I am at art college and I need...
Philip Kaulfuss
install any files in places that would need admin permission. Also, an FTP
client would be handy, and a web browser better than Netscape 4.
--
Philip Kaulfuss | Home: http://www.boehme.demon.co.uk
usenet @ boehme.demon.co.uk | Tunes: http://www.mp3.com/LHB
ICQ: 21755556 | R&M: http://come.to/vicandbob
Secret Vampire
>... A good newsreader for WinNT 4.0 which is less than 10MB and doesn't
>install any files in places that would need admin permission. Also, an FTP
>client would be handy, and a web browser better than Netscape 4.
>
like working in NT's DOS box, um tried simtel.net?
For FTP I use WS_FTP, but only because it was free, there must be a
decent one of them around.
as for web browser there can only be Opera, or IE or Kmeleon (possibly
misspelled) (based on Mozilla I think but small and not requiring DLL's
all over the system.)
--
Secret Vampire
Are you Amigan? See here: http://www.chunkynet.demon.co.uk/amitest.htm
Remove spam00 to email me
All the school kids so sick of books/ They like the punk and the metal band
When the buzzer rings (oh whey oh)/ They're walking like an Egyptian
Hayn-me-do
Kaulfuss) wrote:
>... A good newsreader for WinNT 4.0 which is less than 10MB and doesn't
>install any files in places that would need admin permission. Also, an FTP
>client would be handy, and a web browser better than Netscape 4.
Forté Agent www.forteinc.com - you can get free agent if you want,
that's free, or you could l33t haxx0r Forté Agent.
--Nick.
--
icq: 9235201 -- Fax: (0) 7974 984182 - United Kingdom
http://www.blackstar.co.uk/scp/id/what - Want videos?
Hayn on dal.net -- #SkyDigital IRC -- dragons.dal.net
GilesX
Web browser better than Netscape4 ---> http://www.mozilla.org -It is
the future, love.
In article <0010060...@boehme.demon.co.uk>, "Philip Kaulfuss"
spm...@my-deja.com
Deja is painfully slow over a shared library type web connection.
> Web browser better than Netscape4 ---> http://www.mozilla.org -It is
> the future, love.
No java, BUT it fits on a floppy and seems to get round most
Cybersitter type software.
If you don't mind a bigger d/l, you can get it with Java.
It is VERY fast. You can have several windows open and have them all
d/ling as fast as one Netscape window would.
It is also a professional product (which Mozilla is not). You can
obtain a serial for it easily enough, though.
> In article <0010060...@boehme.demon.co.uk>, "Philip Kaulfuss"
> <use...@boehme.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ... A good newsreader for WinNT 4.0 which is less than 10MB and
doesn't
> > install any files in places that would need admin permission. Also,
an
> > FTP client would be handy, and a web browser better than Netscape 4.
WS FTP LE is what I normally use. 690.5K. Free. Good enough.
--
SPM
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Glyndwr
> In article <7inO5.880$lc5.1...@news3.cableinet.net>,
> "GilesX" <gi...@tomgreen.com> wrote:
> > Couldn't ya just use http://www.dejanews.com ???
>
> Deja is painfully slow over a shared library type web connection.
Or indeed over any connection, ever.
>
> It is VERY fast. You can have several windows open and have them all
> d/ling as fast as one Netscape window would.
But, when downloading things, I generally max out my modem on one thing.
Unless Opera is capable of magically upgrading a modem to DSL, I'm going to
have to say "phooey".
> It is also a professional product (which Mozilla is not). You can
> obtain a serial for it easily enough, though.
Erm, Mozilla is an open source project[1]. Open source > professional.
> WS FTP LE is what I normally use. 690.5K. Free. Good enough.
Security holes you can drive enormous trucks through. The encryption it uses
on your password is trivial, and I havea bunch of stolen passwords to prove
it. A mate of mine even got a password into MacAfee's main corporate FTP
from one. Free virus scanners 3:16. Try FlashFXP instead, which is genuinely
great.
And please don't top post.
[1] albiet a dodgy one.
--
-=G=-
print join " ",reverse split /\s+/,'hacker. Perl another Just',"\n";
Web: http://www.fscked.co.uk ICQ: 66545073
spm...@my-deja.com
> > In article <7inO5.880$lc5.1...@news3.cableinet.net>,
> > "GilesX" <gi...@tomgreen.com> wrote:
> > > Couldn't ya just use http://www.dejanews.com ???
> >
> > Deja is painfully slow over a shared library type web connection.
>
It is bearable over my sickeningly fast LAN connection.
Library ethernet tends to be very fast, when it is just you. But it is
never just you. It is you, 800 other users and the Sysadmin downloading
"Now that's what I call Bestiality 87!".
> >
> > It is VERY fast. You can have several windows open and have them all
> > d/ling as fast as one Netscape window would.
>
> But, when downloading things, I generally max out my modem on one
thing.
> Unless Opera is capable of magically upgrading a modem to DSL, I'm
going to
> have to say "phooey".
I don't know why it works better, it just does. It isn't based on
ancient mosiac code, for a start.
> > It is also a professional product (which Mozilla is not). You can
> > obtain a serial for it easily enough, though.
>
> Erm, Mozilla is an open source project[1]. Open source > professional.
Open Source > People who think Linux with GNOME is a good desktop OS.
I ph33r opensource people.
> > WS FTP LE is what I normally use. 690.5K. Free. Good enough.
>
> Security holes you can drive enormous trucks through. The encryption
it uses
> on your password is trivial, and I havea bunch of stolen passwords to
prove
> it. A mate of mine even got a password into MacAfee's main corporate
FTP
> from one. Free virus scanners 3:16. Try FlashFXP instead, which is
genuinely
> great.
WS FTP is bad?
Lordy. I generally only use it for downloading demos and the like.
I shall upgrade immediately*.
> And please don't top post.
I didn't, did I?
Unless I am misunderstanding what you meant by top post.
--
SPM
* Well... after breakfast
Magick Mang
of crap:
>It is also a professional product (which Mozilla is not). You can
>obtain a serial for it easily enough, though.
I would personnaly argue that mozilla (being free software) Is
equally, if not more professional and reliable that any other browser.
_____
Magick Mang/ronny_magic/buzz
Supporting "Gamers against British Telecom" - http://www.planetunreal.com/soundoff/gabt
ICQ# 82601633
spm...@my-deja.com
tou...@seaman.co.uk (Magick Mang) wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:25:00 GMT, spm...@my-deja.com wrote This load
> of crap:
>
> >obtain a serial for it easily enough, though.
>
> equally, if not more professional and reliable that any other browser.
Yes. A bunch of stupid hippies make software that is as good as people
who WORK for a living and care enough about their source code not to
give it away.
I AGREE.
Mozilla is poo. I know it isn't finished, but it looks a lot like
Netscape so far. Which is also arse.
The only downer with Opera is that some websites refuse to work unless
you "fiddle" with the identify-as... setting.
Matthew Garrett
>Mozilla is poo. I know it isn't finished, but it looks a lot like
>Netscape so far. Which is also arse.
The latest one doesn't look like Netscape, and is absolutely lovely in
every way except that it leaks memory and after about 72 hours is 200MB in
size. It's also crashed on me less often than any other web browser I've
ever used.
It's great.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org
GilesX
>
> Mozilla is poo. I know it isn't finished, but it looks a lot like
> Netscape so far. Which is also arse.
The reason you consider Mozilla to be "poo" is that it still contains a
hell of a lot of debugging code, and the code has not been optimised.
When this has been done, it will run faster, and be smaller than
Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Compare the speed of the semi-optimised
Netscape 6 preview release 3 with Mozilla to see what I mean.
The new Mozilla browser will be the most standards compliant and fastest
browser available. And you can use AOL IM actually as part of the browser
:-)
Thank you, Drive Thru
--
The Indrema L600 is coming in 2001 - http://www.indrema.com
- Read it and weep, PS2 Zealots
GilesX
<mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
>
> The latest one doesn't look like Netscape, and is absolutely lovely in
> every way except that it leaks memory and after about 72 hours is 200MB
> in size. It's also crashed on me less often than any other web browser
> I've ever used.
>
> It's great.
>
Mozilla Seamokey is the best thing ever!
spm...@my-deja.com
"GilesX" <gi...@tomgreen.com> wrote:
> In article <8ueque$7r0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Mozilla is poo. I know it isn't finished, but it looks a lot like
> > Netscape so far. Which is also arse.
>
> The reason you consider Mozilla to be "poo" is that it still contains
a
> hell of a lot of debugging code, and the code has not been optimised.
> When this has been done, it will run faster, and be smaller than
> Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Compare the speed of the semi-optimised
> Netscape 6 preview release 3 with Mozilla to see what I mean.
>
> The new Mozilla browser will be the most standards compliant and
fastest
> browser available. And you can use AOL IM actually as part of the
browser
> :-)
>
Standards compliant? AOL Instant Messanger? Geerrreat. I use ICQ.
When it is finished? I will believe that when I see it. So... I will
believe that never. Will be Will be Will be. Yessss.
Netscape 6.0 PR3 is also poo.
Glyndwr
> In article <3a0ad17f...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> tou...@seaman.co.uk (Magick Mang) wrote:
> Yes. A bunch of stupid hippies make software that is as good as people
> who WORK for a living and care enough about their source code not to
> give it away.
Yes, that's right. Linux is rubbish. X-Free86 is rubbish. FreeBSD is
rubbish. Perl is rubbish. Apache is rubbish. Sendmail is rubbish.
OVER 50% OF THE INTERNET RUNS ON FREE SOFTWARE. You have messed up
amazingly.
> I AGREE.
More mess-up.
> Mozilla is poo. I know it isn't finished, but it looks a lot like
> Netscape so far. Which is also arse.
That will be because it's a open-source project based[1] on Netscape 4.X.
Have you used it? It's very little like old Netscape. It's actually very
good. Which opinion I was based on using it, rather than making broad,
hand-waving arguments.
[1] as in, they threw all the rubbish[2] code away, and started anew.
[2] all of it.
GilesX
>
> Netscape 6.0 PR3 is also poo.
>
You just can't argue with this kind of reasoning..........
Glyndwr
> > The new Mozilla browser will be the most standards compliant and
> fastest
> > browser available. And you can use AOL IM actually as part of the
> browser
> > :-)
> >
>
> Standards compliant? AOL Instant Messanger? Geerrreat. I use ICQ.
Me too. AOL IM is a feature of Netscape 6, not Mozilla. And the fact it's
there doesn't make you use it. Also: ICQ is owned by AOL anyway.
> When it is finished? I will believe that when I see it. So... I will
> believe that never. Will be Will be Will be. Yessss.
It's open source, and therefore in a state of perpetual beta anyway, so
official releases don't mean much. Blimey, ICQ has been in beta for three
years now.
> Netscape 6.0 PR3 is also poo.
Not used it. Mozilla M18 (Seamonkey) is aceness.
--
-=G=-
print join " ",reverse split /\s+/,'hacker. Perl another Just',"\n";
Web: http://www.fscked.co.uk ICQ: 66545073
> Before you buy.
spm...@my-deja.com
"Glyndwr" <glynF...@FSCKdeleteEmeD.co.uk> wrote:
> <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ueque$7r0
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3a0ad17f...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> > tou...@seaman.co.uk (Magick Mang) wrote:
> > Yes. A bunch of stupid hippies make software that is as good as
people
> > who WORK for a living and care enough about their source code not to
> > give it away.
>
> Yes, that's right. Linux is rubbish. X-Free86 is rubbish. FreeBSD is
> rubbish. Perl is rubbish. Apache is rubbish. Sendmail is rubbish.
>
> OVER 50% OF THE INTERNET RUNS ON FREE SOFTWARE. You have messed up
> amazingly.
That's nice for the internet.
I will stick to stuff I (don't) pay for, thank you.
I have little/no desire to do any server type things.
(So, for me, Linux, XF86, FreeBSD, Perl, Sendmail, Apache, Samba,
Gnome, KDE, Litestep etc. etc. ad extreme boredom ARE rubbish)
I just want something that works with a minimum of headaches/effort.
I really have no interest in "learning" how to do stuff again. I spend
enough time slouched in front of a computer without adding to it
voluntarily.
I would rather pay/steal the extra and get a semi-coherent user
interface with at least some small pretence of commonality.
I do NOT WANT to hack my desktop configuration files. I could not give
a flying fuck about the exiting new window manager from the makers of
MacOS.
I really could not give a flying arse HOW many games are getting
converted to Linux these days.
I do NOT want to run StarOffice.
I will stick to this windows box for university work and my NeXT for
office work.
Do You See NOW?
> > Mozilla is poo. I know it isn't finished, but it looks a lot like
> > Netscape so far. Which is also arse.
>
> That will be because it's a open-source project based[1] on Netscape
4.X.
> Have you used it? It's very little like old Netscape. It's actually
very
> good. Which opinion I was based on using it, rather than making broad,
> hand-waving arguments.
I have used it. There is little-no improvement, so far as I can see.
And it crashed.
> [1] as in, they threw all the rubbish[2] code away, and started anew.
> [2] all of it.
Ho-hum.
I will believe it when I see it. Finished. Running. Stable.
GilesX
"Glyndwr" <glynF...@fsckdeleteemed.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Netscape 6.0 PR3 is also poo.
>
> Not used it. Mozilla M18 (Seamonkey) is aceness.
>
You should try it - it feels slicker than M18 on both Windows and Linux
systems, and seems to crash less (extremely rarely as opposed to rarely).
spm...@my-deja.com
"GilesX" <gi...@tomgreen.com> wrote:
> In article <8uf0d7$cpo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Netscape 6.0 PR3 is also poo.
> >
>
>
Damn straight.
What did you expect? Actual logical reasoned argument? I downloaded it.
I ran it. It gave me a headache. Ergo, it is Poo.
Don't get me wrong. I despise all PC stuff almost equally. It's just
that the person wanted a COMPACT web browser. Which Mozilla isn't.
What Mozilla is, at the moment, is barely functional. I do not care how
good it WILL be. I do not care if it will be THE SAVIOUR OF DESKTOP
COMPUTING as we KNOW IT.
Right now, it is simply not the appropriate tool for that particular
job.
Opera fits onto one disk. It is quick. It is compact. It is stable. It
has some nice features. It is just the ticket for library type networks.
spm...@my-deja.com
"Glyndwr" <glynF...@FSCKdeleteEmeD.co.uk> wrote:
> <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8uf0d7
$cpo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > The new Mozilla browser will be the most standards compliant and
> > fastest
> > > browser available. And you can use AOL IM actually as part of the
> > browser
> > > :-)
> > >
> >
> > Standards compliant? AOL Instant Messanger? Geerrreat. I use ICQ.
>
> Me too. AOL IM is a feature of Netscape 6, not Mozilla. And the fact
it's
> there doesn't make you use it. Also: ICQ is owned by AOL anyway.
ICQ is less annoying. It doesn't have a little yellow man for the logo.
> > When it is finished? I will believe that when I see it. So... I will
> > believe that never. Will be Will be Will be. Yessss.
>
> It's open source, and therefore in a state of perpetual beta anyway,
so
> official releases don't mean much. Blimey, ICQ has been in beta for
three
> years now.
The difference is, I would actually pay money for ICQ.
> > Netscape 6.0 PR3 is also poo.
>
> Not used it. Mozilla M18 (Seamonkey) is aceness.
Can't see it myself.
All that maths stuff sounds clever, but until I have a use for it it is
over-kill.
Glyndwr
> In article <PuEO5.62212$mv2.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> ICQ is less annoying. It doesn't have a little yellow man for the logo.
An old quote that amused me: "I used to think ICQ was for l33t haxx0rs only,
until I downloaded it and saw all the flowers."
Glyndwr
> In article <DvDO5.89048$hk2.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "Glyndwr" <glynF...@FSCKdeleteEmeD.co.uk> wrote:
> > OVER 50% OF THE INTERNET RUNS ON FREE SOFTWARE. You have messed up
> > amazingly.
>
> That's nice for the internet.
The internet you use to send these words to me.
> I will stick to stuff I (don't) pay for, thank you.
PIRACY IS THEFT.
> I have little/no desire to do any server type things.
> (So, for me, Linux, XF86, FreeBSD, Perl, Sendmail, Apache, Samba,
> Gnome, KDE, Litestep etc. etc. ad extreme boredom ARE rubbish)
Most of those are not servery type things. And whilst I'm not advocating the
Linux experience for everyone, it's not as bad as you seem to think either.
> I just want something that works with a minimum of headaches/effort.
> I really have no interest in "learning" how to do stuff again. I spend
> enough time slouched in front of a computer without adding to it
> voluntarily.
Then why don't you use MacOS?
> I would rather pay/steal the extra and get a semi-coherent user
> interface with at least some small pretence of commonality.
Again, Linux is nowhere near that bad, although granted it does have a steep
learning curve.
> I do NOT want to run StarOffice.
Actually, you should. In many ways it knocks spots of MS Office, for example
in not have a million feature that you don't and can't use.
> Do You See NOW?
I see this thread descending into Windows vs Linux, yes. Shall we just drop
it?
spm...@my-deja.com
"Glyndwr" <glynF...@FSCKdeleteEmeD.co.uk> wrote:
> <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8uf5fh$hjs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <DvDO5.89048$hk2.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > "Glyndwr" <glynF...@FSCKdeleteEmeD.co.uk> wrote:
> > > OVER 50% OF THE INTERNET RUNS ON FREE SOFTWARE. You have messed up
> > > amazingly.
> >
> > That's nice for the internet.
>
> The internet you use to send these words to me.
>
> > I will stick to stuff I (don't) pay for, thank you.
>
> PIRACY IS THEFT.
I have no moral issues with theft.
> > I have little/no desire to do any server type things.
> > (So, for me, Linux, XF86, FreeBSD, Perl, Sendmail, Apache, Samba,
> > Gnome, KDE, Litestep etc. etc. ad extreme boredom ARE rubbish)
>
> Most of those are not servery type things. And whilst I'm not
advocating the
> Linux experience for everyone, it's not as bad as you seem to think
either.
It was the last time I tried it.
I own a NeXTstation. Everything else is intensely bad by comparison.
> > I just want something that works with a minimum of headaches/effort.
> > I really have no interest in "learning" how to do stuff again. I
spend
> > enough time slouched in front of a computer without adding to it
> > voluntarily.
>
> Then why don't you use MacOS?
My college course was "in" Delphi. Cous.
> > I would rather pay/steal the extra and get a semi-coherent user
> > interface with at least some small pretence of commonality.
>
> Again, Linux is nowhere near that bad, although granted it does have
a steep
> learning curve.
I have started on this curve. And discovered I can't be bothered.
> > I do NOT want to run StarOffice.
>
> Actually, you should. In many ways it knocks spots of MS Office, for
example
> in not have a million feature that you don't and can't use.
I am deeply profoundly lazy.
> > Do You See NOW?
>
> I see this thread descending into Windows vs Linux, yes. Shall we
just drop
> it?
Yes. I agree. I am a NS fanatic. You are a Linux fanatic. There is NO
middle ground.
> --
> -=G=-
> print join " ",reverse split /\s+/,'hacker. Perl another Just',"\n";
> Web: http://www.fscked.co.uk ICQ: 66545073
>
>
--
Matthew Garrett
>Yes. I agree. I am a NS fanatic. You are a Linux fanatic. There is NO
>middle ground.
But: NextStep is UNIX, as is Linux. DYS?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org
spm...@my-deja.com
Matthew Garrett <mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> In article <8ufg3q$qru$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Yes. I agree. I am a NS fanatic. You are a Linux fanatic. There is NO
> >middle ground.
>
> But: NextStep is UNIX, as is Linux. DYS?
>
If you had ever used NeXTstep, you would not make this comparison.
NeXTstep is sex-on-a-stick-with-Sean-young-Compared-to-Linux...
Do You See?
It's all down to coherence...
Matthew Garrett
>NeXTstep is sex-on-a-stick-with-Sean-young-Compared-to-Linux...
>
>Do You See?
>
>It's all down to coherence...
Yes, but this is primarily down to the graphical interface rather than the
operating system itself. There's no real technical reason why the Nextstep
interface couldn't be ported to Linux. You should be complaining about
Gnome or something.
I am the pedanting pedanter.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org
spm...@my-deja.com
No it could not. It uses post-script and so on. The free source
movement would not like it...
Actually, some of the people who made the NS GUI and the Mac GUI /are/
working on a new Linux frontend.
Unfortunately, it will probably still be reliant on X and not provide
all the drag and drop loveliness, Openstep cleverness and indeed
totally hidden unixness that I know and love.
Matthew Garrett
>No it could not. It uses post-script and so on. The free source
>movement would not like it...
But XFree supports display postscript. DYS?
>Actually, some of the people who made the NS GUI and the Mac GUI /are/
>working on a new Linux frontend.
Eazel. Yes. Their new file manager is sheer lovelyness.
>Unfortunately, it will probably still be reliant on X and not provide
>all the drag and drop loveliness, Openstep cleverness and indeed
>totally hidden unixness that I know and love.
X does drag and drop. There is also an implementation of Openstep. Totally
hidden unixness is appearing rapidly. But, once more, these are not
functions of Linux as such.
I continue to be the pedanting pedant0r.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org
Glyndwr
> No it could not. It uses post-script and so on. The free source
> movement would not like it...
Ghostscript is an open-source Postscript interpreter. Postscript itself is
an open standard. I once wrote - by hand - a postscript x-y plot of some
numbers. I wrote this from some Postscript reference book about four inches
thick.
> Actually, some of the people who made the NS GUI and the Mac GUI /are/
> working on a new Linux frontend.
Also: AfterStep.
> Unfortunately, it will probably still be reliant on X and not provide
> all the drag and drop loveliness, Openstep cleverness and indeed
> totally hidden unixness that I know and love.
Bah. I used NeXtStep machines for a year in Oxford and was unimpressed.
Yeah, so they're mildly advanced *Nix GUI, but they're hardly earth-shaking.
Also: MacOsX, which is basically NeXtStep II.
spm...@my-deja.com
"Glyndwr" <glynF...@FSCKdeleteEmeD.co.uk> wrote:
> <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ug687
$bpu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > No it could not. It uses post-script and so on. The free source
> > movement would not like it...
>
itself is
> an open standard. I once wrote - by hand - a postscript x-y plot of
some
> numbers. I wrote this from some Postscript reference book about four
inches
> thick.
They'd think of a reason not to like it, I am sure. Probably the fact
it is easy to use and does not require "tweaking".
Ah well, maybe someone will do something nice with Darwin (open source
release of MacOSX).
> > Actually, some of the people who made the NS GUI and the Mac
GUI /are/
> > working on a new Linux frontend.
>
> Also: AfterStep.
Hah hah hah hah hah hah.
"I can't believe it's not NS!"
> > Unfortunately, it will probably still be reliant on X and not
provide
> > all the drag and drop loveliness, Openstep cleverness and indeed
> > totally hidden unixness that I know and love.
>
> Bah. I used NeXtStep machines for a year in Oxford and was
unimpressed.
> Yeah, so they're mildly advanced *Nix GUI, but they're hardly earth-
shaking.
Used for what?
I use mine for office work and am overwhelmed by it's profoud
loveliness every time it fails to crash, work in an inconsitent manner
or be beige.
How can you not love NeXT?
The machines looked cool during the 80's. The OS is simply the best
thing ever. It really and truly is. They are also pretty headache free
and packed with lovely features. Take a look at the way they handle
applications and extensions to the OS. Computer Pr0n!
> Also: MacOsX, which is basically NeXtStep II.
>
It shall be mine. Oh yes. It shall be mine. When they get the GUI
sorted. It is still too Mac for me.
Linux has it's uses. Preferably none I am a party to, though.
Glyndwr
news:slrn90ntpk...@cavan.jesus.cam.ac.uk...
> >movement would not like it...
>
Indeed.
> >Actually, some of the people who made the NS GUI and the Mac GUI /are/
> >working on a new Linux frontend.
>
> Eazel. Yes. Their new file manager is sheer lovelyness.
I have heard of that. I ran across some references to it when reading up on
the Anti-Mac interface thing; someone touted as the ideal next-gen file
manager and several other people shot it down in flames, saying it was
actually just a last-gen one that looked nice. The Anti-Mac Interface is
rather good, actually, and discussing it could be a good way to use this
thread in a non-hostile manner.
http://www.advogato.org/article/130.html
Quite a good read, and some valid points, I feel.
> I continue to be the pedanting pedant0r.
And we love you for it.
spm...@my-deja.com
Matthew Garrett <mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> In article <8ug687$bpu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >No it could not. It uses post-script and so on. The free source
> >movement would not like it...
>
I Do See.
They would still not like it. "It makes /our/ operating system easy to
use. Look at them all. They are all Linux Hax0ring and not a tweak in
site!". This is a little cynical, but I did always wonder why the
purists took a dislike to KDE.
> >Actually, some of the people who made the NS GUI and the Mac
GUI /are/
> >working on a new Linux frontend.
>
> Eazel. Yes. Their new file manager is sheer lovelyness.
I will probably give Eazel running on top of Darwin (Apple's open
source version of OS X. I think it's called Darwin. Maybe that was the
dolphin on seaquest...?) a try. I won't like it though.
> >Unfortunately, it will probably still be reliant on X and not provide
> >all the drag and drop loveliness, Openstep cleverness and indeed
> >totally hidden unixness that I know and love.
>
> X does drag and drop. There is also an implementation of Openstep.
Drag and Drop. Yessss. In theory. I have yet to see it work really
nicely though.
> Totally
> hidden unixness is appearing rapidly. But, once more, these are not
> functions of Linux as such.
This being my problem with Linux more or less.
It is like having an kindly uncle who insists on showing you his
intestines.
> I continue to be the pedanting pedant0r.
You should have a nameplate or something with that on.
Matthew Garrett
>In article <slrn90ntpk...@cavan.jesus.cam.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Garrett <mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
>> But XFree supports display postscript. DYS?
>
>I Do See.
>
>They would still not like it. "It makes /our/ operating system easy to
>use. Look at them all. They are all Linux Hax0ring and not a tweak in
>site!". This is a little cynical, but I did always wonder why the
>purists took a dislike to KDE.
Purists take a dislike to KDE because it's horrible and nasty. Use Gnome
instead, as it has lovelyness. I speak as someone who helps administer
several servers, a cluster of netbooting workstations and a rather nice
autoconfiguring netbooting system that lets people in college use Linux
without having to install it.
>> X does drag and drop. There is also an implementation of Openstep.
>
>Drag and Drop. Yessss. In theory. I have yet to see it work really
>nicely though.
Gnome and KDE support it between all Gnome and KDE applications. I can
drag MP3s into my MP3 player, attach files to emails, make Netscape
display URLs and the like.
>> I continue to be the pedanting pedant0r.
>
>You should have a nameplate or something with that on.
That's not a bad idea.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org
Glyndwr
> They'd think of a reason not to like it, I am sure. Probably the fact
> it is easy to use and does not require "tweaking".
What on earth do you think Postscript is?
> Ah well, maybe someone will do something nice with Darwin (open source
> release of MacOSX).
Darwin is a bit nebulous at the moment, though, isn't it? Last I heard,
they'd only managed to get some parts of the kernel working and not a lot
else. Not that I've been paying much attention to that.
> > > Actually, some of the people who made the NS GUI and the Mac
> GUI /are/
> > > working on a new Linux frontend.
> >
> > Also: AfterStep.
>
> Hah hah hah hah hah hah.
>
> "I can't believe it's not NS!"
Never used AfterStep? It's quite old. It's a windows manager with a Next-ish
feel. It's OK.
> > > Unfortunately, it will probably still be reliant on X and not
> provide
> > > all the drag and drop loveliness, Openstep cleverness and indeed
> > > totally hidden unixness that I know and love.
> >
> > Bah. I used NeXtStep machines for a year in Oxford and was
> unimpressed.
> > Yeah, so they're mildly advanced *Nix GUI, but they're hardly earth-
> shaking.
>
> Used for what?
The Physics dept had a network of them. I did some coding on them, plus used
them for email and stuff like that.
> I use mine for office work and am overwhelmed by it's profoud
> loveliness every time it fails to crash,
Linux doesn't crash on my machine. For that matter, neither does Win2k.
Current uptime: 1wk 22hrs 29mins 42secs.
> work in an inconsitent manner
Inconsistency is in the eye of the beholder.
> or be beige.
I will paint my PC case one day. And if that were the only way of judging
computers, we'd all be using iMacs. Or PS2.
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 GOTO 10
> How can you not love NeXT?
I went to Oxford having spent a year using Solaris, and Solaris seemed much
better to me. NeXT had GUI bells and whistles, maybe, but Solaris was solid
and understandable.
Also: history has already proven that NeXT is not the best thing ever.
> The machines looked cool during the 80's. The OS is simply the best
> thing ever. It really and truly is. They are also pretty headache free
> and packed with lovely features. Take a look at the way they handle
> applications and extensions to the OS. Computer Pr0n!
Uh-huhn.
> > Also: MacOsX, which is basically NeXtStep II.
>
> It shall be mine. Oh yes. It shall be mine. When they get the GUI
> sorted. It is still too Mac for me.
Indeed. Macs are the cuss. Computing with the stabalisers on.
> Linux has it's uses. Preferably none I am a party to, though.
Each to their own, of course.
GilesX
<glynF...@fsckdeleteemed.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Eazel. Yes. Their new file manager is sheer lovelyness.
>
> I have heard of that. I ran across some references to it when reading up
> on the Anti-Mac interface thing; someone touted as the ideal next-gen
> file manager and several other people shot it down in flames, saying it
> was actually just a last-gen one that looked nice. The Anti-Mac
> Interface is rather good, actually, and discussing it could be a good
> way to use this thread in a non-hostile manner.
I have been using Eazel's Nautilus file manager for a month, and it is
great, will make computing really easy for new users (resisting use of
word newbie...)
If you have a directory of MP3s, it lays them out like an album, with the
picture of the album cover, and a little player at the bottom, and you
can even preview the text of word processed documents in their icons.
Very, very kewl.
GilesX
> How can you not love NeXT?
When I was at uni the NeXT machines ran slower and hung (read: not
crashed) more frequently than Windows machines. That's a pretty good
reason for not loving it I'd say....
GilesX
<glynF...@fsckdeleteemed.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Indeed. Macs are the cuss. Computing with the stabalisers on.
Did you know that the reason that iMacs are transparent is to let Mac
users take a peek inside without having the worries of removing the case
and exposing themselves to the insides?
Matthew Garrett
>If you have a directory of MP3s, it lays them out like an album, with the
>picture of the album cover, and a little player at the bottom, and you
>can even preview the text of word processed documents in their icons.
>Very, very kewl.
You are me, and I claim my five pounds.
Hang on. "Kewl"? I retract my previous statement.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org
GilesX
<mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
>
> You are me, and I claim my five pounds.
Woooooooooooooooh my biological father
spm...@my-deja.com
"GilesX" <gi...@tomgreen.com> wrote:
> In article <8uh1nl$jm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > How can you not love NeXT?
>
> When I was at uni the NeXT machines ran slower and hung (read: not
> crashed) more frequently than Windows machines. That's a pretty good
> reason for not loving it I'd say....
Mine never crashed because of software. The only crash I ever had was
when I put a faulty Floppy Disk in the drive. Normally, you just get an
error to the effect of "I cannot read this, Dave". This time, however,
the machine brought up the hardware monitor and crashed. That was the
one occasion where it crashed.
As for running slower than windows machines, how much slower?
Depending on which model you were using, the NeXT had a 25 or 33 MHz
CPU.
Although for number crunching stuff, my Intel box is much much faster,
the NeXT actually seems more responsive in general use, and the Virtual
Memory system works a lot better. Change application, and you get a
slight slowdown for a couple of seconds, then it is back up to normal
speed. Unlike windows.
spm...@my-deja.com
> > They'd think of a reason not to like it, I am sure. Probably the
fact
> > it is easy to use and does not require "tweaking".
>
> What on earth do you think Postscript is?
"Magic".
The NS gui is too user friendly for Linux "purists".
> > Ah well, maybe someone will do something nice with Darwin (open
source
> > release of MacOSX).
>
> Darwin is a bit nebulous at the moment, though, isn't it? Last I
heard,
> they'd only managed to get some parts of the kernel working and not a
lot
> else. Not that I've been paying much attention to that.
I see.
> > > > Actually, some of the people who made the NS GUI and the Mac
> > GUI /are/
> > > > working on a new Linux frontend.
> > >
> > > Also: AfterStep.
> >
> > Hah hah hah hah hah hah.
> >
> > "I can't believe it's not NS!"
>
> Never used AfterStep? It's quite old. It's a windows manager with a
Next-ish
> feel. It's OK.
I have used AfterStep. That is what I mean by "I can't (CAN) believe
it's not NS". It is like a bad rip-off. Not quite as bad a rip-off as
windows, but still.
> > > > Unfortunately, it will probably still be reliant on X and not
> > provide
> > > > all the drag and drop loveliness, Openstep cleverness and indeed
> > > > totally hidden unixness that I know and love.
> > >
> > > Bah. I used NeXtStep machines for a year in Oxford and was
> > unimpressed.
> > > Yeah, so they're mildly advanced *Nix GUI, but they're hardly
earth-
> > shaking.
> >
> > Used for what?
>
> The Physics dept had a network of them. I did some coding on them,
plus used
> them for email and stuff like that.
>
> > I use mine for office work and am overwhelmed by it's profoud
> > loveliness every time it fails to crash,
>
> Linux doesn't crash on my machine. For that matter, neither does
Win2k.
> Current uptime: 1wk 22hrs 29mins 42secs.
Win2K? Running what? As soon as I run a couple of games, 98 SE starts
looking very wobbly indeed.
To be fair, Linux rarely crashed on my system. I did manage it a couple
of times though.
> > work in an inconsitent manner
>
> Inconsistency is in the eye of the beholder.
This is true. Generally, what I want from a GUI is to be able to use
the same instructions on any program and have it behave in the way I
expect it to.
I just do not see this in KDE/Gnome yet. Or in Windows, for that matter.
> > or be beige.
>
> I will paint my PC case one day. And if that were the only way of
judging
> computers, we'd all be using iMacs. Or PS2.
> 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
> 20 GOTO 10
It is one of the ways I judge my computers. Honestly, If I have to have
the thing on my desk all the time, it can at least not like a big beige
breezeblock.
And the PS2 is UGLY. (I am sorry, but it is. I see what they were going
for, kind of, but they should have just made it look like a hi-fi
seperate.)
I keep meaning to paint my PC. I was going to do the case, the top part
of the keyboard, and the monitor (if I can figure out how to do this
without knackering it.
I assume the Hello World quote is H4xx0r for something?
> > How can you not love NeXT?
>
> I went to Oxford having spent a year using Solaris, and Solaris
seemed much
> better to me. NeXT had GUI bells and whistles, maybe, but Solaris was
solid
> and understandable.
Solaris is solid. I prefer it to Linux.
Unfortunately, Sun view compilers as being an optional extra.
> Also: history has already proven that NeXT is not the best thing ever.
>
> > The machines looked cool during the 80's. The OS is simply the best
> > thing ever. It really and truly is. They are also pretty headache
free
> > and packed with lovely features. Take a look at the way they handle
> > applications and extensions to the OS. Computer Pr0n!
>
> Uh-huhn.
>
>
> > > Also: MacOsX, which is basically NeXtStep II.
> >
> > It shall be mine. Oh yes. It shall be mine. When they get the GUI
> > sorted. It is still too Mac for me.
>
> Indeed. Macs are the cuss. Computing with the stabalisers on.
What's wrong with that?
My problem with the current MacOS is that they have over-complicated it
and taken away some of the elegance you used to get with MacOS.
Personally, I do not see "could learn something" as neccesarily being
the same thing as "should learn something".
While I could spend ages getting my head around X to an extent where I
can "tweak" a usable desktop set-up, I genuinely have better things to
do. So far as I am concerned, a computer is a means to and end, rather
than an end in itself.
> > Linux has it's uses. Preferably none I am a party to, though.
>
> Each to their own, of course.
Obviously.
Matthew Garrett
>In article <NhVO5.1454$f12....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "Glyndwr" <glynF...@FSCKdeleteEmeD.co.uk> wrote:
>> What on earth do you think Postscript is?
>
>"Magic".
>
>The NS gui is too user friendly for Linux "purists".
No. Postscript is a way of drawing shapes. It has this much to do with
whether or not an interface is friendly - precisely none. NextStep's
graphical environment has nothing whatsoever to do with its use of DPS.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org
spm...@my-deja.com
NS' Gui uses Display Postscript.
I wasn't being 100% serious here.
Still, if you want to be a pedanting pedant0r..
Magick Mang
of crap:
>I assume the Hello World quote is H4xx0r for something?
MOH
--
Magick Mang/ronny_magic/buzz
Supporting "Gamers against British Telecom" - http://www.planetunreal.com/soundoff/gabt
ICQ# 82601633
Glyndwr
> In article <NhVO5.1454$f12....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > What on earth do you think Postscript is?
>
> "Magic".
Postscript is a graphics format, not anything else.
> The NS gui is too user friendly for Linux "purists".
Bah. That's an inaccurate stereotype, as all the column inches given to
KDE/GNOME and the attempt to make Linux user-friendly attest.
> > Never used AfterStep? It's quite old. It's a windows manager with a
> Next-ish
> > feel. It's OK.
>
> I have used AfterStep. That is what I mean by "I can't (CAN) believe
> it's not NS". It is like a bad rip-off. Not quite as bad a rip-off as
> windows, but still.
Well, it's only a windows manager. I'm guessing the tremendous consistency
you are pimping came about because all the apps are already written by NeXT
developers. When there's almost no third-party applications, and all your
apps are written in-house by a team working next door to the OS team, it's
easy to get consistency.
> > Linux doesn't crash on my machine. For that matter, neither does
> Win2k.
> > Current uptime: 1wk 22hrs 29mins 42secs.
>
> Win2K? Running what? As soon as I run a couple of games, 98 SE starts
> looking very wobbly indeed.
Win2k bears no resemblance at all to 9X. I've been using it for over six
months, have thrown all sorts of shit at it, and never had it crash. The
most I got was once, when Explorer would crash every few minutes; I had
enough time to save my work and reboot however.
I'm no MS fanboy, but Win2k is genuinely a very nice bit of work.
> To be fair, Linux rarely crashed on my system. I did manage it a couple
> of times though.
Crash it or crash programs under it? I've only ever locked my Linux system
up due to hardware.
> > > work in an inconsitent manner
> >
> > Inconsistency is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> This is true. Generally, what I want from a GUI is to be able to use
> the same instructions on any program and have it behave in the way I
> expect it to.
See early comments. As soon as you get third party developers with their own
ideas, this goes out the window. And that's the price you pay for having an
active software market. Got any new software for the NeXT box lately?
> I just do not see this in KDE/Gnome yet. Or in Windows, for that matter.
Neither do I, and neither do I want it.
> I keep meaning to paint my PC. I was going to do the case, the top part
> of the keyboard, and the monitor (if I can figure out how to do this
> without knackering it.
There's loads of websites devoted to it, you know. I can post some links if
you want.
> I assume the Hello World quote is H4xx0r for something?
Reference to the fact that, in a vain attempt to dodge a 2% importation tax,
Sony are trying to convince the EU that the PS2 is a computer rather than a
video-related device. They are doing this by shipping a BASIC interpreter
with it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/14441.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/14534.html
You couldn't make it up...
> > I went to Oxford having spent a year using Solaris, and Solaris
> seemed much
> > better to me. NeXT had GUI bells and whistles, maybe, but Solaris was
> solid
> > and understandable.
>
> Solaris is solid. I prefer it to Linux.
Linux is more flexible, and CDE is, well, boring. I quite like it, though,
nevertheless.
> Unfortunately, Sun view compilers as being an optional extra.
An expensive one, too.
> > Indeed. Macs are the cuss. Computing with the stabalisers on.
>
> What's wrong with that?
There's a paradigm in user interface design that says that learnability and
flexibilty are at opposite ends of a scale. It's not quite as clear cut as
that, but there is an element of truth there. And as a "power user" I want
flexibilty and power from my computers, not an easy learning curve.
Really, read that Anti-Mac article I posted earlier in this thread. It's
quite interesting; it talks about how the user interface for "knowledge
workers" such as yourself might change over the next decade or so.
> Personally, I do not see "could learn something" as neccesarily being
> the same thing as "should learn something".
True. Computers are an arse for this.
Matthew Garrett
>NS' Gui uses Display Postscript.
No it doesn't. Under Unix, it uses Motif. Motif uses X11 calls, not
DPS. Under Windows, it just uses the native GUI calls.
>Still, if you want to be a pedanting pedant0r..
Once the process has started, it is impossible to stop.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-alt...@srcf.ucam.org