!! Help !! any1 got a prog to make catalogues !!!!
DarkValley
publishing on paper. Any1 got a something ??..
Regards,
DakrValley
DarkValley
Lee Blevins
Filemaker Pro and Quark.
We just finished a catalog where the text is exported from FM complete
with xtags and flowed into the page document.
It was engineered by a member of our staff.
Mac
etc.
--
Mac Townsend,
Adcom Graphics, Fairfield, CA:
www.adcomgraphics.com
A Corel Platinum Service Bureau
Aandi Inston
>I'am looking for a good program to make catalogues. Like database
>publishing on paper. Any1 got a something ??
People used to use Ventura Database Publisher, I seem to recall. Don't
know if Corel still sell it.
---------------------------------------
Aandi Inston qu...@dial.pipex.com
Imposition and booklets for PDF - http://www.quite.com/imposing/
RSD99
Don't know if Corel still sell it."
It's still part of the Ventura v8 package. Probably the best option, as
the only other way I can think of would be to cobble together some kind
of 'workflow' using a database program, probably a little VB, and Quark
or PageMaker. That could get messy.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
adamspress
RSD99 wrote:
>
> Re: "People used to use Ventura Database Publisher, I seem to recall.
> Don't know if Corel still sell it."
>
> It's still part of the Ventura v8 package. Probably the best option, as
> the only other way I can think of would be to cobble together some kind
> of 'workflow' using a database program, probably a little VB, and Quark
> or PageMaker. That could get messy.
>
People do it all the time, except that they use AppleScript to control
Quark/FileMaker Pro. As far as I know, you can't use VB to control
PC-Quark. Pagemaker has it's own scripting language which doesn't
extend out of Pagemaker. Use a GUI extension like FaceSpan and AS can
look totally intergrated with your publishing workflow. Not exactly
'cobbled' if you do it right.
AppleScript is a system-wide scripting language, so you could tie
together all sorts of apps to do what you need to do. Need to e-send
your proofs? Attach a script to a hot folder that will grab the Quark
file, Output it PS, Distill it to PDF and FTP it to the client. (AS is
possibly the biggest advantage of the Mac platform in terms of
publishing).
Another option is to buy one of those expensive QuarkXtensions that
works with DB files. Just don't expect it to be nearly as flexible as
writing one yourself.
Roman
dlee
(www.emsoftware.com). They also have other software that may help. In my
opinion, xdata requires the least amount of dicking around to get off the
ground.
John Jordan
>I'am looking for a good program to make catalogues. Like database
>publishing on paper. Any1 got a something ??..
Is the database already done? If so, what format is it in? Does the
catalog require pictures? What platform are you going to do this on?
There are lots of possibilities, but which one would work best depends
on the nature of the final catalog.
Personally, I would use PageMaker, because it comes with a free plugin
that can read any ODBC compliant database. This means it can read
files from FoxPro, Access, Paradox, and even serious databases like
Sybase and Oracle. Unfortunately, none of these databases handle
pictures well. They can only have a field which refers to a picture on
disk -- the picture is not embedded in the database. And PageMaker's
ODBC import plugin will not support a database containing such a
field. It requires only text and numeric data. The main reason I would
use PageMaker, frankly, is that I am most familiar with it.
QuarkXPress can do the same thing, but you have to buy an expensive
third-party plugin, and it has the same limitations regarding
pictures.
I don't use FrameMaker, but if I recall correctly, it comes with its
own built-in database. It's probably not very robust, probably can't
handle pictures, but it may be adequate for your needs.
Ventura Publisher comes with an extensive database and is very robust
at doing this sort of work. Unfortunately, it is Windows only (the
others are all cross-platform), and there may be problems outputting
Ventura files to film. Not many service bureaus can handle Ventura
files. There are service bureaus who can, but you'll have to look
around to find one. In my experience with Ventura, it is rather buggy,
as well as difficult to learn (although extremely powerful).
There is a third-party database which can handle pictures, which I
understand works with PageMaker and QuarkXPress, available in both Mac
and Win versions. I believe it is called Galleymaster, but I haven't
seen or heard anything about it for quite a while.
If you're starting from scratch with this thing, and especially if you
have limited resources, I would take a look at Corel. They are now
selling Linux, to which they have ported both WordPerfect Office suite
(including Paradox, the database) and Ventura. You would have a pretty
complete and powerful system for doing the entire job, at a fraction
of the cost of the other solutions.
NOTICE: The e-mail address is deliberately incorrect.
Delete "xnospam" from the username.
Kurt Winsley
We are finding the need to set up a PC workstation in our prepress
department. What operating system is best for prepress work (we'll mainly be
running Pagemaker & Quark on it, probably not Photoshop). I know that for a
long time, the prepress vendors were recommending NT. But what about 9x?
2000?
I'm not trying to start a PC operating system war ;) I just need a little
help making the best decision.
Thanks!
********
Kurt Winsley
I.T. Manager - DRG Indiana / Prepress Manager - EP Graphics
Dynamic Resource Group
kurt_w...@epgraphics.com <mailto:kurt_w...@epgraphics.com>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Allen Wessels
<kurt_w...@epgraphics.com> wrote:
>Greetings all,
>
>We are finding the need to set up a PC workstation in our prepress
>department. What operating system is best for prepress work (we'll mainly
>be
>running Pagemaker & Quark on it, probably not Photoshop). I know that for
>a
>long time, the prepress vendors were recommending NT. But what about 9x?
>2000?
>
>I'm not trying to start a PC operating system war ;) I just need a little
>help making the best decision.
Windows 98. Postscript on NT is not there yet. For example, Preps
doesn't like Postscript from an NT station, even generated from the
Adobe driver.
- Allen
William Campbell
>
> I know that for a
> long time, the prepress vendors were recommending NT. But what about 9x?
NO... not NT, for a workstation. Server, okay, but use 98 for your
prepress workstation. The PS driver and font issues are not yet resolved
with NT4 as a platform for creating PS. Win98 works great.
> 2000?
Don't know... haven't used it yet. If all goes well it should be the way
to go, but I'd wait a bit until things settle down after it's release.
--
William Campbell
Revere Graphics Portland Oregon USA
voice (503) 239-6098
wil...@rgraphics.com
http://www.rgraphics.com
Vic Forsman
news:002701bf61b9$7b0da8c0$6301020a@kurtwinsley...
> Greetings all,
>
> We are finding the need to set up a PC workstation in our prepress
> department. What operating system is best for prepress work (we'll mainly
be
a
> long time, the prepress vendors were recommending NT. But what about 9x?
>
>
I run a 98 system and it works fine. (Even using Photoshop ;P )
Can't say 'bout 2000 but avoid NT for a workstation machine. Too many issues
with PostScript.
--
Vic Forsman
v i c f a t n e t t a l l y d o t c o m
Ted & Bev
hint of a problem for a couple of years now (We are mostly Mac). I am no
windows expert either. I do know this though, I havn't had one font issue
yet. Pre-service pack 3 does have font issues but after that there is none.
I havn't even had postcript problems and I do have Preps on the NT side
also. One big advantage NT has over 95 and 98 is that it is a hell of a lot
more solid. Your have a lot less crashes that is for sure. I just would
shiver at the thought of using 95 or 98. But that is just my experience.
TED
----------
In article <002701bf61b9$7b0da8c0$6301020a@kurtwinsley>, "Kurt Winsley"
<kurt_w...@epgraphics.com> wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> We are finding the need to set up a PC workstation in our prepress
> department. What operating system is best for prepress work (we'll mainly be
> running Pagemaker & Quark on it, probably not Photoshop). I know that for a
> long time, the prepress vendors were recommending NT. But what about 9x?
> 2000?
>
> I'm not trying to start a PC operating system war ;) I just need a little
> help making the best decision.
>
Anthony
news:002701bf61b9$7b0da8c0$6301020a@kurtwinsley...
> I know that for a long time, the prepress vendors
> were recommending NT. But what about 9x? 2000?
Windows NT is the preferred platform for any type of professional work on a
PC. Windows 9x is intended for home use and web surfing only. NT is about
a hundred times more stable than 9x, and is much better at managing large
amounts of memory, disk space, and multiple processors.
Don't bother with Windows 9x.
Don't bother with Windows 2000, either, at least until it has gone through a
couple of releases and gotten all the bugs out.
Anthony
news:awessels-85E829...@news.pacbell.net...
> Windows 98. Postscript on NT is not there yet.
Windows NT is preferable to Windows 98.
> For example, Preps doesn't like Postscript from an
> NT station, even generated from the Adobe driver.
The PS comes from the driver, not the operating system. If Preps doesn't
like a PostScript file, it has nothing to do with it coming from an NT
operating system. You have a configuration problem, in that case.
Anthony
news:38848EEA...@rgraphics.com...
> NO... not NT, for a workstation.
NT should be used for everything, both servers and workstations. To do
otherwise is to take unnecessary risks just to save a few dollars up front.
> The PS driver and font issues are not yet resolved
> with NT4 as a platform for creating PS.
Which "issues" are those? PostScript is written by the printer driver (or
application), not by the operating system.
> Win98 works great.
Windows 98 will crash and burn if an application goes down. It doesn't
support multiple processors, either. It isn't good at handling large
amounts of memory and disk. It's a home operating system, not a business
operating system.
Anthony
news:864sph$la5$1...@server.cntfl.com...
> Can't say 'bout 2000 but avoid NT for a workstation
> machine. Too many issues with PostScript.
Describe these issues, and show how they are a function of the operating
system.
Anthony
news:Kesh4.754$38.1...@news.ntr.net...
> I guess I am the only lucky one around here. I run
> NT workstation without a hint of a problem for a
> couple of years now (We are mostly Mac).
Maybe you are the only one who has actually used NT, whereas others are
content to believe whatever rumors they hear without looking further.
> I do know this though, I havn't had one font issue
> yet.
Neither have I. ATM works very well on NT, and I have about 1600 fonts
loaded at all times.
> Pre-service pack 3 does have font issues but after
> that there is none.
SP3 was the beginning of extremely high stability and uptime for NT 4.0.
Anything from that point on is fine.
> One big advantage NT has over 95 and 98 is that it
> is a hell of a lot more solid. Your have a lot less
> crashes that is for sure.
NT systems can run continuously for years without a crash or reboot.
Allen Wessels
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ted & Bev <tpo...@ntr.net> wrote in message
>news:Kesh4.754$38.1...@news.ntr.net...
>
>> I guess I am the only lucky one around here. I run
>> NT workstation without a hint of a problem for a
>> couple of years now (We are mostly Mac).
>
>Maybe you are the only one who has actually used NT, whereas others are
>content to believe whatever rumors they hear without looking further.
Nope. Some of us have actually tried it. One major issue is the fact
that Scenicsoft won't support postscript from NT in Preps. Something
about the native NT driver not producing Adobe (some acronym) compliant
postscript. When I asked about the Adobe driver for NT, Scenicsoft
replied that it just wasn't supported.
- Allen
Allen Wessels
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Windows NT is the preferred platform for any type of professional work on
>a
>PC. Windows 9x is intended for home use and web surfing only. NT is
>about
>a hundred times more stable than 9x, and is much better at managing large
>amounts of memory, disk space, and multiple processors.
That is not what the marketplace says.
>Don't bother with Windows 9x.
NT does not support nearly the variety of hardware variation that 98
does. Of course, you could choose to throw away all your existing
hardware AND spend extra money on the OS AND replace or stop using any
legacy apps that NT doesn't support.
- Allen
Anthony
> That is not what the marketplace says.
Do you follow the marketplace, or do you just want to get your work done
reliably?
> NT does not support nearly the variety of
> hardware variation that 98 does.
How much hardware do you plan to hang on the system?
> Of course, you could choose to throw away all
> your existing hardware AND spend extra money
> on the OS AND replace or stop using any
> legacy apps that NT doesn't support.
You're welcome to stay with Win 9x, if you want. It's your loss, not mine.
Anthony
> The native postscript driver for NT is PART of the operating system.
Drivers are not normally considered part of the OS, although they must often
execute as such.
The Adobe PS driver is not supplied with NT, in any case.
Anthony
news:adamf.nospam-ya02408...@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> See, I use my NT box not only for work but also
> for NAT between my cable modem and the rest of my
> computers. As a result, the IP networking to the
> outside world is being used very hard. And it
> FALLS DOWN FLAT.
>
> This is a known issue.
Using NT for NAT isn't prepress.
Anthony
> When I asked about the Adobe driver for NT, Scenicsoft
> replied that it just wasn't supported.
You could always look elsewhere beyond Scenicsoft. I presume you meant that
they would not support the driver, because I'm using the Adobe PS driver on
my NT system with no problems.
Allen Wessels
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Allen Wessels <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:awessels-76DCFE...@news.pacbell.net...
>
>> That is not what the marketplace says.
>
>Do you follow the marketplace, or do you just want to get your work done
>reliably?
I am a tech for a reseller. I am talking experience. I am not
generalizing from a theory.
>> NT does not support nearly the variety of
>> hardware variation that 98 does.
>
>How much hardware do you plan to hang on the system?
Many prepress shops buy PCs from local vendors. That means built from
essentially random motherboard/drive/card combinations. A transition to
NT would force them to buy new machines when in the vast majority of
cases, they run fine.
>> Of course, you could choose to throw away all
>> your existing hardware AND spend extra money
>> on the OS AND replace or stop using any
>> legacy apps that NT doesn't support.
>
>You're welcome to stay with Win 9x, if you want. It's your loss, not mine.
98 is far easier to deal with in a prepress environment, all other
things being equal.
- Allen
Allen Wessels
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Allen Wessels <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:awessels-A07D35...@news.pacbell.net...
>
>> When I asked about the Adobe driver for NT, Scenicsoft
>> replied that it just wasn't supported.
>
>You could always look elsewhere beyond Scenicsoft. I presume you meant
>that
>they would not support the driver, because I'm using the Adobe PS driver
>on
>my NT system with no problems.
>
I can find a customer with nearly any application where they are having
"no" problems. The issue is that when you look at many installs, there
are fewer problems when running Win98 on the prepress workstation than
NT.
- Allen
RJamerson
news:awessels-A07D35...@news.pacbell.net...
> When I asked about the Adobe driver for NT, Scenicsoft
> replied that it just wasn't supported.
They also don't support current versions of the Adobe PS driver for 95/98.
They want us to downgrade to the 4.1 version, which cannot be obtained from
Adobe anymore.
We are still having difficulty creating PostScript files on the PC for import
into Mac Preps that will RIP. Anyone have any suggestions concerning this?
Randy
Randy Jamerson, EPP Technical Advisor
rjam...@aol.com
rjam...@ebsco.com
____________________________
EBSCO Media
Birmingham Alabama
1-800-765-0852
Marc Wieber
Allen Wessels schrieb:
> In article <iSIh4.38056$475.9...@news4.giganews.com>, "Anthony"
> <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Allen Wessels <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:awessels-A07D35...@news.pacbell.net...
> >
> >> When I asked about the Adobe driver for NT, Scenicsoft
> >> replied that it just wasn't supported.
> >
> >You could always look elsewhere beyond Scenicsoft. I presume you meant
> >that
> >they would not support the driver, because I'm using the Adobe PS driver
> >on
> >my NT system with no problems.
> >
>
> I can find a customer with nearly any application where they are having
> "no" problems. The issue is that when you look at many installs, there
> are fewer problems when running Win98 on the prepress workstation than
> NT.
>
> - Allen
Our school got a Trendsetter together with some NT Workstation to do the
imposition with Lino Montage and others.
We got some cases where the application would not work because a
specific
directory failed to be "owned" the right way or got not the "right"
security
setting.
We could not only blame NT for that, because we first got beta versions
from
Heidelberger and Lino Montage is a system in the system with the yellow
box
and a lot people here will know how e.g. Virtual PC is also not failure
free.
But regarding the age of Windows NT, MS could have done better.
If i look at my box of NT 3.5, it is from 16-03-95, nearly five years
ago.
No, i don't use it. (I use for several (applications) reasons WfW
3.11,Win95a
and Win98.)
To much promise and too less delivering.
E.g., one Workstation is very slow at the login, so i guessed (because
i'm
not the person who take care of the PCs, i only set the equipment up)
the HD
might need a defragmentation - but there is no utility with NT for this
purpose (promise back in 1995: NTFS will not fragment, if at least 300
MB of
the HD empty …).
So someone will have to buy or download one of the two (!) utilities on
the
market for NT.
Maybe NT does not need such a utility, but why will Windows 2000 then
come
with such a utility?
Oh, BTW, in the same department room with the NT Server, the six
Workstations, the one NextStep Workstation and the Trendsetter with his
Delta
Tower and RIP are also a G3 (8.5, seems not so clever to me) and a G4
with
MacOS 9.
Both Mac's are for creating PS out of the usual suspects (QXP4, PM6.5,
AI8,
FH8, PS5, …), Acrobat is running on the NT Server creating the PDFs.
Marc
Marc Wieber
directory after it.
I think also that Win95 works better with 4.1 the with 4.2.6 or 4.3.1.
Marc
RJamerson schrieb:
> Allen Wessels <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:awessels-A07D35...@news.pacbell.net...
>
> > When I asked about the Adobe driver for NT, Scenicsoft
> > replied that it just wasn't supported.
>
Allen Wessels
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The PS comes from the driver, not the operating system. If Preps doesn't
>like a PostScript file, it has nothing to do with it coming from an NT
>operating system. You have a configuration problem, in that case.
The native postscript driver for NT is PART of the operating system.
- Allen
Vic Forsman
"RJamerson" <rjam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000120161729...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
> Allen Wessels <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:awessels-A07D35...@news.pacbell.net...
>
> > When I asked about the Adobe driver for NT, Scenicsoft
> > replied that it just wasn't supported.
>
> They also don't support current versions of the Adobe PS driver for 95/98.
> They want us to downgrade to the 4.1 version, which cannot be obtained
from
> Adobe anymore.
>
> We are still having difficulty creating PostScript files on the PC for
import
> into Mac Preps that will RIP. Anyone have any suggestions concerning this?
>
If your looking for the 4.1 driver and you have the PC version of ATM Deluxe
(and I believe PM 6.5, not sure about PM though) then the PS driver
installer on ATM Deluxe has the 4.1 driver. 4.1 is the last driver that I
can use with our image setter that will accept TrueType fonts so I make sure
its still around.
John Doherty
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Windows NT is a secure system.
Name an operating system that claims any sort of security at all that
has more security holes than WinNT. There aren't any.
There are operating systems that can help provide reasonable security
(no OS "is secure," but some can be made reasonably secure for various
purposes with varying degrees of effort), but WinNT is not one of them.
You can expend an awful lot of effort attempting to secure winNT, but
you will not do very well. With much less effort, you could make a unix
machine much more secure.
When it comes to security, winNT is a problem, not a solution.
Even the lame old MacOS is more secure than winNT.
| That means that everyone has an account, and every file has access
| permissions and an owner.
Security worth talking about is much more complicated than that.
| There is no better operating system available from Microsoft than
| Windows NT.
That's true, but it's awfully faint praise.
--
Anthony
news:388782C6...@mail.nikocity.de...
> We got some cases where the application would
> not work because a specific directory failed to
> be "owned" the right way or got not the "right"
> security setting.
That's an application defect.
> But regarding the age of Windows NT, MS could
> have done better.
In what way? Windows NT is a secure system. That means that everyone has
an account, and every file has access permissions and an owner. If an
application is so poorly written that it does not take this into account,
that isn't Microsoft's fault.
> To much promise and too less delivering.
There is no better operating system available from Microsoft than Windows
NT. As I've said, Windows 9x is for consumers and home users.
> E.g., one Workstation is very slow at the login,
> so i guessed ... the HD might need a defragmentation ...
That sounds like a totally random guess to me. I've never had trouble
logging in because of fragmentation. In fact, I've never had any trouble
with anything because of fragmentation.
> ... promise back in 1995: NTFS will not fragment,
> if at least 300 MB of the HD empty.
Looks that way to me. Just because you randomly speculated that
fragmentation was preventing you from logging in doesn't make it so. The
most common cause of a slow login in a domain environment is a slow network
connection. For local logins, the most common cause of slowness is having
dozens of applications configured to automatically start at login.
By the way (following your example), comp.publish.prepress, not
comp.publish.operatingsystems.
Anthony
> I am talking experience. I am not generalizing
> from a theory.
So am I.
> Many prepress shops buy PCs from local vendors.
> That means built from essentially random motherboard/
> drive/card combinations.
NT runs poorly on machines cobbled together in a garage. You get what you
pay for. It surprises me that prepress organizes would be willing to risk
their business on such machines. Do they have their company cars built by
local gas stations as well?
> 98 is far easier to deal with in a prepress
> environment, all other things being equal.
Windows NT is far more stable (orders of magnitude), scalable, and secure.
Allen Wessels
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>NT runs poorly on machines cobbled together in a garage. You get what you
>pay for. It surprises me that prepress organizes would be willing to risk
>their business on such machines. Do they have their company cars built by
>local gas stations as well?
It is called the law of dimishing returns. If they can get 98% of the
functionality for 50% of the $, they do.
>Windows NT is far more stable (orders of magnitude), scalable, and secure.
The vast majority of my customers have no net access for the prepress
network. Security has not been given status as a top issue.
Windows 98 is pretty stable. I don't care if WinNT only crashes onces a
year and Win98 crashes once a week. (And by the way, I just supervised
an Intergraph install of an NT server that core dumped within minutes of
the completion of the OS install.)
I don't need scalability for workstations.
Anything else?
- Allen
Del Tree
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> pontificated:
>
>Windows 98 will crash and burn if an application goes down. It doesn't
>support multiple processors, either. It isn't good at handling large
>amounts of memory and disk. It's a home operating system, not a business
>operating system.
What a load of total boll*cks.
We run 5 networked 95 and 98 PC's.
They crash very infrequently, and when they do it is almost always down
to operator error.
As for "handling large amounts of memory and disk" how does 1GB of RAM
and 2 13GB Ultra2wide SCSI disks grab you? That's on our imaging
machine. The others have similar specs.
If Win9x is not a "business operating system" than neither is the Mac
OS. Yet those of us who use both on this ng seem to make a decent living
out of using them.
As I am increasingly noticing from your posts, you appear, once again,
to be talking out of an unconventional orifice.
--
Del Tree
Anthony
news:jdoherty-210...@aus-tx44-36.ix.netcom.com...
> Name an operating system that claims any
> sort of security at all that has more security
> holes than WinNT. There aren't any.
UNIX, Linux, Mac OS, MS-DOS, and so on. They are all Swiss cheeses compared
to NT.
> There are operating systems that can help provide
> reasonable security (no OS "is secure," but some
> can be made reasonably secure for various purposes
> with varying degrees of effort), but WinNT is not
> one of them.
No other PC operating system provides better security out of the box than
Windows NT.
> You can expend an awful lot of effort attempting
> to secure winNT, but you will not do very well.
It's already secure.
> With much less effort, you could make a unix
> machine much more secure.
How do you install discretionary access controls on individual files and
directories for individual accounts in UNIX?
> When it comes to security, winNT is a problem,
> not a solution.
Windows NT is the best solution for ready-to-use security in a PC OS.
> Even the lame old MacOS is more secure than winNT.
I'm afraid not. Mac applications can kill each other and the OS with
alarming ease, and of course there is no file security and no notion of user
identification.
> Security worth talking about is much more
> complicated than that.
No, it is not. And other operating systems don't even provide that much.
> That's true, but it's awfully faint praise.
There is no better operating system for a PC, period.
Anthony
> It is called the law of dimishing returns. If they
> can get 98% of the functionality for 50% of the $,
> they do.
Fine, but they shouldn't complain about the missing two percent, in that
case.
> The vast majority of my customers have no net
> access for the prepress network.
No LAN?
> Windows 98 is pretty stable. I don't care if WinNT
> only crashes onces a year and Win98 crashes once a week.
I suppose that, from, say, a Mac perspective, they both look good.
> And by the way, I just supervised an Intergraph install
> of an NT server that core dumped within minutes of
> the completion of the OS install.
Call Intergraph, not Microsoft.
Anthony
news:weQ5kKAY...@spamfree.fsnet.co.uk...
> As for "handling large amounts of memory and disk"
> how does 1GB of RAM and 2 13GB Ultra2wide SCSI disks
> grab you?
It doesn't. However, if you ever need to scale up, you'll have to consider
NT.
> If Win9x is not a "business operating system"
> than neither is the Mac OS.
I agree.
> Yet those of us who use both on this ng seem to
> make a decent living out of using them.
You could probably make a living without any computers at all, too.
> As I am increasingly noticing from your posts, you
> appear, once again, to be talking out of an unconventional
> orifice.
Running out of arguments?
Allen Wessels
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>UNIX, Linux, Mac OS, MS-DOS, and so on. They are all Swiss cheeses
>compared
>to NT.
The Mac doesn't offer nearly as many services as NT. Security is
necessary when you have an access pathway. No pathway means very good
security. In the case of the Mac, less is more.
- Allen
Allen Wessels
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Fine, but they shouldn't complain about the missing two percent, in that
>case.
Of course they should. You should always press your vendors to some
extent for improvements.
>No LAN?
Of course they have a LAN. But it is usually under physical control
rather than administered by software.
>I suppose that, from, say, a Mac perspective, they both look good.
From a cost-benefit analysis perspective, Win98 gets the job done.
>Call Intergraph, not Microsoft.
Ah, so we are talking about some sort of theoretical operating system.
If it has problems, the problems are with the company that implements
the OS, not the OS itself. In spite of the tens of thousands of known
bugs.
- Allen
John Doherty
| John Doherty <jdoh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
| news:jdoherty-210...@aus-tx44-36.ix.netcom.com...
|
| No other PC operating system provides better security out of the box
| than Windows NT.
You're completely and totally wrong. The PS OS that most secure out
of the box is probably OpenBSD. Just because you don't know anything
about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. See <http://www.openbsd.org>.
| > You can expend an awful lot of effort attempting
| > to secure winNT, but you will not do very well.
|
| It's already secure.
Tell that to the guys who wrote BackOrifice. :-) I think that (1) they
know a lot more about security than you do, especially with regard to
security and winNT, and (2) they would disagree strongly that NT "is
secure," once they were able to stop laughing at you.
| How do you install discretionary access controls on individual files
| and directories for individual accounts in UNIX?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but all unix-based operating
systems have a system of permissions that applies to every file and
directory on the machine. And if that's not good enough, many have a
more sophisticated system of access-control lists. For example, SunOS
has an optional ACL system built-in, and I would bet that AI/X, HP/UX,
and whatever Compaq calls DEC's unix these days do, too.
| Windows NT is the best solution for ready-to-use security in a PC OS.
No, again, for ready-to-use security, OpenBSD is probably the best bet.
Unlike most operating systems, a default OpenBSD installation has all
non-essential services disabled. The administrator enables only those
that are necessary for the machine to fulfill its purpose.
This is the opposite of most operating systems, including winNT. The
default "out of the box" installation of most operating systems has
many non-essential services enabled, and the administrator disables
those are not necessary for the machine to fulfill its purpose.
In security jargon, OpenBSD takes a "default deny" stance while other
operating systems take a "default allow" stance. A default deny stance
means that which is not explicitly permitted is denied; a default
allow stance means that which is not explicitly denied is permitted.
You can configure a reasonably secure system either way, but it's
almost always less work to start with a default deny stance.
| > Security worth talking about is much more complicated than
| > [just file permissions].
|
| No, it is not.
Yes, it is. You don't know anything about computer security, do you?
You can learn, though. Start by visiting <http://www.cerias.purdue.edu>.
Read security-related newsgroups. Subscribe to the bugtraq mailing
list. Computer security is actually a fairly complicated subject, but
it's interesting.
| And other operating systems don't even provide that much.
Sure they do.
| There is no better operating system for a PC, period.
Depends on what you mean by a "PC" and what you want to do with it. If
your goal is provide security, NT is a very poor choice.
--
Del Tree
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> gave us the following pearls of wisdom:
>Del Tree <D...@spamfree.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:weQ5kKAY...@spamfree.fsnet.co.uk...
>
>> As for "handling large amounts of memory and disk"
>> how does 1GB of RAM and 2 13GB Ultra2wide SCSI disks
>> grab you?
>
>It doesn't. However, if you ever need to scale up, you'll have to consider
>NT.
Not only have I considered it, I've used it. Now I don't. It's a heap of
crap for design and prepress users.
As for "scaling up". Is a PIII550 with an ultra2wide SCSI disk
subsystem, 1GB RAM and 26GB's of disk space not "big" enough for running
Quark, Illustrator and Photoshop? Will NT run them any faster or more
reliably? Will it boll*cks. I've tried it and much prefer Win98 thanks.
>
>> If Win9x is not a "business operating system"
>> than neither is the Mac OS.
>
>I agree.
>
>> Yet those of us who use both on this ng seem to
>> make a decent living out of using them.
>
>You could probably make a living without any computers at all, too.
Au contraire. There is no way any professional Designer can earn a
baguette nowadays without computers. I'm sorry, but the scalpel, waxer,
marker pens and paste-up board have been superceded - or havn't you
noticed?
One cannot have an argument about nothing. When you post something
sensible that can be substantiated by hard facts and/or real world
experience we can have an argument. Until then all I can do is to try to
correct your fantasies.
--
Del Tree
John Jordan
>Kurt Winsley wrote:
>>
>>I know that for a
>>long time, the prepress vendors were recommending NT. But what about 9x?
>NO... not NT, for a workstation. Server, okay, but use 98 for your
>prepress workstation. The PS driver and font issues are not yet resolved
>with NT4 as a platform for creating PS. Win98 works great.
>> 2000?
>Don't know... haven't used it yet. If all goes well it should be the way
>to go, but I'd wait a bit until things settle down after it's release.
I'd have to agree, but from what I read of Windows 2000 Professional
(the successor to NT Workstation), it will be pretty cool for
prepress. I know Adobe has been working on the PostScript problems.
Beta testers say the Professional version has been rock solid for a
couple of months.
Release date is scheduled for February 17. I plan to wait for a couple
weeks thereafter and read the NT newsgroups. You can always tell the
pioneers -- they're the guys with the arrows in their backs.
One tip -- I understand the Professional version supports only one CPU
unless you install it as an upgrade to an existing NT system with dual
CPU's.
NOTICE: The e-mail address is deliberately incorrect.
Delete "xnospam" from the username.
Marcia
Del Tree wrote in message ...
>In article <P7li4.42401$475.1...@news4.giganews.com>,
>>> Yet those of us who use both on this ng seem to
>>> make a decent living out of using them.
>>
>>You could probably make a living without any computers at all, too.
>
>Au contraire. There is no way any professional Designer can earn a
>baguette nowadays without computers. I'm sorry, but the scalpel, waxer,
>marker pens and paste-up board have been superceded - or havn't you
>noticed?
>
Don't be silly, Del. Of course you can make a living without computers--you
could drive a trash truck, for instance, or dig ditches.
He's right, you know. No one works on boards any more... and for sure no one
hand-seps colors. What this has to do with security is anybody's guess.
marcia
>Del Tree
Del Tree
confided jocularly: (snippedsum)
>>
>>Au contraire. There is no way any professional Designer can earn a
>>baguette nowadays without computers. I'm sorry, but the scalpel, waxer,
>>marker pens and paste-up board have been superceded - or havn't you
>>noticed?
>>
>
>Don't be silly, Del. Of course you can make a living without computers--you
>could drive a trash truck, for instance, or dig ditches.
Ah! But he was talking about *this* industry, wasn't he? Or at least I
assumed he was. To tell the truth I'm not entirely sure whether he even
inhabits the same dimension as the rest of us...
...so you could well be right :-)
>
>He's right, you know. No one works on boards any more... and for sure no one
>hand-seps colors. What this has to do with security is anybody's guess.
Actually I was exaggerating a tad. One of our pre-press bureaux still
regularly get artwork (yes, *REAL* artwork complete with meticulous
overlays and colour/sep instructions) and very nice work it is too. The
Designer in question is based in London, has some *very* prestigious
clients and refuses even to look at a computer, never mind use one!
It's nice to know there are a few die-hards about almost as eccentric as
me!
Best wishes,
--
Del Tree
Marcia
Del Tree wrote in message <5nLraAA0...@spamfree.fsnet.co.uk>...
>>Don't be silly, Del. Of course you can make a living without
computers--you
>>could drive a trash truck, for instance, or dig ditches.
>
>Ah! But he was talking about *this* industry, wasn't he? Or at least I
>assumed he was. To tell the truth I'm not entirely sure whether he even
>inhabits the same dimension as the rest of us...
>...so you could well be right :-)
I was being facetious. It is nearly impossible to make a living in this
industry without computers, anomalic designers not withstanding. I haven't
seen board work since the mid-80's, literally.
marcia
Ulrich Mayring
> It's nice to know there are a few die-hards about almost as eccentric as
> me!
These designers will go out of business, once their clients die.
Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, software development
ul...@denic.de
Del Tree
writes
>Del Tree wrote:
>
>> It's nice to know there are a few die-hards about almost as eccentric as
>> me!
>
>These designers will go out of business, once their clients die.
Well let's hope the Designers peg out before their clients then they'll
die happy never having to endure the vagaries of the evil Quark or the
terror of type 2 errors.
Roll on retirement I say!
--
Del Tree
Anthony
news:388fee26....@151.198.193.8...
> Release date is scheduled for February 17. I plan
> to wait for a couple weeks thereafter and read the
> NT newsgroups.
I think it is best to wait at least a year before buying any new software
product. It usually takes that long to get the product stable enough for
important applications.
> One tip -- I understand the Professional version
> supports only one CPU unless you install it as an
> upgrade to an existing NT system with dual
> CPU's.
Artificial restrictions help profit margins.
Anthony
> Actually I was exaggerating a tad.
It sounds like it was more than exaggeration.
> The Designer in question is based in London, has
> some *very* prestigious clients and refuses even
> to look at a computer, never mind use one!
This directly contradicts your previous statement. Both statements cannot
be true at the same time. Which one was the deliberately false statement,
and why did you make it?
Anthony
> Of course they should. You should always press
> your vendors to some extent for improvements.
Only if you plan to pay for them. There is no reason why vendors should
improve anything if doing so does not make more money for them.
> Of course they have a LAN. But it is usually
> under physical control rather than administered
> by software.
True of the Internet, too. Just because a network is called the "Internet"
doesn't make it any more or less secure than any other network.
> Ah, so we are talking about some sort of theoretical
> operating system.
No, we are talking about bizarre hardware and hokey changes to the OS,
particularly weird drivers and/or custom HALs.
> In spite of the tens of thousands of known bugs.
List them.
Anthony
> You're completely and totally wrong. The PS OS
> that most secure out of the box is probably OpenBSD.
OpenBSD is a flavor of UNIX, and UNIX is fundamentall insecure by design.
Unless OpenBSD has pretty much rewritten the OS to implement things like DAC
by account, it is not an exception to this rule.
> Tell that to the guys who wrote BackOrifice.
The guys who wrote BackOrifice already know that. That's why their software
requires a Trojan horse installed with administrator privileges in order to
work.
> I think that (1) they know a lot more about security
> than you do, especially with regard to security and
> winNT ...
I doubt that. I'm not sure why you feel that I know so little about
security, but I fear you are mistaken.
> ... and (2) they would disagree strongly that NT "is
> secure," once they were able to stop laughing at you.
I doubt that, as well.
> I'm not sure exactly what you're asking ...
That does not surprise me, given your assumptions made above. How, then,
can you determine whether or not I know a lot about security?
> ... but all unix-based operating systems have a system
> of permissions that applies to every file and directory
> on the machine.
It is not a DAC ACL by account, however. In fact, it isn't even close to
it. It's only one step above MS-DOS. Most of the excellent ACL technology
of Multics was stripped out to produce UNIX. This is why UNIX is insecure.
> And if that's not good enough ...
It's not. Not by a long shot.
> No, again, for ready-to-use security, OpenBSD
> is probably the best bet.
See above.
> Unlike most operating systems, a default OpenBSD installation
> has all non-essential services disabled.
That has nothing to do with the intrinsic security of an operating system.
A secure operating system can have everything enabled, and it will still
remain just as secure.
> This is the opposite of most operating systems, including
> winNT.
Customers buying Windows NT do not like the system to be locked down by
default, as most of them do not understand the principles of system security
and prefer convenience to secure operation.
> In security jargon, OpenBSD takes a "default deny"
> stance while other operating systems take a "default
> allow" stance.
You're talking about default configuration options. Again, this has nothing
to do with intrinsic security.
Windows NT denies _everything_ by default, but it is normally configured to
override most of these default denials, because most customers don't
understand how they work and don't want them implemented. Even so, it is
not "open" out of the box.
> Yes, it is. You don't know anything about computer
> security, do you?
You seem unsure. I think I prefer it that way.
You'll notice that I haven't speculated on your own knowledge of computer
security.
> You can learn, though.
I'm always learning. I've been learning for a long time.
> Start by visiting <http://www.cerias.purdue.edu>.
> Read security-related newsgroups. Subscribe to the
> bugtraq mailing list.
Web sites, newsgroups, and mailing lists. Are these your own sources of
information?
> Computer security is actually a fairly complicated
> subject, but it's interesting.
It is complicated in the implementation, but simple in principle. I agree
that it is interesting.
> Sure they do.
Which ones?
> Depends on what you mean by a "PC" and what you want
> to do with it. If your goal is provide security, NT
> is a very poor choice.
It's the best choice available, currently.
Anthony
> As for "scaling up". Is a PIII550 with an ultra2wide
> SCSI disk subsystem, 1GB RAM and 26GB's of disk space
> not "big" enough for running Quark, Illustrator and
> Photoshop?
It depends on what you are doing with them. Some images, after all, occupy
1 GB in themselves.
> Will NT run them any faster or more reliably?
I think so.
> I've tried it and much prefer Win98 thanks.
Whatever you prefer is best. However, what you prefer is not necessarily
best for others.
> Au contraire. There is no way any professional
> Designer can earn a baguette nowadays without
> computers.
I'm not sure about Designers, since your definition of those appears to be
unique to yourself, but if a designer can earn a living with a Mac, he can
earn a living without a computer. It all depends on his professional goals.
> One cannot have an argument about nothing.
I agree. Is that why you have resorted to personal attacks in the past?
> Until then all I can do is to try to correct
> your fantasies.
See above.
Allen Wessels
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Only if you plan to pay for them. There is no reason why vendors should
>improve anything if doing so does not make more money for them.
That is why you tell them what improvements you want to see in their
products. Better vendors respond.
>True of the Internet, too. Just because a network is called the "Internet"
>doesn't make it any more or less secure than any other network.
My point is that OS level security is much less necessary when your LAN
isn't connected to the internet. If you control access to the machines
on a local net, software security is redundant.
>No, we are talking about bizarre hardware and hokey changes to the OS,
>particularly weird drivers and/or custom HALs.
Yeah, odd stuff like Intel motherboards and NICs.
>> In spite of the tens of thousands of known bugs.
>
>List them.
Unnecessary. See the service pack 1-6a documentation. Also see the MS
Knowledge Base.
- Allen
Del Tree
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> Actually I was exaggerating a tad.
>
>It sounds like it was more than exaggeration.
>
>> The Designer in question is based in London, has
>> some *very* prestigious clients and refuses even
>> to look at a computer, never mind use one!
>
>This directly contradicts your previous statement. Both statements cannot
>be true at the same time. Which one was the deliberately false statement,
>and why did you make it?
Both are true. In the real world that the rest of us inhabit you will
find there are invariably several sides to everything. In your dimension
it appears there is only one. As I don't inhabit that dimension I cannot
possibly comment on the laws that apply to it:-)
To help you integrate more fully into *this* dimension I offer the
following for your consideration:
The first statement is true. With very few exceptions a Graphic Designer
is not going to earn a living in this industry without computer skills
and access to a computer. No one on this ng but you would dispute this
and I hope you will soon find more fertile fields for your unique
talents.
The second statement is also true. There are Graphic Designers earning a
living in this industry who have no computer skills and no access to a
computer.
The Designer in the example I gave is in his late 50's.
I do not know any Designers in their 20's or 30's who are working
without computers. Nor do I see how a young Designer could acquire the
skills needed to prepare artwork traditionally. Who will teach them? Not
the colleges or art schools stuffed full of Macs. Certainly they could
still "design" - that, after all, only requires design and drawing
skills and talent and requires no computer. But once it comes to
supplying visuals to a client, producing artwork and getting film and
plates made unless our budding luddite finds a mentor who can teach the
traditional skills they are stuffed...
Do you see how two or more statements can be true?
Let's hope so :-)
--
Del Tree
Marcia
Anthony wrote in message ...>news:MjVm7DAM...@spamfree.fsnet.co.uk...
>
>> Au contraire. There is no way any professional
>> Designer can earn a baguette nowadays without
>> computers.
>
>I'm not sure about Designers, since your definition of those appears to be
>unique to yourself, but if a designer can earn a living with a Mac, he can
>earn a living without a computer. It all depends on his professional
goals.
>
Anthony, I'm curious *how* you think a graphic designer (not an illustrator)
could earn a living without a computer. Can you give us a couple of
examples, other than the one Del suggested of an older, respected designer
with an established following? What professional goals could one pursue in
this industry that don't require computer skills?
marcia
Anthony
> My point is that OS level security is much
> less necessary when your LAN isn't connected
> to the internet.
That would depend on how much you trust the other people on the LAN.
> Yeah, odd stuff like Intel motherboards and NICs.
Yup. You can build a non-working computer with an Intel motherboard and a
NIC without too much trouble.
> Unnecessary. See the service pack 1-6a documentation.
> Also see the MS Knowledge Base.
How many bugs have you personally counted?
Anthony
news:388a...@news.netwalk.net...
> Anthony, I'm curious *how* you think a graphic
> designer (not an illustrator) could earn a living
> without a computer.
By producing his art by hand and selling it, just like many other artists.
I still see a fair amount of graphic art that clearly didn't come from
anywhere near a computer, so someone is still doing it. Some people are
even afraid of computers.
> Can you give us a couple of examples, other than
> the one Del suggested of an older, respected designer
> with an established following?
Why? Del's example proves that it is possible, even though he indicated in
an immediately previous statement that it was not. Why is more than one
example necessary?
> What professional goals could one pursue in
> this industry that don't require computer skills?
Any professional goal that is artistic is independent of computer skills.
Anything that is dependent on computer skills is engineering, not art.
Anthony
> Both are true.
So my statement that a computer really wouldn't be necessary is also true,
isn't it?
> In your dimension it appears there is only one.
My perspective is constant, whereas yours appears to have moved by 180
degrees or so across two posts. This confuses me.
> The first statement is true. With very few exceptions
> a Graphic Designer is not going to earn a living in
> this industry without computer skills and access to a
> computer.
But you did not initially mention any exceptions, despite the fact that even
a _single_ exception would have made my statement true. It's almost as if
you were trying to discredit my statement, even though you knew I was right.
Why is that?
> The second statement is also true. There are Graphic
> Designers earning a living in this industry who have
> no computer skills and no access to a computer.
I believe I originally said that it was possible.
> The Designer in the example I gave is in his late 50's.
Is age important?
> I do not know any Designers in their 20's or 30's
> who are working without computers.
Does that mean that no such designers exist?
> Nor do I see how a young Designer could acquire the
> skills needed to prepare artwork traditionally. Who
> will teach them?
The designers who already have such skills, perhaps?
> Do you see how two or more statements can be true?
Yes. I just wonder why you appeared to deliberately overlook this fact in
your initial response.
Marcia
Anthony wrote in message <7GDi4.57739$905.1...@news5.giganews.com>...
>Marcia <mfe...@netwalk.com> wrote in message
>news:388a...@news.netwalk.net...
>
>> Anthony, I'm curious *how* you think a graphic
>> designer (not an illustrator) could earn a living
>> without a computer.
>
>By producing his art by hand and selling it, just like many other artists.
>I still see a fair amount of graphic art that clearly didn't come from
>anywhere near a computer, so someone is still doing it. Some people are
>even afraid of computers.
I've seen a fair amount of *illustration* that's not computer-generated, but
there's a difference between graphic design, which implies integrating type
and (often) illustration and other graphic elements into a composition, and
illustration. How would you composite type without a computer these days?
With a typewriter and Xacto knife? Even 15 years ago, when I was in magazine
publishing on the client side, we coded type on the computer before sending
it to be set. The people who are afraid of computers are, for the most part,
not working in this industry.
>> Can you give us a couple of examples, other than
>> the one Del suggested of an older, respected designer
>> with an established following?
>
>Why? Del's example proves that it is possible, even though he indicated in
>an immediately previous statement that it was not. Why is more than one
>example necessary?
What Del's example proves is that some clients are willing to be flexible in
this regard in order to obtain the services of a FEW particular *respected,
established* designers. In other words, he was describing an anomaly. The
example wouldn't hold true for newbies, or even *most* established
designers, which I believe was his point. I defy to you to identify anyone
who's successfully broken into graphic DESIGN in--I'll be generous--the last
five years *without* computer skills or the willingness to acquire them. I'm
not talking about illustrators, who are an entirely different breed, and who
may or may not work in traditional media vs. computer media. Sure, other
examples are necessary because you haven't substantiated your claim. I
suspect you can't.
BTW, even our least sophisticated *clients* expect their work to be executed
on the computer.
>
>> What professional goals could one pursue in
>> this industry that don't require computer skills?
>
>Any professional goal that is artistic is independent of computer skills.
>Anything that is dependent on computer skills is engineering, not art.
Oh, puh-leez. This is utter nonsense. Art is not defined by the tools used
to create it. Today's illustration programs require not a whit of
engineering skill; however, they do require artistic talent to produce
saleable art. Similarly, one can't produce a well-designed layout on the
computer without design skills. THE COMPUTER IS ONLY A TOOL! And a damned
important one.
Let me guess... you're not actually *in* the graphic arts industry, are you?
marcia
Del Tree
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes
>Del Tree <D...@spamfree.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:UcUQkDAL...@spamfree.fsnet.co.uk...
>
>> Both are true.
>
>So my statement that a computer really wouldn't be necessary is also true,
>isn't it?
Correct!
>
>> In your dimension it appears there is only one.
>
>My perspective is constant, whereas yours appears to have moved by 180
>degrees or so across two posts. This confuses me.
Not at all. I merely suggested that something can be both true and
untrue. I am sorry if this confuses you. The comprehension and
resolution of apparently contradictory statements is pretty elementary
stuff for most adults.
>
>> The first statement is true. With very few exceptions
>> a Graphic Designer is not going to earn a living in
>> this industry without computer skills and access to a
>> computer.
>But you did not initially mention any exceptions, despite the fact that even
>a _single_ exception would have made my statement true. It's almost as if
>you were trying to discredit my statement, even though you knew I was right.
>Why is that?
Truths or rules do not become untrue because there may be exceptions to
them. Unless, of cause, you believe in absolute truths. We inhabit a
relative, some would say illusory world, where very little is what it
seems. But I don't imagine that you want to get into a discussion about
that on a prepress newsgroup.
>
>> The second statement is also true. There are Graphic
>> Designers earning a living in this industry who have
>> no computer skills and no access to a computer.
>
>I believe I originally said that it was possible.
Then you are correct again. We are getting on swimmingly now!
>
>> The Designer in the example I gave is in his late 50's.
>
>Is age important?
I'm amazed you should even ask. Let me ask you a question. How many
personal computers were available in 1962?
>> I do not know any Designers in their 20's or 30's
>> who are working without computers.
>
>Does that mean that no such designers exist?
No. Neither is it of any relevance to my point. Or are you seriously
suggesting that an up and coming young designer entering this business
in 2000 is likely to do so without computer skills?
>
>> Nor do I see how a young Designer could acquire the
>> skills needed to prepare artwork traditionally. Who
>> will teach them?
>
>The designers who already have such skills, perhaps?
Why would they want to? Such skills are virtually irrelevant in today's
pre-press and publishing industries.
>
>> Do you see how two or more statements can be true?
>
>Yes. I just wonder why you appeared to deliberately overlook this fact in
>your initial response.
Perhaps because you seem unable or unwilling to grasp that most of us
here are professionals with many years of training and experience behind
us whereas you have given us no indication whatsoever of your skills or
background. It is rather like having a discussion about quantum physics
with a milkman. The milkman may or may not have something worthwhile to
contribute but without some knowledge of their background and experience
in the area under discussion how is one to respond?
--
Del Tree
Del Tree
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> delivered the following instructive discourse:
>Marcia <mfe...@netwalk.com> wrote in message
>news:388a...@news.netwalk.net...
>
>> Anthony, I'm curious *how* you think a graphic
>> designer (not an illustrator) could earn a living
>> without a computer.
>
>By producing his art by hand and selling it, just like many other artists.
>I still see a fair amount of graphic art that clearly didn't come from
>anywhere near a computer, so someone is still doing it. Some people are
>even afraid of computers.
Far be it from me to play the pedant but are you not in danger of
confusing illustration with design? I admit that one could conceive of a
graphic designer supplying visual designs prepared traditionally on
paper but what happens then? Others have to transfer these designs into
a digital format which conforms to the way this industry now works.
It is inconceivable that such a designer would be employed by any studio
or bureaux. If they were self-employed they would make a very poor
living indeed if all they could supply were designs on paper. What if
the client wanted changes (they always do). The designs would have to be
laboriously re-done. This is but one of a thousand and one reasons why
the traditional preparation of either designs or artwork is no longer
cost-effective or productive in this industry.
FWIW I trained as an Illustrator back in the 1970's and can still
produce airbrushed artwork, pencil visuals and the rest of it, so do
know what I'm talking about!
>> Can you give us a couple of examples, other than
>> the one Del suggested of an older, respected designer
>> with an established following?
>
>Why? Del's example proves that it is possible, even though he indicated in
>an immediately previous statement that it was not. Why is more than one
>example necessary?
My example was given specifically to show that this was an exception to
current practise. There may be others. But what does it matter? In
another 20 years even these exceptions will be a thing of the past.
>
>> What professional goals could one pursue in
>> this industry that don't require computer skills?
>
>Any professional goal that is artistic is independent of computer skills.
What utter nonsense. I am an "artist" by any reasonable definition. So
are many others on this newsgroup. I can draw accurately, paint, design,
and create original works of art. So my "goal" is certainly "artistic",
albeit modified by pecuniary and commercial considerations without which
it is impossible to survive in this industry and make a profit. In fact
I've spent the better part of 30 years pursuing "artistic goals".
I could choose to do so "independently of computer skills" but I would
not make a living at it in *this* industry.
Let's not confuse fine art and fine art skills with commercial graphic
design and publishing for print. The former is possible without computer
skills, as is commercial illustration, the latter may be possible, but
it is certainly neither economic nor productive any more.
At a conservative estimate my employer and I have spent something like
$60,000 on computer equipment, software and peripherals in the 5 years
since we decided to "go digital". I can assure you that if it were not
necessary we would have saved our money and carried on working
traditionally. It would certainly be both cheaper and a lot less hassle
than keeping up with the ever-changing nature of hardware and software.
>Anything that is dependent on computer skills is engineering, not art.
I am sorry, but "bollocks" is the only word that describes this asinine
remark. Are you seriously suggesting that the thousands of highly
skilled and gifted artists and designers who have swopped their brushes
and paints for a mouse and pixel manipulation are merely "engineers"?
I truly despair of your reformation! :-)
--
Del Tree
Allen Wessels
>I was being facetious. It is nearly impossible to make a living in this
>industry without computers, anomalic designers not withstanding. I haven't
>seen board work since the mid-80's, literally.
>
>marcia
It is still out there. I have customers that maintain their stat
cameras.
- Allen
Marcia
>
>It is still out there. I have customers that maintain their stat
>cameras.
>
>- Allen
Whoops. I stand corrected. I guess I'm guilty of thinking the whole world
looks like my little corner of it. :)
marcia
John Doherty
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| John Doherty <jdoh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
| news:jdoherty-220...@aus-tx44-17.ix.netcom.com...
|
| > You're completely and totally wrong. The PS OS
| > that most secure out of the box is probably OpenBSD.
|
| OpenBSD is a flavor of UNIX, and UNIX is fundamentall insecure by design.
There are some problems, but as time goes by, they are being addressed.
The web site to which I referred you has a good paper on this topic.
The problems that exist today have more to do with things like buffer
overflows and race conditions than they do with simple file permissions,
though. In practice, NT has yet to get that far.
| Unless OpenBSD has pretty much rewritten the OS to implement things like
| DAC by account, it is not an exception to this rule.
You seem to be all hung up on ACLs. They're nice, but they aren't the
be-all and end-all of security, and they weren't invented by Microsoft
anyway. All current unix-based operating systems I know about, including
OpenBSD, support ACLs.
| How, then, can you determine whether or not I know a lot about security?
That's completely up to you. All I have to go on is what you say, and so
far, that hasn't been much more than "NT RoOlZ!," and since the fact is
that it doesn't, it makes it sort of hard to figure out what you mean.
| Customers buying Windows NT do not like the system to be locked down by
| default, as most of them do not understand the principles of system
| security and prefer convenience to secure operation.
That's one of the reasons that in practice, it's less work to reasonably
secure many unix machines than an NT machine. But it's not the only one.
The main reason is that MS has done such a poor job of implementing the
security design that they set out to implement.
For example, walk up to an NT machine and log in as a normal user. Try to
delete as many *.DLL files as you can in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM and
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32. On a normal NT machine, chances are you'll be able to
delete quite a few, and that the machine will not work afterwards. You'll
probably have to re-install the OS and all your apps to fix it.
This problem is real, and verified by MS. How many other problems has MS
either not owned up to or not got around to fixing yet?
Now walk up to a normal unix machine and log in as a normal user. Try to
delete as many files as you can in /bin, /sbin, /etc, /usr/bin, and other
OS directories. Chances are you won't be able to delete any, and that
the administrator of the machine didn't have to take any special precautions
to prevent you from doing it.
| > [Some other operating systems also support ACLs.]
|
| Which ones?
OpenBSD and Solaris, for two. Again, I'm sure AI/X supports them, too.
Probably lots of other unix-based operating systems do. Again, it's not
like they're a real new idea, or that NT was the first OS to use them.
| It's the best choice available, currently.
For what purpose? No OS is any good at all unless it fulfills some real
purpose, and for my purposes, NT consistently comes up short. If you like
it, great: you can have it.
--
Robbie Pickering
> I doubt that. I'm not sure why you feel that I know so little about
> security, but I fear you are mistaken.
If you know as much about security as you know about prepress, his
conclusion is understandable.
--
Mxsmanic
> Far be it from me to play the pedant but are
> you not in danger of confusing illustration
> with design?
I think not. Why would one _require_ a computer if the other does not? How
did anyone accomplish anything before the age of computers if this were
literally true?
> This is but one of a thousand and one reasons why
> the traditional preparation of either designs or
> artwork is no longer cost-effective or productive
> in this industry.
How does the designer you cited as an example pay his rent, then?
> FWIW I trained as an Illustrator back in the
> 1970's and can still produce airbrushed artwork,
> pencil visuals and the rest of it, so do
> know what I'm talking about!
But if I am to believe what you are now asserting here, your knowledge of
airbrushes and pencils is completely worthless, because these are no longer
used or usable. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. It cannot be
useless when you want it to, and then essential and validating of your
competence when you change your mind.
> My example was given specifically to show that
> this was an exception to current practise.
But only one exception is required to disprove the assertion of an absolute.
Do you dispute this?
> What utter nonsense.
I see. So a computer is _essential_ to the production of art. This implies
that having a computer makes one an artist, since a computer is of the
essence of art. Does this mean, then, that anyone with a computer can be a
designer, since he possesses the _sine qua non_ of design, namely, a
computer? Answer carefully.
> Are you seriously suggesting that the thousands
> of highly skilled and gifted artists and designers
> who have swopped their brushes and paints for a
> mouse and pixel manipulation are merely "engineers"?
If a computer is _essential_ to their "art," then yes, this naturally
follows.
Mxsmanic
> I've seen a fair amount of *illustration* that's
> not computer-generated, but there's a difference
> between graphic design, which implies integrating
> type and (often) illustration and other graphic
> elements into a composition, and illustration.
I've seen stuff set by hand with metal type, too.
> How would you composite type without a computer
> these days?
See above.
> What Del's example proves is that some clients
> are willing to be flexible in this regard in order
> to obtain the services of a FEW particular
> *respected, established* designers. In other words,
> he was describing an anomaly.
He was describing an example that validated my assertion. Case closed.
> The example wouldn't hold true for newbies, or
> even *most* established designers, which I believe
> was his point.
I never restricted my original statement to newbies only, though.
> I defy to you to identify anyone who's successfully
> broken into graphic DESIGN in--I'll be generous--the
> last five years *without* computer skills or the
> willingness to acquire them.
I never said anything about people breaking into graphic design.
> Sure, other examples are necessary because you
> haven't substantiated your claim.
Del substantiated my claim.
> I suspect you can't.
I no longer have to. See above. If you read what I say in my posts, and
not what you wish to see, this becomes glaringly apparent.
> Oh, puh-leez. This is utter nonsense. Art is not
> defined by the tools used to create it.
Your statements contradict each other. First you say that my statement is
nonsense, and then you state the same thing yourself. Which is it?
If art is not defined by the tools that create it, then no tool is essential
to the creation of art. The latter necessarily follows from the former.
> THE COMPUTER IS ONLY A TOOL!
If it is only a tool, it is not essential to art.
> Let me guess... you're not actually *in* the graphic
> arts industry, are you?
What counts as "in"?
Mxsmanic
> You seem to be all hung up on ACLs.
Access control is a cornerstone of security, and it is mandatory for
security beyond a certain level.
> ... they weren't invented by Microsoft anyway.
True. Multics, probably the most secure general-purpose, large-scale
operating system ever designed, implemented both discretionary and mandatory
access control in great detail. Unfortunately, the retarded offspring of
Multics, UNIX, dropped virtually all of this.
> All current unix-based operating systems I know about, including
> OpenBSD, support ACLs.
How do you specify ACLs by account in UNIX?
> That's completely up to you. All I have to go on
> is what you say ...
The same is true for me, but you'll know that I've made no sweeping
assertions about what I believe your level of competence to be.
> For example, walk up to an NT machine and log
> in as a normal user. Try to delete as many *.DLL
> files as you can in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM and
> C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32. On a normal NT machine,
> chances are you'll be able to delete quite a few,
> and that the machine will not work afterwards.
Users complain if these files are reserved to administrators, as they are
accustomed to the environment of other, insecure versions of Windows and
they insist that NT emulate these environments as closely as possible. Very
few users complain about the ability to delete files in the system
directory, but a great many will complain if they are not permitted to do
so. Most Windows users expect to be able to do anything, anywhere, anytime,
and call the OS "broken" if they are prevented from doing this.
> This problem is real, and verified by MS.
It's not a problem; it's a marketing decision, and it is deliberate.
> How many other problems has MS either not owned
> up to or not got around to fixing yet?
First, this is not a problem; it is deliberate. Second, I'm not aware of
any problems that MS has not "owned up to" or fixed yet.
> Now walk up to a normal unix machine and log in
> as a normal user. Try to delete as many files as
> you can in /bin, /sbin, /etc, /usr/bin, and other
> OS directories. Chances are you won't be able to
> delete any, and that the administrator of the machine
> didn't have to take any special precautions
> to prevent you from doing it.
Try setting up a directory so that it can be written by account A, and read
by account B, but neither written by account B nor read by account A, where
both accounts are non-administrator accounts and neither account is an owner
of the directory. This is trivial in NT, but impossible in standard UNIX
implementations, because ACLs by user are not supported.
> OpenBSD and Solaris, for two.
ACLs by account? Which permissions do they recognize?
> For what purpose?
For security out of the box.
Mxsmanic
> I merely suggested that something can be both true and
> untrue. I am sorry if this confuses you.
It confuses me because it is incorrect. Something can be both true and
untrue only if it is examined from multiple viewpoints. But you appear to
be denying any change in your viewpoint, and so it is impossible for
something to be both true and untrue to you simultaneously. I tried to make
it clear that your statement is valid only if you change viewpoints, but you
deny the latter and continue to assert the former, and there is no logic in
this.
> The comprehension and resolution of apparently contradictory
> statements is pretty elementary stuff for most adults.
Most adults have no idea how to do these things.
> Truths or rules do not become untrue because there
> may be exceptions to them. Unless, of cause, you
> believe in absolute truths.
Do you?
> I'm amazed you should even ask. Let me ask you
> a question. How many personal computers were
> available in 1962?
It depends on what you call a personal computer.
How many artists were alive in 1962? Were there more artists being born
then than now? Or are there perhaps more being born now than then?
> No. Neither is it of any relevance to my point.
I agree. So why did you mention it?
> Or are you seriously suggesting that an up and
> coming young designer entering this business
> in 2000 is likely to do so without computer skills?
As I recall, I simply said that computer skills are not essential to the
work of a designer. You disagreed with me, and then proceeded to prove that
I was correct with your own example, spontaneously offered.
> Why would they want to?
If nobody wants to pass on his skills, how do any new designers learn
anything? Do they reinvent everything from scratch?
> Perhaps because you seem unable or unwilling to
> grasp that most of us here are professionals with
> many years of training and experience behind
> us whereas you have given us no indication whatsoever
> of your skills or background.
Your training and experience are irrelevant if you cannot competently defend
your viewpoints. Do you expect me to believe anything you say solely on the
basis of your claimed training and experience? If you have these things,
should you not be able to fully and cogently explain and defend your
viewpoint to anyone, without resorting to any mention of your credentials?
> It is rather like having a discussion about quantum
> physics with a milkman. The milkman may or may not
> have something worthwhile to contribute but without
> some knowledge of their background and experience
> in the area under discussion how is one to respond?
Actually, a competent physicist can easily explain quantum mechanics to a
milkman. If you understand something, you can explain it to anyone.
Mxsmanic
news:1e4wp8p.18qaogi1h5xhfkN%robbiep...@seeseiten.de...
> If you know as much about security as you know
> about prepress, his conclusion is understandable.
If you know as much about me as I know about you, your conclusions are
unwarranted and premature.
Del Tree
>
>> Far be it from me to play the pedant but are
>> you not in danger of confusing illustration
>> with design?
>
>I think not. Why would one _require_ a computer if the other does not? How
>did anyone accomplish anything before the age of computers if this were
>literally true?
Because traditional non-digital illustration is still in demand. Non-
digital graphic design is not. Do try to keep up! :-)
>> This is but one of a thousand and one reasons why
>> the traditional preparation of either designs or
>> artwork is no longer cost-effective or productive
>> in this industry.
>
>How does the designer you cited as an example pay his rent, then?
He is an exception to the rule that graphic designers without computer
skills are like Bus drivers with a horse and cart - unemployable.
The exception I quoted is 59 years old and has an established client
base with whom he has worked for over 30 years. No "new" designer is
going to find clients nowadays who are prepared to accept tradition
designs on paper and artwork on board. Don't take my word for it, ask
some business clients. You must know some?
>> FWIW I trained as an Illustrator back in the
>> 1970's and can still produce airbrushed artwork,
>> pencil visuals and the rest of it, so do
>> know what I'm talking about!
>
>But if I am to believe what you are now asserting here, your knowledge of
>airbrushes and pencils is completely worthless, because these are no longer
>used or usable. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. It cannot be
>useless when you want it to, and then essential and validating of your
>competence when you change your mind.
You seem to have completely lost the thread. I mentioned my own
background to demonstrate that traditional skills are no longer
required, not the other way around! Do, please, pay attention :-)
And yes, if you wish to put it like that, the skills I acquired are now
redundant. I would *NOT* use the word "worthless" because the principles
behind those skills are still applicable today. i.e a knowledge of
colour, colour harmony, light and shade, lighting, perspective, etc,
etc. I hope you can appreciate the distinction?
>
>> My example was given specifically to show that
>> this was an exception to current practise.
>
>But only one exception is required to disprove the assertion of an absolute.
>Do you dispute this?
Most definitely otherwise the occasional birth of a two-headed chicken
or any anomalous offspring would overturn the law that chickens (at
least in my neck of the woods) have just the one head.
>I see. So a computer is _essential_ to the production of art. This implies
>that having a computer makes one an artist, since a computer is of the
>essence of art. Does this mean, then, that anyone with a computer can be a
>designer, since he possesses the _sine qua non_ of design, namely, a
>computer? Answer carefully.
Listen very carefully. I shall say this only once:
A computer is essential to the production of digital artwork.
Please carefully note the distinction. As such it is a tool as good as
or bad as the person using it - just like any other tool. To suggest
that any tool magically confers the skills to use it, much less
virtuosity is manifestly asinine. Why is it so hard for you to grasp
this? Repeat after me: "A computer is a tool like any other tool".
It merely happens to be the tool that this industry now uses.
>> Are you seriously suggesting that the thousands
>> of highly skilled and gifted artists and designers
>> who have swopped their brushes and paints for a
>> mouse and pixel manipulation are merely "engineers"?
>
>If a computer is _essential_ to their "art," then yes, this naturally
>follows.
I have never said a "computer is essential to the production of art".
Why do you persist in putting words into my mouth?
I said that it is essential to the production of digital artwork in an
industry which relies on digital technology. Please note the distinction
carefully. I didn't create the industry or force it to use computers.
The fact is that it does and no longer has a place in it for those who
lack computer skills. This is not opinion. This is fact.
--
Del Tree
Marcia
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
<snipped irrelevent parts of Anthony's arguments>
Anthony, you suffer from very badly flawed logic and low-watt reasoning
powers. No offense.
marcia
John Doherty
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| John Doherty <jdoh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
| news:jdoherty-230...@aus-tx43-57.ix.netcom.com...
|
| > For example, walk up to an NT machine and log
| > in as a normal user. Try to delete as many *.DLL
| > files as you can in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM and
| > C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32. On a normal NT machine,
| > chances are you'll be able to delete quite a few,
| > and that the machine will not work afterwards.
|
| Users complain if these files are reserved to administrators, as they are
| accustomed to the environment of other, insecure versions of Windows and
| they insist that NT emulate these environments as closely as possible. Very
| few users complain about the ability to delete files in the system
| directory, but a great many will complain if they are not permitted to do
| so.
It seems like they might complain if the system goes down because
of it.
| Most Windows users expect to be able to do anything, anywhere, anytime,
| and call the OS "broken" if they are prevented from doing this.
|
| > This problem is real, and verified by MS.
|
| It's not a problem; it's a marketing decision, and it is deliberate.
Deliberate or not, marketing decision or not, if a normal user can
trash the OS, it's a security problem, and a serious one.
| First, this is not a problem; it is deliberate.
It may or may not be deliberate, but that doesn't make it "not a problem."
And if it's "not a problem," then why does the MS SCE allow you to fix it?
There'd be no need to fix it if was really "not a problem," right?
| Try setting up a directory so that it can be written by account A, and read
| by account B, but neither written by account B nor read by account A, where
| both accounts are non-administrator accounts and neither account is an owner
| of the directory. This is trivial in NT
Until user C comes along and deletes a bunch of DLLs in the WINDOWS
directory and the machine quits working. :-)
| ACLs by account? Which permissions do they recognize?
You really ought to read the man pages for yourself, but here's an excerpt:
The format for ACL output is as follows:
# file: filename
# owner: uid
# group: gid
user::perm
user:uid:perm
group::perm
group:gid:perm
mask:perm
other:perm
default:user::perm
The first three lines display the filename, the file owner,
and the file owning group. Note that when only the -d
option is specified and the file has no default ACL, only
these three lines are displayed.
The user entry without a user ID indicates the permissions
that are granted to the owner of the file. One or more
additional user entries indicate the permissions that are
granted to the specified users.
So yes, you can restrict access to a file system object on an account-
by-account basis.
The group entry without a group ID indicates the permissions
that are granted to the owning group of the file. One or
more additional group entries indicate the permissions that
are granted to the specified groups.
The mask entry indicates the file group mask permissions.
These are the maximum permissions allowed to any user
entries except the file owner, and to any group entries,
including the owning group. These permissions restrict the
permissions specified in other entries.
The other entry indicates the permissions that are granted
to others.
The default entries may exist only for directories, and
indicate the default entries that are added to a file
created within the directory.
--
John Doherty
| For security out of the box.
For real-world security with winNT, the best bet is probably to keep it
*in* the box. :-)
--
Mxsmanic
> Anthony, you suffer from very badly flawed logic
> and low-watt reasoning powers.
Then why do you spend your time asserting this, instead of showing the flaws
in my reasoning?
> No offense.
It is impossible to offend me.
Mxsmanic
> It seems like they might complain if the system
> goes down because of it.
They certainly will; like many people in this discussion, they'll blame the
OS for their mistakes.
However, most people need permissions on that directory so that they can
install things into it, not so that they can delete things from it, and that
is why the default permissions are so open.
> Deliberate or not, marketing decision or not, if
> a normal user can trash the OS, it's a security
> problem, and a serious one.
I agree, but that's not a concern to the vast majority of users, and they
prefer things that way. And they pay the bills.
> It may or may not be deliberate, but that doesn't
> make it "not a problem."
Most users don't consider it a problem.
> And if it's "not a problem," then why does the MS
> SCE allow you to fix it?
A few users do consider it to be a problem.
> There'd be no need to fix it if was really "not
> a problem," right?
No. It's a question of user preferences. Some users prefer a secure
system, and some (most) do not.
Robbie Pickering
I know what my name is from one day to the next...
"I know only that I know nothing,", well, here is what I know about you:
You know next to nothing about trapping.
You know next to nothing about colour theory.
You know next to nothing about printing.
You can't distinguish between art and graphic design.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
"Truly opaque inks"!! Hee hee!
Guys, when Anthony comes to you to get his first job printed, remember
to use the opaque inks!! (And charge him for fixing the trapping).
--
Chris Mellor
Pickering <robbiep...@seeseiten.de> writes
well that this kind of yah, boo, sucks interchange is boring and non-
productive. Please stop spoiling this newsgroup with it.
--
Chris Mellor
Marcia
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
>news:388c...@news.netwalk.net...
>
>> Anthony, you suffer from very badly flawed logic
>> and low-watt reasoning powers.
>
>Then why do you spend your time asserting this, instead of showing the
flaws
>in my reasoning?
Because whenever one demonstrates the flaws in your reasoning--not to
mention explains why your so-called facts and theories are just plain
*wrong* as related to the prepress/publishing industry--you seem unable (or
unwilling) to comprehend the explanation. You seem to have more invested in
proving yourself "right" than in actually learning anything. How many people
in this forum have explained and explained why your *theories* don't apply
to actual industry practices, yet you continue to argue your case against
those with many years experience and knowledge in the industry.
I suspect you *still* don't know the difference between a fine artist, a
commercial illustrator, and a graphic designer. Do you? Prove me wrong. :)
marcia
Mxsmanic
> I know what my name is from one day to the next...
I don't think you are unique in this respect.
> You know next to nothing about trapping.
>
> You know next to nothing about colour theory.
>
> You know next to nothing about printing.
>
> You can't distinguish between art and graphic design.
How do you know these things?
> Why should anyone take you seriously?
Well, I don't attack people or insult them. I'm always polite and civil. I
support my position with arguments that can be objectively examined,
analyzed, and verified. At least in the circles I frequent, these practices
encourage people to take one seriously.
> "Truly opaque inks"!! Hee hee!
See above.
> Guys, when Anthony comes to you to get his first
> job printed, remember to use the opaque inks!!
Guys, when someone comes to you to get his first job printed, don't giggle
at him or ridicule him, or you soon may find that nobody is coming to you
with any jobs at all.
Mxsmanic
> Because whenever one demonstrates the flaws in
> your reasoning--not to mention explains why your
> so-called facts and theories are just plain
> *wrong* as related to the prepress/publishing
> industry--you seem unable (or unwilling) to
> comprehend the explanation.
Why don't you walk me through a specific example of this and show me what
you mean?
> You seem to have more invested in proving
> yourself "right" than in actually learning
> anything.
Whereas nobody else here feels a need to prove himself "right," and everyone
else here is eager to learn, rather than lecture--is this what you are
saying?
> How many people in this forum have explained
> and explained why your *theories* don't apply
> to actual industry practices ...
None. They have _asserted_ that they are right and that I am wrong, but
they have not substantiated there assertions at all. Why should I believe
what they say just because they vehemently insist that I should? What proof
do I have that they know anything at all about the domains in which they
claim expertise? How many of them have shown me their work? How many have
provided references to projects completed and satisfied clients?
> I suspect you *still* don't know the difference
> between a fine artist, a commercial illustrator,
> and a graphic designer.
I suspect that your opinion and mine differ.
> Do you? Prove me wrong.
Why do I have to prove you wrong, if you have not proven yourself right?
Del Tree
writes
>
>Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
>>
>>> Anthony, you suffer from very badly flawed logic
>>> and low-watt reasoning powers.
>>
>>Then why do you spend your time asserting this, instead of showing the
>flaws
>>in my reasoning?
>
>
>mention explains why your so-called facts and theories are just plain
>*wrong* as related to the prepress/publishing industry--you seem unable (or
>proving yourself "right" than in actually learning anything. How many people
>in this forum have explained and explained why your *theories* don't apply
>those with many years experience and knowledge in the industry.
>
>
>marcia
Here here and tut tut!
Give it up Marcia. He's a hopeless case and knows diddly squat about
anything relating to this industry. I'm sure there's a newsgroup for him
somewhere, but this is not it. I am now officially retiring from this
thread!
I often wish I were more like sweet William (Campbell). He pops his head
around the door now and again, always has something sensible and
relevant to say and *NEVER* (well, almost never) gets sucked into
(suckered into?) these ridiculous threads. I think it's time Lee stepped
in. He normally manages to see off even semi-reasonable lurkers. He
should have no trouble with "Anthony"... (tee hee).
--
Del Tree
Marcia
>
>> Because whenever one demonstrates the flaws in
>> your reasoning--not to mention explains why your
>> so-called facts and theories are just plain
>> *wrong* as related to the prepress/publishing
>> industry--you seem unable (or unwilling) to
>> comprehend the explanation.
>
>you mean?
You've been given TONS of specific examples. Read any thread where someone
disagreed with you--which are plentiful. Read the thread where Del and I
tried to explain why traditional paste-up/layout/design skills are mostly
obsolete. Read the thread about what people "miss" about traditional
production techniques.
>> You seem to have more invested in proving
>> yourself "right" than in actually learning
>> anything.
>
>Whereas nobody else here feels a need to prove himself "right," and
everyone
>else here is eager to learn, rather than lecture--is this what you are
>saying?
Whereas practically everyone else here has a legitimate basis for their
opinions: *real* knowledge of and experience in various aspects of the
publishing industry. What are your credentials with reference to same? I'll
bet you'll skip this question, as you do every other challenge to your
expertise. I see people learning from each other in this forum all the
time... fortunately, most of us choose to learn from those who actually know
what they're talking about.
>> How many people in this forum have explained
>> and explained why your *theories* don't apply
>> to actual industry practices ...
>
>None. They have _asserted_ that they are right and that I am wrong,
Because they *are* right and you *are* wrong...
>but
>they have not substantiated there assertions at all. Why should I believe
>what they say just because they vehemently insist that I should? What
proof
>do I have that they know anything at all about the domains in which they
>claim expertise? How many of them have shown me their work? How many have
>provided references to projects completed and satisfied clients?
Thank you for making this point. The fact is you don't know what you don't
know, which is truly the mark of ignorance. People HAVE substantiated their
claims; the fact that you stubbornly refuse to *believe* what you've been
told doesn't make it any less true. If Anthony thinks the world is flat,
then the world is flat?
I have an idea for you that'll provide a real-world learning experience.
Call your nearest web printer and ask if you can watch a press check. I'm
sure they'll be happy to answer all your questions, and you'll have the
added benefit of seeing people roll their eyes in 3D when you present *your*
version of how things ought to be. Be sure to leave your earplugs home so
you can hear every detail of the conversation. Don't worry when the lead
pressman leans close to your face; I promise he won't be trying to kiss you.
>
>> I suspect you *still* don't know the difference
>> between a fine artist, a commercial illustrator,
>> and a graphic designer.
>
>I suspect that your opinion and mine differ.
Your opinion and everyone's differ. :) Your answer sounds suspiciously
like, "I don't really know."
>
>> Do you? Prove me wrong.
>
>Why do I have to prove you wrong, if you have not proven yourself right?
How do you know I haven't proven myself right, when you don't know enough
about the industry to make that judgment?
marcia
Marcia
Del Tree wrote in message <4SQ7nCAf...@spamfree.fsnet.co.uk>...
>
>Here here and tut tut!
>
>Give it up Marcia. He's a hopeless case and knows diddly squat about
>anything relating to this industry. I'm sure there's a newsgroup for him
>somewhere, but this is not it. I am now officially retiring from this
>thread!
If only I'd seen this *before* sending off my last diatribe. ;)
>I often wish I were more like sweet William (Campbell). He pops his head
>around the door now and again, always has something sensible and
>relevant to say and *NEVER* (well, almost never) gets sucked into
>(suckered into?) these ridiculous threads. I think it's time Lee stepped
>in. He normally manages to see off even semi-reasonable lurkers. He
>should have no trouble with "Anthony"... (tee hee).
I'll look forward to that. Maybe we could organize a pot luck or something
to go with the entertainment. :)
marcia
>
>--
>Del Tree
William Campbell
>
> I often wish I were more like sweet William (Campbell). He pops his head
> around the door now and again, always has something sensible and
> relevant to say and *NEVER* (well, almost never) gets sucked into
> (suckered into?) these ridiculous threads.
Thanks for the kind words, "Del".... and you know, I came very close
this morning to letting him have it. As many times, I decided to stay
more reserved. I will at least say one comment of my contemplated
posting: this guy is talking for the sake of talking. He must be awfully
lonely. I thought we should send him to the 12 step program for people
that can't shut up.... on and on anon. I concluded this after his
nonsensical response to my posting about the need for black ink in
lithography (he probably doesn't even know what that word means). The
other comment I had ready to send this morning was that this all sounds
like a futile attempt to profess some kind of imagined knowledge....
leading the the longest running thread ever, full of nothing. He's not
the first of this type in this group, and I'm sure he won't be the last.
--
William Campbell
Revere Graphics Portland Oregon USA
voice (503) 239-6098
wil...@rgraphics.com
http://www.rgraphics.com
John Doherty
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| John Doherty <jdoh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
| news:jdoherty-240...@aus-tx43-48.ix.netcom.com...
|
| > It seems like they might complain if the system
| > goes down because of it.
|
| They certainly will; like many people in this discussion, they'll
| blame the OS for their mistakes.
But your original point was that NT was the "most secure OS" right
"out of the box." But now we see that the default, "out of the box"
configuration leaves it with huge, glaring security holes. That is,
your original point was completely and totally wrong, just like I
said in the first place.
--
John Doherty
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Robbie Pickering <robbiep...@seeseiten.de> wrote in message
| news:1e4yib9.wuq16v1wvazswN%robbiep...@seeseiten.de...
|
| > You know next to nothing about trapping.
| >
| > You know next to nothing about colour theory.
| >
| > You know next to nothing about printing.
| >
| > You can't distinguish between art and graphic design.
|
| How do you know these things?
All anybody here knows about you is what you have said. I would have to
agree that based on what you have said, your comments about prepress
and printing are uninformed by practical experience, and therefore pretty
much worthless.
If you wish to make a better impression, you will have to make better
statements.
--
Del Tree
In article <388E360F...@rgraphics.com>, William Campbell
<wil...@rgraphics.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks for the kind words, "Del".... and you know, I came very close
>this morning to letting him have it. As many times, I decided to stay
>more reserved. I will at least say one comment of my contemplated
>posting: this guy is talking for the sake of talking. He must be awfully
>lonely.
My money's on his background. Probably a student studying "The History
of Print in the 20th Century" or somesuch. If his tutors are anything
like the ones currently teaching our new designer at a local art college
here (he has a day off on Wednesday's to attend a degree course - what a
generous employer I am!) they will have filled his head with what we in
this sceptered isle call "total bollocks" - you'd call it "a bunch of
crap".
>I thought we should send him to the 12 step program for people
>that can't shut up.... on and on anon. I concluded this after his
>nonsensical response to my posting about the need for black ink in
>lithography (he probably doesn't even know what that word means). The
>other comment I had ready to send this morning was that this all sounds
>like a futile attempt to profess some kind of imagined knowledge....
>leading the the longest running thread ever, full of nothing. He's not
>the first of this type in this group, and I'm sure he won't be the last.
I think we're generally pretty lucky compared to the rest of usenet.
I guess we can stand the odd bozo dropping in from time to time. If
nothing else it keeps one on one's toes!
Best wishes,
--
Del Tree
Mxsmanic
> You've been given TONS of specific examples.
Such as?
> Read any thread where someone disagreed with
> you--which are plentiful.
They are certainly plentiful, but disagreeing with me is not the same as
providing an objective example. All I've seen is "I'm right, you're wrong"
assertions, which do not impress or persuade me. "Experts" who cannot
substantiate their opinions are a dime a dozen on USENET.
> Read the thread where Del and I tried to explain why
> traditional paste-up/layout/design skills are mostly
> obsolete.
You expressed your opinions.
> Read the thread about what people "miss" about traditional
> production techniques.
Opinions as well.
> Whereas practically everyone else here has a
> legitimate basis for their opinions: *real* knowledge
> of and experience in various aspects of the publishing
> industry.
Or so they claim. I could claim the same thing. But claiming something
doesn't make it so.
> What are your credentials with reference to same?
How could I prove the existence of any credentials here? And why would
credentials matter? If the credentials stand for anything, the person who
has them should be able to come up with explanations and arguments that
stand on their own merit, and do not require any leap of faith based on
asserted credentials.
> I'll bet you'll skip this question, as you do every
> other challenge to your expertise.
It's not a challenge to my expertise. I haven't _claimed_ any expertise,
remember? I've seen other people make lots and lots of claims, though.
> ... fortunately, most of us choose to learn from
> those who actually know what they're talking about.
How do you identify those people?
> Because they *are* right and you *are* wrong...
If so, they should be able to prove that with something more substantial
than bald assertion--such as objective explanations.
> The fact is you don't know what you don't know,
> which is truly the mark of ignorance.
That applies to everyone.
> People HAVE substantiated their claims ...
Examples?
> Call your nearest web printer and ask if you
> can watch a press check.
They don't answer my e-mails.
> Your opinion and everyone's differ.
So who is "right," and who is "wrong"?
> Your answer sounds suspiciously like, "I
> don't really know."
You should make your decisions on something more concrete than mere
suspicion.
> How do you know I haven't proven myself right ...
Because you haven't provided me with anything that qualifies as proof.
Proof would be a conclusion derived from reasoning based on
universally-accepted premises. Nobody here has come close to that.
Mxsmanic
> I am now officially retiring from this thread!
Famous last words. My experience is that very few people can resist the
temptation to regularly assert their expertise.
Mxsmanic
> But your original point was that NT was the
> "most secure OS" right "out of the box."
Exactly.
> But now we see that the default, "out of the box"
> configuration leaves it with huge, glaring security
> holes.
That's configuration, not a lack of security by design. Any system (almost)
can be configured to eliminate or reduce security. Windows NT has the best
selection of security features built into the OS. It is not configured with
all of them enabled out of the box, however, because most customers do not
want the extremely tight security that a locked-down configuration would
provide.
> That is, your original point was completely and
> totally wrong, just like I said in the first place.
See above.
Mxsmanic
news:jdoherty-250...@aus-tx44-15.ix.netcom.com...
> All anybody here knows about you is what you
> have said.
Yes, and I'm in the same boat myself. The difference is that I hesitate to
jump to conclusions based only upon what I see here. I don't like to
announce any conclusions I reach because I dislike finding out that they are
wrong later on. I seem to be exceptional in this respect, because most
people apparently do not care how wrong their initial conclusions might be,
and they are eager to trumpet them at the first opportunity.
> I would have to agree that based on what you have
> said, your comments about prepress and printing are
> uninformed by practical experience, and therefore pretty
> much worthless.
Do you always spontaneously offer to others your own assessments of their
competence? If so, why do you presume that they would be interested in your
assessments? What qualifies you particularly to make such assessments?
> If you wish to make a better impression, you will
> have to make better statements.
I don't care what impression I make. I have nothing to gain by making a
good impression here.
Robbie Pickering
> I am now officially retiring from this
> thread!
Hear hear. I'm off too. Who wants to come for a pint?
--
Del Tree
Robbie Pickering <robbiep...@seeseiten.de> writes
Are you buying? :-)
I note you're posting from Germany. As the regulars here will tell you
the only beers I drink are brewed in Germany or the Czech Republic.
So wenn es um einem glas von entweder "Konig Pilsner" oder "Herforder
Pils" geht Sie konnen Mich gerne einladen!
Whereabouts are you in Germany - I pop over to Hamburg (where we have a
client) quite regularly.
mfw,
--
Del Tree
Del Tree
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> rambled on and on and on and on....
(loads snipped - yawn...)
>> Call your nearest web printer and ask if you
>> can watch a press check.
Ah...here we have some progress. Let's see what "Anthony's answer is":
>
>They don't answer my e-mails.
What a surprise! Need one say more?
Oppps... I have retired from this thread. Well, just pretend you didn't
see this post :-)
--
Del Tree
Mxsmanic
> What a surprise! Need one say more?
It already says much for the backwardness of European printers.
Robbie Pickering
> So wenn es um einem glas von entweder "Konig Pilsner" oder "Herforder
> Pils" geht Sie konnen Mich gerne einladen!
Yes, they're both nice.
> Whereabouts are you in Germany - I pop over to Hamburg (where we have a
> client) quite regularly.
In Konstanz, at the other end of the country from Hamburg :)