<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>

|Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
|"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
|concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
|display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
|networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
|such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     

and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
full version to get the real features unlocked???

At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
completely for free.

Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
solitaire.

Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:36:22 -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:47:51 GMT, Paul Cooke wrote:
> 
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
>> 
>>|Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
>>|"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
>>|concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
>>|display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
>>|networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
>>|such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     
>> 
>> and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
>> as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
>> full version to get the real features unlocked???
>> 
>> At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
>> completely for free.
>> 
>> Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
>> to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
>> ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
>> once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
>> programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
>> anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
>> solitaire.
>> 
>> Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
>> crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!
> 
> One wonders why you're complaining about it. Surely this is a good thing
> for Linux, if it's so much better?

He does not appear to be complaining more like poking fun. 

Paul Cooke wrote:
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
> 
> |Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
> |"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
> |concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
> |display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
> |networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
> |such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     
> 
> and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
> as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
> full version to get the real features unlocked???
> 
> At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
> completely for free.
> 
> Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
> to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
> ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
> once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
> programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
> anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
> solitaire.
> 
> Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
> crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!


"Let's combat rampant piracy and the encroachment of a totally free, 
server-grade OS by selling a useless, gimped-up version of XP! Yeah, 
that'll work!"

The short bus is now making stops in Redmond, WA. apparently.

-- 
Tom Wilson
Why bother building any more nuclear warheads until we use the ones we
have?

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:47:51 +0000, Paul Cooke wrote:

> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
> 
> |Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
> |"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
> |concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
> |display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
> |networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
> |such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     
> 
> and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
> as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
> full version to get the real features unlocked???
> 
> At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
> completely for free.
> 
> Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
> to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
> ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
> once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
> programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
> anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
> solitaire.
> 
> Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
> crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!

How's this crap going to combat piracy? The Asian pirates will say "fuck
this, this thing's useless, I'll go pirate the real thing instead."

mocat wrote:

> How's this crap going to combat piracy? The Asian pirates will say "fuck
> this, this thing's useless, I'll go pirate the real thing instead."

What kind of a 'pirate' steals something that can be had, in better quality,
for free?

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:47:51 GMT, Paul Cooke wrote:

> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
> 
>|Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
>|"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
>|concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
>|display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
>|networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
>|such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     
> 
> and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
> as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
> full version to get the real features unlocked???
> 
> At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
> completely for free.
> 
> Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
> to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
> ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
> once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
> programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
> anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
> solitaire.
> 
> Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
> crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!

One wonders why you're complaining about it. Surely this is a good thing
for Linux, if it's so much better?

Simon Cooke wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:47:51 GMT, Paul Cooke wrote:
> 
>>
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
>> 
>>|Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
>>|"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program
>>|running concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system
>>|includes the display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for
>>|PC-to-PC home networking, sharing printers across a network or more
>>|advanced features such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts
>>|on a single PC."
>> 
>> and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's
>> about as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay
>> for the full version to get the real features unlocked???
>> 
>> At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
>> completely for free.
>> 
>> Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell
>> you to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it
>> allows, ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three
>> programs at once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of
>> running programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall
>> running, an anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you
>> can't run solitaire.
>> 
>> Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is
>> really crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!
> 
> One wonders why you're complaining about it. Surely this is a good thing
> for Linux, if it's so much better?

It's great.

I'm loving it.

Simon Cooke wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:47:51 GMT, Paul Cooke wrote:
> 
> 
>><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
>>
>>|Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
>>|"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
>>|concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
>>|display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
>>|networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
>>|such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     
>>
>>and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
>>as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
>>full version to get the real features unlocked???
>>
>>At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
>>completely for free.
>>
>>Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
>>to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
>>ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
>>once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
>>programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
>>anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
>>solitaire.
>>
>>Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
>>crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!
> 
> 
> One wonders why you're complaining about it. Surely this is a good thing
> for Linux, if it's so much better?

I don't think people are complaining so much as expressing shock at such 
stupidity. Stupid on a couple of levels...

Level One: Combating rampant piracy of XP

You don't combat it by selling a severely crippled copy for six times as 
much as the pirated discs cost. (News story placed the average price of 
a bootleg at around 6.00)

Level Two: The Linux thing

You don't combat an operating system that comes with more functionality 
than 99.999 percent of any given poplace could use...with an OS that 
only allows three open windows at a time.

Microsoft is stuck in a 1980's mentality where this cripple/trialware 
idea is concerned.


-- 
Tom Wilson
All I ask of life is a constant and exaggerated sense of my own
importance.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:36:17 -0400, Tom Wilson wrote:

> Paul Cooke wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
>> 
>> |Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
>> |"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
>> |concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
>> |display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
>> |networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
>> |such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     
>> 
>> and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
>> as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
>> full version to get the real features unlocked???
>> 
>> At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
>> completely for free.
>> 
>> Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
>> to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
>> ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
>> once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
>> programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
>> anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
>> solitaire.
>> 
>> Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
>> crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!
> 
> 
> "Let's combat rampant piracy and the encroachment of a totally free, 
> server-grade OS by selling a useless, gimped-up version of XP! Yeah, 
> that'll work!"
> 
> The short bus is now making stops in Redmond, WA. apparently.

They have to try something to avoid charges of dumping.

-- 
Rick

I can't feel this thread's topic is a good topic.  When did Microsoft
ever *not* sell crippleware?  Anything Microsoft that I've (tried to)
use was polluted with bugs and devices to sell more software, to
manufacture incompatibilities with other software, to push the user on
to buy a newer version OS, etc etc.  A laptop I purchased recently
comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.  Microsoft crippleware?  Let's
move on to topics with something new in them.

Cheers -- Martha Adams

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:

> A laptop I purchased recently
> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.  

Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the field
of computer science... 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:12:42 -0700,
 Simon Cooke <simonREMOVEcooke@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>
>> A laptop I purchased recently
>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.  
>
> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the field
> of computer science... 


With what, in the book (Art of Unix programming) do you disagree? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBG5FXd90bcYOAWPYRAuvrAKCnmT/kuSeoMqPGxioSvgSHZc6rhQCfXFpR
Vtkqez3vc8GGs9X3tne9iQ4=
=w+KI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his
 self-interest gives you more leverage. 	-- Lazarus Long

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:12:42 -0700, Simon Cooke
<simonREMOVEcooke@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:

>> A laptop I purchased recently comes with Microsoft software: it's all
>> a humongous clot, completely contrary to the simple principles so
>> clearly summarized in Eric Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
> 
> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the
> field of computer science...

Oddly enough, that book isn't about computer science.  It is more of a
practical programming sort of book.  Do build small parts that work
together, don't use binary formats without good reason, things like
that.  How to make your programs work well under Unix, along with some
trash-talking of other operating systems.

Did you read it, or do you just compelled to take every opportunity to
trash people you don't like?


-- 
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| To Whom You Are Speaking
 -| http://www.haucks.org/

Paul Cooke <paul_cooke@linuxmail_NOSPAM.org> wrote in message news:<1465755.Shf5yd89GY@bog-box.madhouse>...
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
> 
> |Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
> |"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
> |concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
> |display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
> |networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
> |such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     
> 
> and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
> as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
> full version to get the real features unlocked???
> 
> At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
> completely for free.
> 
> Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
> to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
> ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
> once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
> programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
> anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
> solitaire.
> 
> Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
> crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!

What's not to like, the XP Starter version is plenty enough for
countries with such little resources, they don't need anymore.
Besides, they don't want to downgrade to Linux, they want Windows,
even with a few limitations, it's still Windows, it's the real thing!


Peter Bilt

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:36:30 -0700, Peter Bilt wrote:

> What's not to like, the XP Starter version is plenty enough for
> countries with such little resources, they don't need anymore.
> Besides, they don't want to downgrade to Linux, they want Windows,
> even with a few limitations, it's still Windows, it's the real thing!

O

M

G

-- 
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
namonai at that google email system

Peter Bilt wrote:

> Paul Cooke <paul_cooke@linuxmail_NOSPAM.org> wrote in message news:<1465755.Shf5yd89GY@bog-box.madhouse>...
> 
>><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
>>
>>|Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
>>|"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
>>|concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
>>|display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
>>|networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
>>|such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     
>>
>>and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
>>as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
>>full version to get the real features unlocked???
>>
>>At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
>>completely for free.
>>
>>Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
>>to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
>>ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
>>once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
>>programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
>>anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
>>solitaire.
>>
>>Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
>>crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!
> 
> 
> What's not to like, the XP Starter version is plenty enough for
> countries with such little resources, they don't need anymore.
> Besides, they don't want to downgrade to Linux, they want Windows,
> even with a few limitations, it's still Windows, it's the real thing!
> 

Define 'thing'.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

Martha H Adams wrote:
> I can't feel this thread's topic is a good topic.  When did Microsoft
> ever *not* sell crippleware?  Anything Microsoft that I've (tried to)
> use was polluted with bugs and devices to sell more software,

This is the upgrade treadmill and welcome to it :)

It isn't in MS's best interests to produce a good solid OS. There's no 
incentive to upgrade.

Think SP2 is going to fix the majority of XP's flaws? Think again. If 
they corrected everything, no-one would bother with Longhorn.

And on and on it goes.

-- 
Tom Wilson
The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are
correct.
		-- Ralph Hartley

Peter Bilt wrote:

> What's not to like, the XP Starter version is plenty enough for
> countries with such little resources, they don't need anymore.
> Besides, they don't want to downgrade to Linux, they want Windows,
> even with a few limitations, it's still Windows, it's the real thing!

Theory flaw #1: The pirated CD, full featured, is 1/6th the price

Theory Flaw #2: "A few limitations"??? Three active windows maximum and 
a singular account qualify as "a few limitations"? That is as asinine a 
statement as I have heard in quite a while.

Face it, XP Starter is a foolish idea.


-- 
Tom Wilson
An artist should be fit for the best society and keep out of it.

Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from GreyCloud:

>> What's not to like, the XP Starter version is plenty enough for
>> countries with such little resources, they don't need anymore.
>> Besides, they don't want to downgrade to Linux, they want Windows,
>> even with a few limitations, it's still Windows, it's the real thing!
>> 
>
> Define 'thing'.

Windows... it's real bad.  Real unstable (you'd be surprised!)
Real slow.

-- 
[X] Check here to always trust content from Lin�nut

Tom Wilson <twilson@notinyourlife.com> wrote in message news:<PbGSc.1666$8G3.153@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...

> You don't combat an operating system that comes with more functionality 
> than 99.999 percent of any given poplace could use...with an OS that 
> only allows three open windows at a time.

If that old survey about Windows users using only three programs is
still approximately true, releasing such a product in the USA might
end up munching XP sales.  (What do people do these days? 
Browser/Mail/IM?)

A $29.99 Windows XP Lite would certainly suit me, since there -is-
only one current-Windows-only program I want to run[1].


____________
[1] Adobe Audition.  Ardour (http://ardour.org/) is on my radar
screen, though.

Forrest wrote:

> Tom Wilson <twilson@notinyourlife.com> wrote in message news:<PbGSc.1666$8G3.153@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> 
> 
>>You don't combat an operating system that comes with more functionality 
>>than 99.999 percent of any given poplace could use...with an OS that 
>>only allows three open windows at a time.
> 
> 
> If that old survey about Windows users using only three programs is
> still approximately true, releasing such a product in the USA might
> end up munching XP sales.  (What do people do these days? 
> Browser/Mail/IM?)
> 
> A $29.99 Windows XP Lite would certainly suit me, since there -is-
> only one current-Windows-only program I want to run[1].
> 

Better yet, just try a Linux distro and step away from major security 
problems.  You have to realize that even tho Linux has possible 
exploitable areas, no one that I know of or read a report that has been 
exploited.  With M$ o/s that is their main problem and has been 
exploited big time.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

Lin�nut wrote:

> Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from GreyCloud:
> 
> 
>>>What's not to like, the XP Starter version is plenty enough for
>>>countries with such little resources, they don't need anymore.
>>>Besides, they don't want to downgrade to Linux, they want Windows,
>>>even with a few limitations, it's still Windows, it's the real thing!
>>>
>>
>>Define 'thing'.
> 
> 
> Windows... it's real bad.  Real unstable (you'd be surprised!)
> Real slow.
> 

I was wondering what his idea of 'real thing' was.  If it is coke, it 
figures.  Only crack heads would buy into XP.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

Simon Cooke wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
> 
>> A laptop I purchased recently
>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
> 
> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the field
> of computer science...

And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?

Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from GreyCloud:

> Lin�nut wrote:
>
>> Windows... it's real bad.  Real unstable (you'd be surprised!)
>> Real slow.
>
> I was wondering what his idea of 'real thing' was.  If it is coke, it 
> figures.  Only crack heads would buy into XP.

XP has many improvements and looks prettier than Win 2000.  Unfortunately, it
is slow, and still has a lot of bugs.

-- 
[X] Check here to always trust content from Lin�nut

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:

> Simon Cooke wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>> 
>>> A laptop I purchased recently
>>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>> 
>> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the field
>> of computer science...
> 
> And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?

About as good as his.

Simon Cooke wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
> 
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>>> 
>>>> A laptop I purchased recently
>>>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>>> 
>>> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the
>>> field of computer science...
>> 
>> And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?
> 
> About as good as his.

And your publications are ?

Simon Cooke wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
> 
> 
>>Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A laptop I purchased recently
>>>>comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>>>contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>>>Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>>>
>>>Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the field
>>>of computer science...
>>
>>And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?
> 
> 
> About as good as his.

Oh yeah, Ex-Sierra, Ex-MSFT troll....

Your credentials are to ER's what Homer Simpson is to Stephen Hawking.

At least ER has the balls to post on the Internet using his real name.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:13:57 +0000, Jessup Silstrom wrote:

> mocat wrote:
> 
>> How's this crap going to combat piracy? The Asian pirates will say "fuck
>> this, this thing's useless, I'll go pirate the real thing instead."
> 
> What kind of a 'pirate' steals something that can be had, in better quality,
> for free?

The ones who need it to play games or something.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:15:28 -0700,
 Simon Cooke <simonREMOVEcooke@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>>> 
>>>> A laptop I purchased recently
>>>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>>> 
>>> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the field
>>> of computer science...
>> 
>> And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?
>
> About as good as his.


You still haven't said what it was in the book you disagreed with. 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBG/zyd90bcYOAWPYRAlZCAJ4suMlEg2NfTjd0L1Om2lKP2fd3ewCdE3ew
gqpKxrLzF6nMsUaSTyQK8ec=
=K1db
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
	bug, n: A son of a glitch.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:38:59 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:
> Oh yeah, Ex-Sierra, Ex-MSFT troll....
> 
> Your credentials are to ER's what Homer Simpson is to Stephen Hawking.

ESR's credentials? What are those, pray tell? He wrote some apps. Big deal
- so have I. He is certainly no Knuth. Most people, in fact, view him as a
maladjusted gun-toting kook with a Star Wars fetish.

> At least ER has the balls to post on the Internet using his real name.

Erm... sorry to tell you this, Philip, as you appear to be somewhat
misinformed and/or deluded on this matter, but this is my real name.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:21:36 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:

> Simon Cooke wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
>> 
>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> A laptop I purchased recently
>>>>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>>>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>>>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>>>> 
>>>> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the
>>>> field of computer science...
>>> 
>>> And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?
>> 
>> About as good as his.
> 
> And your publications are ?

About as long as my arm. Over 120 published articles, large quantities of
software, and a rather nice piece on code project.

I've already linked them in a previous post. Obviously you weren't looking.

Simon Cooke wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:21:36 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
> 
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> A laptop I purchased recently
>>>>>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>>>>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>>>>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the
>>>>> field of computer science...
>>>> 
>>>> And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?
>>> 
>>> About as good as his.
>> 
>> And your publications are ?
> 
> About as long as my arm. Over 120 published articles, large quantities of
> software, and a rather nice piece on code project.
> 
> I've already linked them in a previous post. Obviously you weren't
> looking.

Any books ?

Simon Cooke wrote:

> I've already linked them in a previous post. Obviously you weren't
> looking.

Funny, I did a search on "Simon Cooke" and, at least in the top links, there
are no major publications, articles or other things mentioned.

You're home page comes up, but that would fall into the category of "Vanity
Press"

http://vivisimo.com/search?query=%22Simon+Cooke%22&v%3Asources=Web&x=0&y=0

Whereas Eric Raymond brings up many mainstream references ( from known
sources such as Salon.com ).

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:36:34 GMT, Jim Richardson wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:15:28 -0700,
>  Simon Cooke <simonREMOVEcooke@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> A laptop I purchased recently
>>>>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>>>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>>>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>>>> 
>>>> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the field
>>>> of computer science...
>>> 
>>> And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?
>>
>> About as good as his.
> 
> 
> You still haven't said what it was in the book you disagreed with. 

Firstly, his book merely repeats what others already said before him.

Secondly, Martha's comment that "MS software is all a humungous clot
completely contrary to the principles [summarized by Eric Raymond]" is
frankly baseless. There's one "rule" which MS breaks - "Design programs to
be connected to other programs" - and they only break that one if
"connected to other programs" is read in the Unix way; that is "connected
to other programs by passing text from one app to another via the command
line shell"

Third, one of his rules sums this all up nicely "Distrust all claims for
�one true way�"

Fourth - and my biggest disagreement - is Chapter 5. I've made my stand on
this before. Every time I see a text-based file format, the heat death
comes one step closer, I think about all of the global warming caused by
processors wasting cycles decoding text files, and I worry about all the
extra cycles which could have been used by SETI@Home.

Biggest argument against the Unix "everything's a text file"?
 that would be the XBM file format. Guess what? It's a graphics format
THAT'S A TEXT FILE. The whole idea is fucking stupid and idiotic. What's
next? MP3 music as text? Oh wait... we already have that... on Usenet, with
UUENCODE and BASE64 encoding because Usenet is fucked-up enough to STILL
insist on 7-bit ASCII. That, presumably, is because we're all waiting for
the second coming of the PARITY BIT.

Computers are binary. Their primary file formats should NOT be ASCII text.
That's wasteful of resources.

I feel the same way about idiots who insist on using XML for everything.

Simon Cooke, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:47:51 GMT, Paul Cooke wrote:
> 
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
>> 
>>|Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
>>|"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
>>|concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
>>|display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
>>|networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
>>|such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."
>> 
>> and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
>> as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
>> full version to get the real features unlocked???
>> 
>> At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
>> completely for free.
>> 
>> Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
>> to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
>> ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
>> once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
>> programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
>> anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
>> solitaire.
>> 
>> Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
>> crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!
> 
> One wonders why you're complaining about it. Surely this is a good thing
> for Linux, if it's so much better?

  Fucking WHOOOOSH

Simon Cooke, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
> 
>> A laptop I purchased recently
>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
> 
> Funny... I don't recall

  Being told you were ever intelligent.

Simon Cooke, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:38:59 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:
>> Oh yeah, Ex-Sierra, Ex-MSFT troll....
>> 
>> Your credentials are to ER's what Homer Simpson is to Stephen Hawking.
> 
>  Most people, in fact, view him as a maladjusted gun-toting kook with a Star
>Wars fetish.

  Most people? Care to place the number you got to support that statement?
Didn't think so. Next time have the cods to say "I" instead of "most people".

On 2004-08-13, mocat <me@privacy.net> sputtered:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:13:57 +0000, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
>
>> mocat wrote:
>> 
>>> How's this crap going to combat piracy? The Asian pirates will say "fuck
>>> this, this thing's useless, I'll go pirate the real thing instead."
>> 
>> What kind of a 'pirate' steals something that can be had, in better quality,
>> for free?
>
> The ones who need it to play games or something.

And Windoze users.

-- 
The box said Windows XP or better. So, I installed linux.
Hell, Windows 3.1 would have done in a pinch if "better
than XP" is the threshold.

Simon Cooke wrote:

> I feel the same way about idiots who insist on using XML for everything.

I feel just the opposite.

I've been working on projects with SOAP and I find the whole concept
enlightening.

To me, it's absolutely the right way to go when it comes to interface,
datatransfer and so on...

As far as streaming media, yes, it should be done with XML as well...

The thing is, you contrast binary vs. ASCII ( or unicode ) as if they were
two different things.  It's just a matter of using a higher level of
encoding with characters or bytes, rather than bits...kind of like using
Kanji versus the English alphabet.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:17:40 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:

> Simon Cooke wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:21:36 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
>> 
>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A laptop I purchased recently
>>>>>>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>>>>>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>>>>>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the
>>>>>> field of computer science...
>>>>> 
>>>>> And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?
>>>> 
>>>> About as good as his.
>>> 
>>> And your publications are ?
>> 
>> About as long as my arm. Over 120 published articles, large quantities of
>> software, and a rather nice piece on code project.
>> 
>> I've already linked them in a previous post. Obviously you weren't
>> looking.
> 
> Any books ?

Nope. Not yet. 

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:23:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:

> Simon Cooke wrote:
> 
>> I've already linked them in a previous post. Obviously you weren't
>> looking.
> 
> Funny, I did a search on "Simon Cooke" and, at least in the top links, there
> are no major publications, articles or other things mentioned.

Well, let's start with software.

http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/portfolio.htm
 
> You're home page comes up, but that would fall into the category of "Vanity
> Press"

Bailo, I was a freelance journalist for 5 years. In print. In magazines
sold in newsagents and bookstores. Which is more than anyone can say about
you.

That's not "Vanity Press", Bailo. So don't try to lie about what I've done.

> http://vivisimo.com/search?query=%22Simon+Cooke%22&v%3Asources=Web&x=0&y=0
> 
> Whereas Eric Raymond brings up many mainstream references ( from known
> sources such as Salon.com ).

Vivisimo? Why not google?

Funny... I've been referred to on MSNBC, I was on BBC radio once too being
interviewed on one of their programs (complete with all-expenses-paid trip
to london). My articles have been used in Universities across the UK, in
Congress, and in the British Govt. Sociology students were even set papers
on a couple of them. If you'd like me to brag more, I can do so - but ESR's
record doesn't impress me at all.

If he impresses you, then I pity you.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 03:45:33 -0500, Norwegian Formula wrote:

> Simon Cooke, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>> 
>>> A laptop I purchased recently
>>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>> 
>> Funny... I don't recall
> 
>   Being told you were ever intelligent.

Pathetic. Got any better insults? Because that one's old, broken, busted
and as useless as the Pope's cock.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:09:05 -0700, Simon Cooke
<simonREMOVEcooke@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:

> Most people, in fact, view him as a maladjusted...kook.

Oh, right, then...about as good as yours.

-- 
Bo Grimes   vcg3rd@earthlink.net
    "I'm a simple man with complex tastes."  -Calvin

GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:<pradnYUrNPO23YHcRVn-ig@bresnan.com>...

> Better yet, just try a Linux distro and step away from major security 
> problems.

I'm running Slackware 10, actually, but WINE can't yet cope with
Audition (or even Cool Edit 2000).

Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Jessup Silstrom:

> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> I've already linked them in a previous post. Obviously you weren't
>> looking.
>
> Funny, I did a search on "Simon Cooke" and, at least in the top links, there
> are no major publications, articles or other things mentioned.
>
> You're home page comes up, but that would fall into the category of "Vanity
> Press"
>
> http://vivisimo.com/search?query=%22Simon+Cooke%22&v%3Asources=Web&x=0&y=0
>
> Whereas Eric Raymond brings up many mainstream references ( from known
> sources such as Salon.com ).

Obviously, Simon's articles are in-house corporate articles of the type "How to
Change Fonts in Word".

-- 
[X] Check here to always trust content from Lin�nut

Simon Cooke wrote:

> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/portfolio.htm
>  

Let's look at all this "great software" you claim to have "authored" ( 
http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/portfolio.htm )

First there's:

        Hallmark Scrapbook Studio
        Hallmark Scrapbook Studio 2 (2nd publishing run, about to ship)
        

A quick visit to Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005Y0J4/103-5682694-6751815

reveals that this is one of the least liked photo organizing programs ever.

The reviews give it 1 or 2 ( out of 5 ) stars and complain:

It's good for graphics but that's about it, May 16, 2004
        
Reviewer:               A software user
It is so frustrating because you can't work a 2 page spread with the two
pages side by side. I've only used this for printing out some clip art
and/or sayings and such. And when I've used it for a full page layout, it
always leaves a 1/2 inch boarder around the edges of white...I know that's
a printer issue but it's still annoying. I would never use it for a full
page layout.


Agree with waste of time and money, May 12, 2004
        
Reviewer:               A software user
If you are planning to use with digital photos, don't get this one. You must
actually do the cutting to place photos. Has a lot to it but most is
useless if you plan to design and print with your pictures.


So disappointed..., March 30, 2004
        
Reviewer:               Janette (Westland, MI) - See all my reviews
I saw this in the store the other day and thought what a wonderful idea!!
Considering the Hallmark name, I thought it had to be decent. I hate it. I
put in the time to learn how to use it. I have a technical bachelors degree
and work in the IT field, so you'd think I'd be computer savvy enough to
use this. I have hundreds of digital photos and was quite upset to see the
note in the instructions to only use the square or retangular templates
with digital photos. What??!! That makes it useless to me. $20 down the
toilet.


Not so good, February 12, 2004
        
Reviewer:               A software user
I was very anxious to receive the Hallmark Scrapbook Studio. The day it came
in the mail, I installed it on my computer only to find it did not work.
Each time I tried to use a pre-designed template, my computer would crash.
I was unable to use the software even after contacting Sierra for advice.
My computer exceeds the operating requirements yet the software did not
work. I would not recommend this software. 

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:16:29 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:

> Simon Cooke wrote:
> 
>> 
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/portfolio.htm
>>  
> 
> Let's look at all this "great software" you claim to have "authored" ( 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/portfolio.htm )
> 
> First there's:
> 
>         Hallmark Scrapbook Studio
>         Hallmark Scrapbook Studio 2 (2nd publishing run, about to ship)
>         
> 
> A quick visit to Amazon
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005Y0J4/103-5682694-6751815
> 
> reveals that this is one of the least liked photo organizing programs ever.

You might want to look into the fact that I didn't write all of it; the
Photo Lab app is what I *did* write.

You might also want to look into the fact that all of the complaints you
listed were regarding the main app, not the photo editor.

Half of the problems listed were due to the fact that the Hallmark
Scrapbook Studio was built on another codebase (IIRC, Print Artist 4),
which didn't support PNG images. And I complained about half of these
problems when I worked there.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:15:50 -0500, Lin�nut wrote:

> Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Jessup Silstrom:
> 
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> I've already linked them in a previous post. Obviously you weren't
>>> looking.
>>
>> Funny, I did a search on "Simon Cooke" and, at least in the top links, there
>> are no major publications, articles or other things mentioned.
>>
>> You're home page comes up, but that would fall into the category of "Vanity
>> Press"
>>
>> http://vivisimo.com/search?query=%22Simon+Cooke%22&v%3Asources=Web&x=0&y=0
>>
>> Whereas Eric Raymond brings up many mainstream references ( from known
>> sources such as Salon.com ).
> 
> Obviously, Simon's articles are in-house corporate articles of the type "How to
> Change Fonts in Word".

You're wrong. Every single one has been published in a mainstream newsstand
magazine.

Here's a tiny sampling:

http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/magazines/stacks.html

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:58:33 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:

> Simon Cooke wrote:
> 
>> I feel the same way about idiots who insist on using XML for everything.
> 
> I feel just the opposite.
> 
> I've been working on projects with SOAP and I find the whole concept
> enlightening.
> 
> To me, it's absolutely the right way to go when it comes to interface,
> datatransfer and so on...
> 
> As far as streaming media, yes, it should be done with XML as well...
> 
> The thing is, you contrast binary vs. ASCII ( or unicode ) as if they were
> two different things.  It's just a matter of using a higher level of
> encoding with characters or bytes, rather than bits...kind of like using
> Kanji versus the English alphabet.

Bailo, as soon as I see that you've written ANY code that has to run with
ANY degree of high performance, I'll accept your input on this matter.
Given that you seem to be a newbie .NET jockey who mostly specializes in
web scripting, you don't appear to have any experience in this area.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:36:37 -0700,
 Simon Cooke <simonREMOVEcooke@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:36:34 GMT, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:15:28 -0700,
>>  Simon Cooke <simonREMOVEcooke@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> A laptop I purchased recently
>>>>>> comes with Microsoft software: it's all a humongous clot, completely
>>>>>> contrary to the simple principles so clearly summarized in Eric
>>>>>> Raymond's The Art of Unix Programming.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Funny... I don't recall Eric Raymond being a prominent expert in the field
>>>>> of computer science...
>>>> 
>>>> And your credentials would be...what, exactly ?
>>>
>>> About as good as his.
>> 
>> 
>> You still haven't said what it was in the book you disagreed with. 
>
> Firstly, his book merely repeats what others already said before him.
>

And what part of that do you disagree with? 


> Secondly, Martha's comment that "MS software is all a humungous clot
> completely contrary to the principles [summarized by Eric Raymond]" is
> frankly baseless. There's one "rule" which MS breaks - "Design programs to
> be connected to other programs" - and they only break that one if
> "connected to other programs" is read in the Unix way; that is "connected
> to other programs by passing text from one app to another via the command
> line shell"

So you don't disagree with what Eric wrote? 

>
> Third, one of his rules sums this all up nicely "Distrust all claims for
> �one true way�"
>


Agreed. It's a good maxim, even using it on itself. 

> Fourth - and my biggest disagreement - is Chapter 5. I've made my stand on
> this before. Every time I see a text-based file format, the heat death
> comes one step closer, I think about all of the global warming caused by
> processors wasting cycles decoding text files, and I worry about all the
> extra cycles which could have been used by SETI@Home.
>

You worry about cycles used for text files? but you don't worry about
crap spammers spewing a megabits/s from compromised MS-Windows boxen?


> Biggest argument against the Unix "everything's a text file"?
>  that would be the XBM file format. Guess what? It's a graphics format
> THAT'S A TEXT FILE. The whole idea is fucking stupid and idiotic. What's
> next? MP3 music as text? Oh wait... we already have that... on Usenet, with
> UUENCODE and BASE64 encoding because Usenet is fucked-up enough to STILL
> insist on 7-bit ASCII. That, presumably, is because we're all waiting for
> the second coming of the PARITY BIT.
>
> Computers are binary. Their primary file formats should NOT be ASCII text.
> That's wasteful of resources.
>
> I feel the same way about idiots who insist on using XML for everything.

You are ignoring compression. Why? I don't know, it isn't as if *nix
doesn't handle compressed files well, zcat, zgrep, etc. 

Lets take one example. A spreadsheet, a fairly complex one, but not so
large that it would be better done in something else like a database.
Make the spreadsheet in Excel, and in Gnumeric, in their native
formats, now save them, and look at the file size. Oops! Gnumeric's is
typically 1/10th of the size of the same exact spreadsheet in Excel.
Why? Because the Gnumeric format is a compressed file (XML amusingly
enough) and the Excel spreadsheet isn't. 

Frankly, I think you are complaining about it, because it isn't "The MS
Way" more than anything else. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBHIPad90bcYOAWPYRAuLYAJ4jCL2bXGRSo39QgWXEwuCnK97OCACfRcFF
iHxoGi1A4B31TXULjLfNPXM=
=sIHz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn?"

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:52:41 -0600, Craig Kelley wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:36:30 -0700, Peter Bilt wrote:
> 
>> What's not to like, the XP Starter version is plenty enough for
>> countries with such little resources, they don't need anymore.
>> Besides, they don't want to downgrade to Linux, they want Windows,
>> even with a few limitations, it's still Windows, it's the real thing!
> 
> O
> 
> M
> 
> G

YHBT.  HTH.

Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Norwegian Formula:

> Simon Cooke, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:38:59 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:
>>> Oh yeah, Ex-Sierra, Ex-MSFT troll....
>>> 
>>> Your credentials are to ER's what Homer Simpson is to Stephen Hawking.
>> 
>>  Most people, in fact, view him as a maladjusted gun-toting kook with a Star
>>Wars fetish.
>
>   Most people? Care to place the number you got to support that statement?
> Didn't think so. Next time have the cods to say "I" instead of "most people".

Simon sure tends to take things to gutter level.  Almost as bad a habit as his
lying.

-- 
[X] Check here to always trust content from Lin�nut

Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> writes:

> You are ignoring compression. Why? I don't know, it isn't as if *nix
> doesn't handle compressed files well, zcat, zgrep, etc. 

Hey, I didn't know about zgrep.  Cool.

-- 
"We want a single platform.  We're trying to get there using the
carrot, or blackmail, or rewards, or whatever you call it."
   -- Madison, WI, superintendent Rainwater grasps subtlety in the
              operating system wars.

In article <rncuu1-f9b.ln1@grendel.myth> (Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:30:03
+0000), Jim Richardson wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:36:37 -0700,
>  Simon Cooke <simonREMOVEcooke@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:

>> [Eric Raymond's _The Art of Unix Programming_]

>> Firstly, his book merely repeats what others already said before him.
>>
> And what part of that do you disagree with?

Simian thinks repetition is patented by Microsoft?

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:47:51 +0000, Paul Cooke wrote:

> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/winxp_starter_edition_announced/>
> 
> |Then cut to this week's Windows XP Starter Edition announcement and read
> |"users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running
> |concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes the
> |display resolution set to 800x600 maximum and no support for PC-to-PC home
> |networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features
> |such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC."     
> 
> and this is what they release to fight Linux with??? something that's about
> as borked as crippleware you download and then find you have to pay for the
> full version to get the real features unlocked???
> 
> At least with Linux, you get a proper chance to evaluate it, uncrippled,
> completely for free.
> 
> Just wonder if this "crippled" version of XP has nag screens that tell you
> to stump up for the full version if you attempt to do more than it allows,
> ie you try to set the res to 1024 x 760, or run more than three programs at
> once... also wonder if malware gets included in the count of running
> programs... imagine it, you've got a third party firewall running, an
> anti-virus scanner, a bit of spyware lurking and you find you can't run
> solitaire.
> 
> Home Edition was crippled, but usable in general, this new version is really
> crippled and they've got the audacity to charge $30 for it!!!


They've been selling crippled software for many years now - not
intentionally.

Hamilcar Barca wrote:

> 
> Simian thinks repetition is patented by Microsoft?
                 ^^^^^^^^^^
You mis-spelled mediocrity.


-- 
Tom Wilson
Play Rogue, visit exotic locations, meet strange creatures and kill
them.

Simon Cooke wrote:

> Bailo, as soon as I see that you've written ANY code that has to run with
> ANY degree of high performance, I'll accept your input on this matter.
> Given that you seem to be a newbie .NET jockey who mostly specializes in
> web scripting, you don't appear to have any experience in this area.

Which makes me extremely valuable.

I don't sit around figuring out which pixel to pop when someone asks me to
create an SOA.

I use the best tools -- ones that are adapted for modern processors, memory
and networks.

While Simon Cooke and Jeff Relf sit in front of their PDP-11's, trying to
figure out how to squeeze a word document into a 4-bit register, I'm
designing the information architecture of the 21st century, and beyond,
asshole.

Simon Cooke wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:15:50 -0500, Linønut wrote:
> 
>> Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Jessup Silstrom:
>> 
>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've already linked them in a previous post. Obviously you weren't
>>>> looking.
>>>
>>> Funny, I did a search on "Simon Cooke" and, at least in the top links,
>>> there are no major publications, articles or other things mentioned.
>>>
>>> You're home page comes up, but that would fall into the category of
>>> "Vanity Press"
>>>
>>>
http://vivisimo.com/search?query=%22Simon+Cooke%22&v%3Asources=Web&x=0&y=0
>>>
>>> Whereas Eric Raymond brings up many mainstream references ( from known
>>> sources such as Salon.com ).
>> 
>> Obviously, Simon's articles are in-house corporate articles of the type
>> "How to Change Fonts in Word".
> 
> You're wrong. Every single one has been published in a mainstream
> newsstand magazine.
> 
> Here's a tiny sampling:
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/magazines/stacks.html

Could you please provide a reference that isn't some made up thing on your
web site ?

Simon Cooke wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:16:29 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
> 
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/portfolio.htm
>>>  
>> 
>> Let's look at all this "great software" you claim to have "authored" (
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/portfolio.htm )
>> 
>> First there's:
>> 
>>         Hallmark Scrapbook Studio
>>         Hallmark Scrapbook Studio 2 (2nd publishing run, about to ship)
>>         
>> 
>> A quick visit to Amazon
>> 
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005Y0J4/103-5682694-6751815
>> 
>> reveals that this is one of the least liked photo organizing programs
>> ever.
> 
> You might want to look into the fact that I didn't write all of it; the
> Photo Lab app is what I *did* write.

Yes, but it shows the company you keep.

> 
> You might also want to look into the fact that all of the complaints you
> listed were regarding the main app, not the photo editor.
> 
> Half of the problems listed were due to the fact that the Hallmark
> Scrapbook Studio was built on another codebase (IIRC, Print Artist 4),
> which didn't support PNG images. And I complained about half of these
> problems when I worked there.

Watch out Simon.  With all that /backpeddling/ you might hit a brick wall.

Simon Cooke wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:23:19 GMT, Jessup Silstrom wrote:
> 
> 
>>Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've already linked them in a previous post. Obviously you weren't
>>>looking.
>>
>>Funny, I did a search on "Simon Cooke" and, at least in the top links, there
>>are no major publications, articles or other things mentioned.
> 
> 
> Well, let's start with software.
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/portfolio.htm
> 

I wouldn't bother with them, Simon.  Even if they did find a lot of 
solid references, they'd find something to bother  you with.
Would anybody believe I was in any intelligence agency?  Nope... and I 
could never prove I was either.  Or risk my pension to prove it, which 
isn't worth it.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

Forrest wrote:

> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:<pradnYUrNPO23YHcRVn-ig@bresnan.com>...
> 
> 
>>Better yet, just try a Linux distro and step away from major security 
>>problems.
> 
> 
> I'm running Slackware 10, actually, but WINE can't yet cope with
> Audition (or even Cool Edit 2000).

That's always a problem with a lot of other o/ses out there.  The only 
cure is to have another small hard drive to accomodate windows and that 
program.  E-mail and web browsing just isn't worth the risk in any 
version of windows these days.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Jesse F. Hughes:

> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> writes:
>
>> You are ignoring compression. Why? I don't know, it isn't as if *nix
>> doesn't handle compressed files well, zcat, zgrep, etc. 
>
> Hey, I didn't know about zgrep.  Cool.

I like being able to view the compressed gz files in /usr/share/doc
using vim.

Try it!  First cat one of those files, then vim it.

(I still need to recompile for Unicode support, though.  Is there a Gentoo
make.conf variable for Unicode?)

-- 
[X] Check here to always trust content from Lin�nut

So anyway, it was like, 22:05 CEST Aug 14 2004, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Lin�nut was all like, "Dude,

> I like being able to view the compressed gz files in /usr/share/doc
> using vim.
>
> Try it! First cat one of those files, then vim it.

I more often less those.

-- 
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.      Perth ---> *
 00:07:01 up 32 days,  2:40,  9 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.05, 0.01
Linux 2.6.7 x86_64 GNU/Linux             Registered Linux user #261729

Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Johan Lindquist:

> So anyway, it was like, 22:05 CEST Aug 14 2004, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Lin�nut was all like, "Dude,
>
>> I like being able to view the compressed gz files in /usr/share/doc
>> using vim.
>>
>> Try it! First cat one of those files, then vim it.
>
> I more often less those.

Either way.

-- 
[X] Check here to always trust content from Lin�nut