors?!
The E10k is the flagship of all sun hardware, it's hard to fathom that a 'puny' intel box would beat it at batch-file processing!
For the record, I run a both a linux box and a win2k box and use both for whatever the situation demands. Like political parties, I don't believe in blindly following one and only one (linux or win2k) like a sheep. If only some of the people here would get a clue, we wouldn't have such a bad reputation as rabid linux zealots.
>> (Product idea: a PCI card that renders MP3 to standard S/PDIF or optical that can be run directly into the back of your digital-enabled receiver....)
Isn't that what the SB Live! digital out daughterboard does? If I remember the specs, it IS a S/PDIF digital output jack, and the card IS PCI.
I hope they don't make Quicktime 5 a virus like QT4 was. When you install it, it takes it upon itself to 'attatch' itself to all audio & video formats. Uninstalling won't help. Everytime you want to use it, you get a nag screen asking you to buy it. The evil empire's Media Player doesn't do that!
Quicktime is just as bad as real player IMO. Quicktime and Realplayer should be apart of the antivirus software detection scehemes.
Buy is't communism and socialism the embodiment of open source software? Why do you think the linux zealots praise China for embracing Linux. Who cares about the slave labor camps, those are all MS-fabircated stories!
Will, you assert that most consumers are lazy. I'm going on the assumption that this is lazy in relation to "computer stuff." It seems to me that most consumers (the masses) just don't want to waste a lot of time doing things that people like you and I fine interesting and challenging. Given that, I don't think it's fair to setereotype consumers as lazy just because they don't like to spend gobs of time doing things that you or I like to do.
I actually like some software that has someone to be held accountable for things just like that. Who would I take to court if some loser added that 'functionality' to an open source program?
But wait, didn't Tim Berhnse-whats-his-name just tell us the codes were not needed or available?
No, this is what he said:
...the lightbulb flashes and you realize (I know, I know... you're not going to believe this) that Reveal Codes is not necessary, and is in fact a kludge to make up for an inelegant interface.
They may not be necessary for him, but I don't speak for him. I'm simply pointing out that they have been in word for as long as I can remember. We don't want people to spread misinformation about something, do we? After all, the Open Source community is about being Open Minded, right?:)
Microsoft Word totally chokes on long documents with lots of equations and included figures, and is ridiculously slow compared to the competition on linux (Framemaker and TeX derivatives like Lyx and kLyx and LaTeX).
For my economics class, I created an 8.5x11 word 2000 document that was litterally full of equations (real equations using the equations builder tool), and didn't have any problems whatsoever. Can you elborate on 'totally chokes' ?
... Or you can just click on the 'show/hide' button on the toolbar and the codes are revealed. This works in Office 95 & 97 too I beleive. Am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have "Automatic Updates" turned on? (Control Panel -> System -> Automatic Updates tab)
THat might be the reason you're seeing packets going to microsoft.com
They certainly should have mentioned starflight, I agree!
The NSA is going to help in deflecting a commet?
Awesome, thanks!
Mandrake80-inst.iso: ETA: 77:56 6.25/645.91 MB 140.09 kB/s
Microsoft has an 800-number for people to call and speak with someone to get the activation code.
Or LNUX?
Sort of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?
It is indeed an impressive feat that they were able to get gnome to compile under the UWIN Posix library.
I suspect that Interix would have made the job much easier.
Interix (formerly OpenNT) was a posix-compliant subsystem for NT that provided many utilities and for all intensive purposes, a mostly complete unix subsystem for the NT platform. I managed to port WindowMaker and AfterStep, among other things, to run under Interix. Some of you may remember, but the people at softway systems once ran an add in a Linux magazine, announcing a 'bounty' system for people who could port certain things to their subsystem. Gnome was one of them, but I guess no one took up the challenge.
Unfortunately, Interix (Softway Systems) was bought by Microsoft last year some time last year. Microsoft said that they were going to roll the Interix package in with their "Unix Services for Windows", but I have not seen anything come of that. I often wonder if Interix was bought just to stop their progress?
I have some screenshots of the two window managers I managed to port, running in NT via Exceed:
http://billimek.com/interix/
I will never forget the ignorance I was met with when I went into efnet's #linux asking about porting a window manager to interix. All of the people in there ridiculed me and told me I was stupid. Some even said such clever things like 'man X' and other such nonsense. Thanks to their zealotry, I was determined to prove them wrong. And when I posted the first screenshot of a successful port for them to see, all I got was stunned silence.
(Playing the devils advocate here)
Why should I care that the government will have access to that sort of information for myself and about 400 million other law-abiding citizens? I'm not breaking the law so I don't have anything to HIDE.
So the government DOJ prosecutors are a bunch of heroes when they try to regulate Microsoft and try to tell Microsoft what they can and cannot bundle with their own operating system.
But the majority of the posts I read here are by people complaining that the government has "no business telling AOL what they can do with their protocol!!!!111"
Does anyone else sense a DOUBLE STANDARD here by some of the left-wing close-minded slashdot crowd?
http://www.cnn.com&story=lawcenter@1076628671/top_ story/
I find that hard to believe Fervent!
Are you saying that a 8-way Intel box with Win2k ran that job nearly twice as fast as a Sparc E-10k w/24 processors?!
The E10k is the flagship of all sun hardware, it's hard to fathom that a 'puny' intel box would beat it at batch-file processing!
For the record, I run a both a linux box and a win2k box and use both for whatever the situation demands. Like political parties, I don't believe in blindly following one and only one (linux or win2k) like a sheep. If only some of the people here would get a clue, we wouldn't have such a bad reputation as rabid linux zealots.
Wasn't the "Golf War" just recently with Tiger Woods and that other guy having to do a tie-breaker?
And your productivity will increase
>> (Product idea: a PCI card that renders MP3 to standard S/PDIF or optical that can be run directly into the back of your digital-enabled receiver....)
Isn't that what the SB Live! digital out daughterboard does? If I remember the specs, it IS a S/PDIF digital output jack, and the card IS PCI.
What am I missing here?
Then why does he have a $90,000/year sallary for running it and 366,666 shares of Andover.net stock?
Doesn't make any money my ass..
I hope they don't make Quicktime 5 a virus like QT4 was. When you install it, it takes it upon itself to 'attatch' itself to all audio & video formats. Uninstalling won't help. Everytime you want to use it, you get a nag screen asking you to buy it. The evil empire's Media Player doesn't do that!
Quicktime is just as bad as real player IMO. Quicktime and Realplayer should be apart of the antivirus software detection scehemes.
If it's a special "OracleOS" is Oracle now getting into the OS market?
Will we see "Oracle Office" after that?
Buy is't communism and socialism the embodiment of open source software?
Why do you think the linux zealots praise China for embracing Linux. Who cares about the slave labor camps, those are all MS-fabircated stories!
Does Ultima Online have a linux port of the client? It is officially unsupported, but at least it is an x86 linux native client.
After reading all his other posts under this article, yes.
Will, you assert that most consumers are lazy. I'm going on the assumption that this is lazy in relation to "computer stuff."
It seems to me that most consumers (the masses) just don't want to waste a lot of time doing things that people like you and I fine interesting and challenging. Given that, I don't think it's fair to setereotype consumers as lazy just because they don't like to spend gobs of time doing things that you or I like to do.
I actually like some software that has someone to be held accountable for things just like that. Who would I take to court if some loser added that 'functionality' to an open source program?
But wait, didn't Tim Berhnse-whats-his-name just tell us the codes were not needed or available?
...the lightbulb flashes and you realize (I know, I know... you're not going to believe this) that Reveal Codes is not necessary, and is in fact a kludge to make up for an inelegant interface.
:)
No, this is what he said:
They may not be necessary for him, but I don't speak for him. I'm simply pointing out that they have been in word for as long as I can remember. We don't want people to spread misinformation about something, do we? After all, the Open Source community is about being Open Minded, right?
Microsoft Word totally chokes on long documents with lots of equations and included figures, and is ridiculously slow compared to the competition on linux (Framemaker and TeX derivatives like Lyx and kLyx and LaTeX).
For my economics class, I created an 8.5x11 word 2000 document that was litterally full of equations (real equations using the equations builder tool), and didn't have any problems whatsoever. Can you elborate on 'totally chokes' ?
... Or you can just click on the 'show/hide' button on the toolbar and the codes are revealed. This works in Office 95 & 97 too I beleive. Am I missing something?