What did Santa get everyone this year...
The Henchman
camera.
Santa (My fianc�e) also snagged me a cool 24" wide screen monitor with all
kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment sensor thingies.
A good year of photography is ahead I hope.
David J Taylor
news:hhe0bl$kmo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
A new computer chair and a 1280 x 1024 portrait layout monitor (which
replaced a failing 1280 x 1024 monitor). A Summer Santa brought a Nikon
D5000.
David
David J. Littleboy
"The Henchman" <whya...@trybuddry.org> wrote:
> Santa (My fianc�e) also snagged me a cool 24" wide screen monitor with all
> kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment sensor
> thingies.
Cool! (Both the present and the fiancee!)
Santa didn't make it here this year. I finally decided to splurge on the
Zeiss 21/2.8 (which was in stock a few weeks ago), but they were out of
stock today :(.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
dirk van lut
"The Henchman" <whya...@trybuddry.org> wrote in message
news:hhe0bl$kmo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
My Santa allowed me to buy an iMac 27".
What a change from a pc environment ;-))
>
RichA
A Schneider 25mm f0.95 lens to play with on a G1.
MikeWhy
>> with all kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment
>> sensor thingies.
>
> Cool! (Both the present and the fiancee!)
>
> Santa didn't make it here this year. I finally decided to splurge on
> the Zeiss 21/2.8 (which was in stock a few weeks ago), but they were
> out of stock today :(.
I retired the Mamiya 645 and scanners and replaced it a Canon 7D. Santa
cooperated with a bagful of related goodies: EyeOne Display2, Colorchecker
Passport, Lightroom 2, a SpeedLite 430EX ii, two light stands and umbrellas,
and a Lowepro backpack. Now to ditch the boat anchor of a Bogen 3221 and
replace it with something appropriately lighter and more packable.
First impression so far is D65 still feels a little too cool for my taste.
With the other stuff, I'm really liking the boudoir fashion shoots.
Doug McDonald
But I've got a good Christmas story.
One year, in the 70's, my parents wanted a new studio portrait of me,
so one was arranged while I was home for Christmas. This took place
a few days later.
While taking my portrait with a large antique 4x5 camera with
antique lens, the guy asked me what my Christmas present was.
My (correct) answer:
A 450mm f/9 M-Series Apo-Nikkor view camera lens.
He dropped a film holder.
This lens still today is sharp used on my Canon 30D ...
talk of coverage overkill (and it's just in effect an apo-Tessar.)
Doug McDonald
Alan Browne
> I finally got a Speedlite (SBb600) and now I have my first complete slr
> camera.
>
> all kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment sensor
> thingies.
>
> A good year of photography is ahead I hope.
Nothing photographic, however I did get myself a netbook at an
irresistible $248.00 at Staples. This will be my photo tank on an
upcoming vacation trip and another trip this summer. If the iTablet (by
whatever name) meets the need, then I'll craigslist the netbook.
Atom processor, 1.6 GHz, 1 GB, 160 GB disk, 10.1" screen 1024x600, WiFi,
Ethernet 10/100, WinXP, etc.
It's about as basic as it can get, but does the undemanding quite well.
It seems to have a defective USB driver, however, as I can't do an on
the fly conversion of raw to DNG from the CF to disk.
The workaround is that I have to copy all the raws to disk, then DNG
them. In any case this is faster than converting while loading, so no
big deal. No driver updates that I can find on the Compaq/hp site.
Alan Browne
> "The Henchman"<whya...@trybuddry.org> wrote in message
> news:hhe0bl$kmo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I finally got a Speedlite (SBb600) and now I have my first complete slr
>> camera.
>>
>> kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment sensor
>> thingies.
>>
>> A good year of photography is ahead I hope.
>
> My Santa allowed me to buy an iMac 27".
> What a change from a pc environment ;-))
Welcome to the light side.
A good thing to learn are a few keyboard shortcuts. Similar, but not
the same as on a PC:
http://www.danrodney.com/mac/index.html
If you want windows for transition, then I recommend VMWare Fusion - run
windows in parallel on the Mac until you've completely transitioned. I
used this a lot in the first few months, and then less and less. You
can free trial it for 30 days, IIRC. I just set up a small partition
(60 GB) for that. Avoid bootcamp.
Also strongly recommend an external Firewire 800 drive for TimeMachine,
though I only run it every few days, not on its default schedule.
Ray Fischer
>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "The Henchman" <whya...@trybuddry.org> wrote:
>>
>>> with all kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment
>>> sensor thingies.
>>
>> Cool! (Both the present and the fiancee!)
>>
>> Santa didn't make it here this year. I finally decided to splurge on
>> the Zeiss 21/2.8 (which was in stock a few weeks ago), but they were
>> out of stock today :(.
>
>I retired the Mamiya 645 and scanners and replaced it a Canon 7D. Santa
>cooperated with a bagful of related goodies: EyeOne Display2, Colorchecker
>Passport, Lightroom 2, a SpeedLite 430EX ii, two light stands and umbrellas,
>and a Lowepro backpack.
I need to upgrade to a better Santa.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Henchman
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:h76dndbjbJ_7RqbW...@giganews.com...
> On 09-12-29 17:37 , The Henchman wrote:
>> I finally got a Speedlite (SBb600) and now I have my first complete slr
>> camera.
>>
>> Santa (My fianc�e) also snagged me a cool 24" wide screen monitor with
>> all kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment sensor
>> thingies.
>>
>> A good year of photography is ahead I hope.
>
>
> Nothing photographic, however I did get myself a netbook at an
> irresistible $248.00 at Staples. This will be my photo tank on an
> upcoming vacation trip and another trip this summer. If the iTablet (by
> whatever name) meets the need, then I'll craigslist the netbook.
>
> Atom processor, 1.6 GHz, 1 GB, 160 GB disk, 10.1" screen 1024x600, WiFi,
> Ethernet 10/100, WinXP, etc.
>
> It's about as basic as it can get, but does the undemanding quite well.
>
I don't have a very good opinion of any netbooks but Microsoft is supposed
to be working with the manufacturers to allow Win7 to work on them. If that
happens, then my opinion might change.
What did you like about your netbook?? I can of many ways they should be
useful!
David J. Littleboy
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "The Henchman" <whya...@trybuddry.org> wrote:
>>
>>> with all kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment
>>> sensor thingies.
>>
>> Cool! (Both the present and the fiancee!)
>>
>> Santa didn't make it here this year. I finally decided to splurge on
>> the Zeiss 21/2.8 (which was in stock a few weeks ago), but they were
>> out of stock today :(.
>
> I retired the Mamiya 645 and scanners and replaced it a Canon 7D.
It's the opposite here: I'm going back to film. Since the store didn't have
the 21/2.8, I picked up a used 43/4.5 for my Mamiya 7 and will be scanning
film for a while longer.
RichA
> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:h76dndbjbJ_7RqbW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > On 09-12-29 17:37 , The Henchman wrote:
> >> I finally got a Speedlite (SBb600) and now I have my first complete slr
> >> camera.
>
> >> Santa (My fianc e) also snagged me a cool 24" wide screen monitor with
> >> all kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment sensor
> >> thingies.
>
> >> A good year of photography is ahead I hope.
>
> > Nothing photographic, however I did get myself a netbook at an
> > irresistible $248.00 at Staples. This will be my photo tank on an
> > upcoming vacation trip and another trip this summer. If the iTablet (by
> > whatever name) meets the need, then I'll craigslist the netbook.
>
> > Atom processor, 1.6 GHz, 1 GB, 160 GB disk, 10.1" screen 1024x600, WiFi,
> > Ethernet 10/100, WinXP, etc.
>
> > It's about as basic as it can get, but does the undemanding quite well.
>
> I don't have a very good opinion of any netbooks but Microsoft is supposed
> to be working with the manufacturers to allow Win7 to work on them.
Microsoft would just release another resource hog that would need more
of everything still. Apparently, windows powered netbooks take almost
3x the power of the ones running Linux. I don't know if it's that
bad, but it would figure. Sometimes I think Microsoft owns the
memory, battery and motherboard suppliers of the planet too.
rwalker
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
snip
>
>It's the opposite here: I'm going back to film. Since the store didn't have
>the 21/2.8, I picked up a used 43/4.5 for my Mamiya 7 and will be scanning
>film for a while longer.
I haven't given up the digital, but I did just get myself for
Christmas my second (and much better) Pentax 67 body.
David J Taylor
news:d5ce532a-610c-4519...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[]
> Microsoft would just release another resource hog that would need more
> of everything still. Apparently, windows powered netbooks take almost
> 3x the power of the ones running Linux. I don't know if it's that
> bad, but it would figure. Sometimes I think Microsoft owns the
> memory, battery and motherboard suppliers of the planet too.
"Apparently" sums you up, Rich. Why not actually try a Windows-7 Netbook
and see how usable or otherwise it is in reality before passing judgement?
I didn't go for a netbook because the screen was too small, the processor
under-powered, and the DVD drive missing. But those who have netbooks
seem well pleased with them, even when running Windows.
David
MikeWhy
> "MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "The Henchman" <whya...@trybuddry.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> with all kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment
>>>> sensor thingies.
>>>
>>> Cool! (Both the present and the fiancee!)
>>>
>>> Santa didn't make it here this year. I finally decided to splurge on
>>> the Zeiss 21/2.8 (which was in stock a few weeks ago), but they were
>>> out of stock today :(.
>>
>> I retired the Mamiya 645 and scanners and replaced it a Canon 7D.
>
> It's the opposite here: I'm going back to film. Since the store
> didn't have the 21/2.8, I picked up a used 43/4.5 for my Mamiya 7 and
> will be scanning film for a while longer.
What a let down that must've been, but at least you didn't go home
emptyhanded.
I was just eyeing the Canon 35/1.4 wistfully... I do miss having a small,
fast, light normal prime lens, but a wide tilt-shift is probably next for
me. It would be awful to catch the Distagon bug right this moment.
What's the thinking on going back to film? Just the deal you got on the
Mamiya lens?
David J. Littleboy
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Santa didn't make it here this year. I finally decided to splurge on
>>>> the Zeiss 21/2.8 (which was in stock a few weeks ago), but they were
>>>> out of stock today :(.
>>>
>>> I retired the Mamiya 645 and scanners and replaced it a Canon 7D.
>>
>> It's the opposite here: I'm going back to film. Since the store
>> didn't have the 21/2.8, I picked up a used 43/4.5 for my Mamiya 7 and
>> will be scanning film for a while longer.
>
> What a let down that must've been, but at least you didn't go home
> emptyhanded.
>
> I was just eyeing the Canon 35/1.4 wistfully... I do miss having a small,
> fast, light normal prime lens, but a wide tilt-shift is probably next for
> me.
The price of the 35/1.4, the point that I don't need f/1.4 for the
landscapey things I do, and the likelihood that they'll come out with a new
version have put me off the 35/1.4. I got the (relatively) inexpensive
Cosina "Voightlander" 40/2.0. It seems very nice. It's ridiculously small,
decently sharp to the corners at f/4.0, and critically sharp at the corners
at f/5.6. CA seems under control. It's a bit tight for my tastes, but a lot
less restrictive than a 50mm. I think I can learn to work with it for
"normal" lens things. Right now, I doubt that the Cosina Zeiss ZE 35/2.0
(when/if it's released) will be enough better to bother with.
> It would be awful to catch the Distagon bug right this moment.
It's a nasty bug.
> What's the thinking on going back to film? Just the deal you got on the
> Mamiya lens?
I find that slide films (Provia and Velvia) sometimes cough up more crunchy,
deep, satisfying colors than digital. What I'm getting from the 5D/5D2 are
less in-your-face than what I get from slide films, and cranking
saturation/vibrance doesn't get to the same place as the slide films. The
digital is more subtle, refined. Both have their place.
David J. Littleboy
> landscapey things I do, and the likelihood that they'll come out with a
> new version have put me off the 35/1.4. I got the (relatively) inexpensive
> Cosina "Voightlander" 40/2.0. It seems very nice. It's ridiculously small,
> decently sharp to the corners at f/4.0, and critically sharp at the
> corners at f/5.6. CA seems under control.
Minor update: there is a slight bit of CA. It's barely noticeable at 100%,
but clearly there at 300%. Bumping the blue/yellow CA correction to +15 or
so in Lightroom cleans it up.
The CA on the Stigma 20/1.8 can't be cleaned up, and is quite nasty if there
are high contrast edges. Sigh.
But there's absolutely no CA with the Canon 24TSEII, even shifted
significantly and cranked to 400%. Flipping amazing lens.
> It's a bit tight for my tastes, but a lot less restrictive than a 50mm. I
> think I can learn to work with it for "normal" lens things. Right now, I
> doubt that the Cosina Zeiss ZE 35/2.0 (when/if it's released) will be
> enough better to bother with.
Looking at the images more closely, this conclusion stands. Lots of nice
sharp images.
The distortion's a bit choppy, though.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/120702153/large
Ray Fischer
Alan Browne
>
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:h76dndbjbJ_7RqbW...@giganews.com...
>> On 09-12-29 17:37 , The Henchman wrote:
>>> I finally got a Speedlite (SBb600) and now I have my first complete slr
>>> camera.
>>>
>>> all kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment sensor
>>> thingies.
>>>
>>> A good year of photography is ahead I hope.
>>
>>
>> Nothing photographic, however I did get myself a netbook at an
>> irresistible $248.00 at Staples. This will be my photo tank on an
>> upcoming vacation trip and another trip this summer. If the iTablet
>> (by whatever name) meets the need, then I'll craigslist the netbook.
>>
>> Atom processor, 1.6 GHz, 1 GB, 160 GB disk, 10.1" screen 1024x600,
>> WiFi, Ethernet 10/100, WinXP, etc.
>>
>> It's about as basic as it can get, but does the undemanding quite well.
>>
>
>
> I don't have a very good opinion of any netbooks but Microsoft is
> supposed to be working with the manufacturers to allow Win7 to work on
> them. If that happens, then my opinion might change.
>
> What did you like about your netbook?? I can of many ways they should be
> useful!
Like? Not very much other than the price and small size. For the main
requirement (photo tank), it merely needs adequate storage for a two
week vacation during which I'll shoot no more than 200 photos per day,
at a pessimistic 20 MB ea (compressed, lossless DNG). That's less than
60 GB.
I have no need for Win7 for this - WinXP is more than adequate. It runs
PS Elements 3.0, DNG converter, Chrome, etc. I may even load The Gimp
for the hell of it - or for that matter convert it to a Linux machine
for S&G.
While I'm surprised at how quick and nimble this netbook is, it is also
true that it bogs down quite quickly when several tasks are running. I
can't imagine that Win7 would make it better, most likely it would be worse.
When the iTablet comes out, assuming it meets the need, I'll sell this
netbook on craigslist and get the tablet. Otherwise I'll keep it for
similar trips and to run MS Streets and Maps while on vacation in
Wyoming this summer.
Alan Browne
> "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d5ce532a-610c-4519...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> []
>> Microsoft would just release another resource hog that would need more
>> of everything still. Apparently, windows powered netbooks take almost
>> 3x the power of the ones running Linux. I don't know if it's that
>> bad, but it would figure. Sometimes I think Microsoft owns the
>> memory, battery and motherboard suppliers of the planet too.
Another RichA drive-by posting..., sigh.
I would put that "apparent" to internetium generated myth from the
"Linux is the saviour" crowd. I doubt in practical use that there would
be any difference in power consumption. (If I have time today I might
install Linux on this netbook and see if there is any real benefit in
doing so for the purposes of my trip).
Linux' bold foray into public use is for all intents, dead. Only those
forced to use it by their organizations and those with the inclination
and time to maintain Linux are fans of it (read: some computer nerds).
Certainly I've never seen a pro photographer waste his time with it
(though others around here claim different). Further, the most common
and preferred s/w for photography does not run native on Linux.
Mac OS X. What Linux wants to be when it grows up one day.
David J Taylor
news:hhe0bl$kmo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Santa had a change of heart, and got me the new Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens,
before the UK tax increase on January 01.
David
MikeWhy
news:Za6dnXICA7yWEqHW...@giganews.com...
>
> "MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Santa didn't make it here this year. I finally decided to splurge on
>>>>> the Zeiss 21/2.8 (which was in stock a few weeks ago), but they were
>>>>> out of stock today :(.
>>>>
>>>> I retired the Mamiya 645 and scanners and replaced it a Canon 7D.
>>>
>>> It's the opposite here: I'm going back to film. Since the store
>>> didn't have the 21/2.8, I picked up a used 43/4.5 for my Mamiya 7 and
>>> will be scanning film for a while longer.
>>
>> What a let down that must've been, but at least you didn't go home
>> emptyhanded.
>>
>> I was just eyeing the Canon 35/1.4 wistfully... I do miss having a small,
>> fast, light normal prime lens, but a wide tilt-shift is probably next for
>> me.
>
> The price of the 35/1.4, the point that I don't need f/1.4 for the
> landscapey things I do, and the likelihood that they'll come out with a
> new version have put me off the 35/1.4. I got the (relatively) inexpensive
> Cosina "Voightlander" 40/2.0. It seems very nice. It's ridiculously small,
> decently sharp to the corners at f/4.0, and critically sharp at the
> corners at f/5.6. CA seems under control. It's a bit tight for my tastes,
> but a lot less restrictive than a 50mm. I think I can learn to work with
> it for "normal" lens things. Right now, I doubt that the Cosina Zeiss ZE
> 35/2.0 (when/if it's released) will be enough better to bother with.
Yes! That's what I'm looking for, a no frills hockey puck that can make your
eyes bleed from its sharpness.
> I find that slide films (Provia and Velvia) sometimes cough up more
> crunchy, deep, satisfying colors than digital. What I'm getting from the
> 5D/5D2 are less in-your-face than what I get from slide films, and
> cranking saturation/vibrance doesn't get to the same place as the slide
> films. The digital is more subtle, refined. Both have their place.
Hmm. Now that you mention it, the very deep, over saturated hues seem to be
missing in the sensor gamut. Saturated reds seem to blow out too easily too.
Not something that can be post processed back in.
Darrell A. Larose
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
A Japanese digital camera.
On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
2 LithIon Batteries,
And a Japanese digital camera.
(It's a Canon.)
On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
3 USB TeraByte drives,
2 LithIon Batteries,
And a Japanese digital Camera.
(It's the Mark I model. That's the one that's discontinued.)
On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
4 LowePro DSLR cases,
3 USB TeraByte drives,
2 LithIon Batteries,
And a Japanese digital Camera.
(And it comes in a leatherette case with holes in it,
So you can see the controls right through the case.)
On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
5 Cokin P series filter rings,
4 LowePro DSLR cases,
3 USB TeraByte drives,
2 LithIon Batteries,
And a Japanese digital Camera
(And it has a wire with a thing on one end that you
Can stick in your camera, and a thing on the other end
That you can't stick anywhere, because it's bent.)
On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
6 hammered aluminum camera cases,
And all that other stuff,
And a Japanese digital Camera.
On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
7 inch cable release,
And all that other stuff,
And a Japanese digital Camera.
On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
8 GB UDMA memory cards,
And all that other stuff,
And a Japanese digital Camera.
On the ninth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
9 stop ND filters,
And a Japanese digital Camera.
On the tenth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
10 carbon fibre tripods,
And a Japanese digital Camera.
On the eleventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
11 inch cable release,
And all that other stuff
And a Japanese digital Camera.
On the twelfth day of Christmas, although it may seem strange,
On the twelfth day of Christmas, I'm going to exchange:
11 inch cable release
10 carbon fibre tripods
9 stop ND filters
8 GB UDMA memory card
7 inch cable release
6 hammered aluminum camera cases
5 Cokin P series filter rings,
4 LowePro DSLR cases,
3 USB TeraByte drives,
2 LithIon Batteries,
And a Japanese digital Camera
Because they've announced their replacements.
Robert Coe
wrote:
: David J. Littleboy wrote:
: >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
: >>> "The Henchman" <whya...@trybuddry.org> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> with all kinds of auto gamma and brightness and contrast adjustment
: >>>> sensor thingies.
: >>>
: >>> Cool! (Both the present and the fiancee!)
: >>>
: >>> Santa didn't make it here this year. I finally decided to splurge on
: >>> the Zeiss 21/2.8 (which was in stock a few weeks ago), but they were
: >>> out of stock today :(.
: >>
: >> I retired the Mamiya 645 and scanners and replaced it a Canon 7D.
: >
: > It's the opposite here: I'm going back to film. Since the store
: > didn't have the 21/2.8, I picked up a used 43/4.5 for my Mamiya 7 and
: > will be scanning film for a while longer.
:
: What a let down that must've been, but at least you didn't go home
: emptyhanded.
:
: I was just eyeing the Canon 35/1.4 wistfully... I do miss having a small,
You might want to look into the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
Bob
Robert Coe
I recently installed Windows 7 on an old Dell Latitude D600 that had
previously run Vista and, before that, XP. I think it runs faster and better
with Windows 7 than it did with either of those previous OSes.
Bob
David J Taylor
> previously run Vista and, before that, XP. I think it runs faster and
> better
> with Windows 7 than it did with either of those previous OSes.
>
> Bob
Exactly why I suggested to Rich that he check for himself before spouting
hearsay! I also installed Windows-7 on quite an old system (2003)
recently and it works very nicely. 3GB memory, though.
CHeers,
David
Robert Coe
<david-...@blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
: > I recently installed Windows 7 on an old Dell Latitude D600 that had
: > previously run Vista and, before that, XP. I think it runs faster and
: > better with Windows 7 than it did with either of those previous OSes.
: Exactly why I suggested to Rich that he check for himself before spouting
: recently and it works very nicely. 3GB memory, though.
Yeah, adequate memory is the sine qua non. My old D600 has a really doggy CPU,
but it does have 2GB of memory.
Bob
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> I recently installed Windows 7 on an old Dell Latitude D600 that had
> previously run Vista and, before that, XP. I think it runs faster and better
> with Windows 7 than it did with either of those previous OSes.
So basically MS didn't do too well with neither XP nor Vista, even
in comparison with their own products. And it's *not* a case of
"getting better all the time", as Vista (and many people staying
on XP) demostrates.
Now, if we could just overcome the Microsoft Tax on nearly any
computer ... for too many (read: most) companies don't honor
the refunds that the Microsoft product promises if not used,
and enough that do ask you to send in the computer et cetera and
make you jump through hoops.
Ah well, as well dream of a world where most P&S cameras aren't
madly overmegapixeled and over-softened by attempted noise removal.
-Wolfgang
The Henchman
"Darrell A. Larose" <ad...@ncf.ca.invalid> wrote in message
news:hhjdrg$sa4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> The Twelve Gifts of Christmas (Apologies to Allan Sherman)
>
>
> Because they've announced their replacements.
Very nice post indeed.
Robert Coe
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
: Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
:
: > I recently installed Windows 7 on an old Dell Latitude D600 that had
: > previously run Vista and, before that, XP. I think it runs faster and better
: > with Windows 7 than it did with either of those previous OSes.
:
: So basically MS didn't do too well with neither XP nor Vista, even
: in comparison with their own products. And it's *not* a case of
: "getting better all the time", as Vista (and many people staying
: on XP) demostrates.
Vista wasn't nearly as bad as most people claim, and XP had some important
advantages over its predecessors (notably in its better organized handling of
wi-fi). But in terms of stability and reliability, the best OS Microsoft ever
wrote was Windows 2000. It remains to be seen whether Windows 7 will turn out
to be as good.
Bob
MikeWhy
news:0j6rj5tjnqm8mfd90...@4ax.com...
Thanks, Bob. It does look very good. The lens charts are reasonable,
comparing very well with the Canon 28/1.8. Center sharpness for both are
diffraction limited at f/5.6; corners drop off at f/11. Both look very nice.
The Sigma is ever so slightly sharper in the center at all apertures, but
the full converage Canon is notably brighter and minutely sharper toward the
edges at mid aperture and smaller. Either would be a joy to shoot, even if
not quite as sharp as the ubiquitous nifty-fifty. The 35/1.4L edges them
all. Alas. I'll stick with the EF 17-55/2.8 paired with a nifty-fifty until
the lottery retirement plan makes choosing an irrelevant obsession from the
past. Any of these will put eye cutting detail in the prints.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Mac OS X. What Linux wants to be when it grows up one day.
Absolutely, if you ignore all the problems that Mac OS has and
represents and just look at the shiny interface. All in all,
Mac OS X is like a camera that's got a really nice automatic mode
(hey, shiny, does what you want --- most of the time), but no
"M" and only very restricted aperture and exposure automatics.
Of course, 99+% of all people aren't knowledgeable enough to
ever use a full manual mode, and most of the rest don't do
well there, so what's lost?
-Wolfgang
PS: The "M" mode of an OS or program is the freedom to run it for
any purpose, to study it and change it to make it do anything
you wish, the freedom to redistribute copies (helping your
neighbour is not just christian, but basic civility) and
the freedom to redistrubute copies of your modified versions
as well.
Imagine a camera that you may not shoot act with (or nuklear
research subjects), imagine a camera where you may not find
out what the automatics and manual modes do to your shots,
imagine a camera where you may not share such knowledge,
imagine a camera where you may not share your own shots ...
and you know what Mac OS does a lot.
John McWilliams
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Mac OS X. What Linux wants to be when it grows up one day.
>
> Absolutely, if you ignore all the problems that Mac OS has and
> represents and just look at the shiny interface. All in all,
> Mac OS X is like a camera that's got a really nice automatic mode
> (hey, shiny, does what you want --- most of the time), but no
> "M" and only very restricted aperture and exposure automatics.
Gosh n golly, Wolfie, what are just a few of the "problems" with the Mac
OS?
You want something deeper than a CLI??
--
John McWilliams
Ray Fischer
>Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Mac OS X. What Linux wants to be when it grows up one day.
>
>Absolutely, if you ignore all the problems that Mac OS has and
>represents and just look at the shiny interface. All in all,
>Mac OS X is like a camera that's got a really nice automatic mode
>(hey, shiny, does what you want --- most of the time), but no
>"M" and only very restricted aperture and exposure automatics.
You don't know much about Macs.
I routinely use a C shell on my Mac. There's also the other shells
available and all of the traditional Unix commands.
>Of course, 99+% of all people aren't knowledgeable enough to
>ever use a full manual mode,
Or even realize that it exists.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>: in comparison with their own products. And it's *not* a case of
>: "getting better all the time", as Vista (and many people staying
>: on XP) demostrates.
> Vista wasn't nearly as bad as most people claim,
It was bad enough for most people not to use it.
> and XP had some important
> advantages over its predecessors (notably in its better organized handling of
> wi-fi).
Never said XP was worse than it's predecessors. I'd point out
that they were even worse than XP.
> But in terms of stability and reliability, the best OS Microsoft ever
> wrote was Windows 2000.
Nice to know it's "best before" date is 10 years overdue. :->
For stability I prefer other systems.
> It remains to be seen whether Windows 7 will turn out
> to be as good.
One would hope se7en would be better. It's not like the
competition didn't learn anything in the past 10 years.
(It's more that MS is a 30.000 Megaton Gorilla and completely
amoral (as all big comapnies are expected to behave).)
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Freedom.
I've got the choice: fix it myself, pay someone to fix it, beg
the maker to fix it. I don't depend on a single maker, and I
don't have my data locked up in proprietary formats.
Yes, I have found bugs, and a few of them I could fix myself.
And yes, I want to help my neighbours. Would you want to
live in a society where that's no longer common?
> You want something deeper than a CLI??
Deeper than a CLI?
That would be "programming a computer", and yes, I want that.
Shouldn't I? WHY shouldn't I?[1]
-Wolfgang
[1] let me guess, it's not for mere mortals to order
computers around ... sacrilege ... demystification ...
misuse of resources ... it's giving the serfs dangerous
ideas ...
nospam
Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> >> Absolutely, if you ignore all the problems that Mac OS has and
> >> represents and just look at the shiny interface. All in all,
> >> Mac OS X is like a camera that's got a really nice automatic mode
> >> (hey, shiny, does what you want --- most of the time), but no
> >> "M" and only very restricted aperture and exposure automatics.
>
> > Gosh n golly, Wolfie, what are just a few of the "problems" with the Mac
> > OS?
>
> Freedom.
freedom is a problem?
> I've got the choice: fix it myself, pay someone to fix it, beg
> the maker to fix it.
mac users have those choices too, except for the begging part. apple is
often very generous in fixing things. for example, it's not unheard of
for a user to send in an older powerbook or ibook and hear back that
parts are not available, how about a new macbook instead, no extra
charge.
> I don't depend on a single maker, and I
> don't have my data locked up in proprietary formats.
what proprietary formats are those?
> Yes, I have found bugs, and a few of them I could fix myself.
only a few?
> And yes, I want to help my neighbours. Would you want to
> live in a society where that's no longer common?
huh?
> > You want something deeper than a CLI??
>
> Deeper than a CLI?
> That would be "programming a computer", and yes, I want that.
> Shouldn't I? WHY shouldn't I?[1]
surprising as it may seem, it's possible to program a mac.
in fact, the development tools are completely free and ship with every
mac. it even uses gcc.
MikeWhy
news:c41a17-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>> Vista wasn't nearly as bad as most people claim,
>
> It was bad enough for most people not to use it.
Migrating the operating system is typically a one way trip. It's not like
trying on a pair of shoes. Once you're there, you're stuck, and then counted
among those who _are_ using it, against their wishes or otherwise. Ergo,
Vista's lack of popularity has less to do with the common person finding
that it doesn't suit them, than rumor- and fear-mongering puppies spreading
gossip, almost *ALWAYS* without firsthand knowledge of that which they
speak. Does any part of this sound the least bit familiar to anyone here?
One would think the legions of dissatisfied Vista users would have ditched
it like a used prophylactic once Windows 7 came along. Since you're not
already on Windows 7, we can take it for fact that you have no meaningful
firsthand knowledge of Vista.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> > Gosh n golly, Wolfie, what are just a few of the "problems" with the Mac
>> > OS?
>> Freedom.
> freedom is a problem?
For MacOS.
>> I've got the choice: fix it myself, pay someone to fix it, beg
>> the maker to fix it.
> mac users have those choices too,
They get the complete source code from Apple?
And the rights to use, study, change, pass on the original or
changed source code?
> except for the begging part. apple is
> often very generous in fixing things. for example, it's not unheard of
> for a user to send in an older powerbook or ibook and hear back that
> parts are not available, how about a new macbook instead, no extra
> charge.
And how does that relate to the software in question?
>> I don't depend on a single maker, and I
>> don't have my data locked up in proprietary formats.
> what proprietary formats are those?
Any format that isn't an open format.
As often enough discussed here, software for tagging and finding
images should save the data to IPCT (open format) and not (just)
to it's own database (proprietary format) where it's hard (or
even impossible) to export and re-import into another
application.
If you actually stop and think about it, you'll find many
more examples from all walks of life.
>> Yes, I have found bugs, and a few of them I could fix myself.
> only a few?
Only a few. When I don't have the inclination or time (when the
bug doesn't need immediate attention and something else does,
for example), when the code is too complicated to understand
sufficiently regarding to the problem or the problem is deep or,
obviously in all cases where there's no source code ...
How many bugs have you found and fixed in other people's
code?
>> And yes, I want to help my neighbours. Would you want to
>> live in a society where that's no longer common?
> huh?
If your neighbour needs an umbrella or a chainsaw or a certain
book or tool and you have one, you can lend it ... except for
e.g. Digital Restriction Managed books or proprietary software
tools (where you don't even own the copy of the tool, but just
a licence that forbids you sometimes to even publish benchmarks,
never mind lending it to your neighbour.
Baen Books has found, for example, that restriction free access to
(at least some) books boosts the overall revenue (assuming the
books are good to read) --- see their free library.
And of course free and open source software does allow you to
give your neighbour any of their tools.
Huh!
>> > You want something deeper than a CLI??
>> Deeper than a CLI?
>> That would be "programming a computer", and yes, I want that.
>> Shouldn't I? WHY shouldn't I?[1]
> surprising as it may seem, it's possible to program a mac.
It's not surprising. After all, one can program a Windows
computer.
> in fact, the development tools are completely free and ship with every
> mac. it even uses gcc.
Huh?
You write that as if it was something special. 'And the air
in this nice hotel is completely free to breathe, no exta fee.
You may even trap as much in your bags and take home as you
can carry.'
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>> Vista wasn't nearly as bad as most people claim,
>> It was bad enough for most people not to use it.
> Migrating the operating system is typically a one way trip.
That's why anyone with more than a half handful of computers and a
modicum of sense uses test environments to test out these things.
(And many intelligent people manage even with just one or two
computers.) And having tested it, people who depend on their
computers professionally mostly stayed way off Vista.
> It's not like
> trying on a pair of shoes. Once you're there, you're stuck,
... unless you know what a backup (or an image, if you're using
Windows computers as clients, as most people in business do)
is for. You *do* know what a backup is, don't you?
> and then counted
> among those who _are_ using it, against their wishes or otherwise. Ergo,
> Vista's lack of popularity has less to do with the common person finding
> that it doesn't suit them, than rumor- and fear-mongering puppies spreading
> gossip, almost *ALWAYS* without firsthand knowledge of that which they
> speak.
And now explain why Vista --- and not XP nor 7 --- is regarded
so badly. If your claim was right, then XP and 7 would have/have
had the same people who are using it against their wishes, the
same lack of popularity and the same rumor- an fear-mongering
puppies spreading gossip. Unfortunately for your argument,
this is not so. Hence your argument, as stated, is refuted.
Thank you for proving that there is indeed more to 'Vista is
bad'.
> Does any part of this sound the least bit familiar to anyone here?
> One would think the legions of dissatisfied Vista users would have ditched
> it like a used prophylactic once Windows 7 came along.
They did not? Who is still running Vista? Hands up, please.
> Since you're not
> already on Windows 7, we can take it for fact that you have no meaningful
> firsthand knowledge of Vista.
Since you are not already on heroin, we can take it for a fact
that you have no meaningful firsthand knowledge of cocaine?
How about having experience with Vista and not waiting for 7 but
changing to MacOS or BSD or Linux? None of these require the use
of 7, in fact, in all of these cases using 7 would be almost as
foolish as going back to Vista.
Or how about having exposure to XP, Vista now 7 and all the
problems especially Vista brought from work, but not using Windows
at home --- exactly because one knows it?
I'm going to take your inate 'not already on 7' claim as proof that
you have no exposure, meaningful or not, to any other operating
system, which means you have no meter stick to measure Windows by
except itself. You are thus incapable of seeing or understanding
it's inbuild, unnecessary limitations and quirks and thus in no
position to argue about the merits of Windows above a level of
which type of sawdust tastes better with turpentine in a discussion
of ice cream with sauce.
-Wolfgang
MikeWhy
> MikeWhy <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It's not like
>> trying on a pair of shoes. Once you're there, you're stuck,
>
> ... unless you know what a backup (or an image, if you're using
> Windows computers as clients, as most people in business do)
> is for. You *do* know what a backup is, don't you?
The chances are very good you were still in diapers when I started doing
this.
Why that's just wonderful, a pugilist looking for an OS war. Go ahead, I'll
give you one if you can say something new and refreshing. Tell us something
you know that no one else knows.
nospam
Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >> > Gosh n golly, Wolfie, what are just a few of the "problems" with the Mac
> >> > OS?
>
> >> Freedom.
>
> > freedom is a problem?
>
> For MacOS.
and how exactly is freedom a problem for mac os?
> >> I've got the choice: fix it myself, pay someone to fix it, beg
> >> the maker to fix it.
>
> > mac users have those choices too,
>
> They get the complete source code from Apple?
quite a bit of os x is open source, however, most people don't care
about the source code to their operating system. they're more
interested in actually *doing something* with their computer.
> And the rights to use, study, change, pass on the original or
> changed source code?
sure. read the license agreements for specifics.
> > except for the begging part. apple is
> > often very generous in fixing things. for example, it's not unheard of
> > for a user to send in an older powerbook or ibook and hear back that
> > parts are not available, how about a new macbook instead, no extra
> > charge.
>
> And how does that relate to the software in question?
you said you had to beg for repairs.
> >> I don't depend on a single maker, and I
> >> don't have my data locked up in proprietary formats.
>
> > what proprietary formats are those?
>
> Any format that isn't an open format.
i'm aware of the definition. what proprietary formats does apple force
on its users?
> As often enough discussed here, software for tagging and finding
> images should save the data to IPCT (open format) and not (just)
> to it's own database (proprietary format) where it's hard (or
> even impossible) to export and re-import into another
> application.
that's not part of the operating system.
> If you actually stop and think about it, you'll find many
> more examples from all walks of life.
and which examples are part of mac os x?
a very feeble attempt at evading the question. try answering it next
time.
> >> Yes, I have found bugs, and a few of them I could fix myself.
>
> > only a few?
>
> Only a few. When I don't have the inclination or time (when the
> bug doesn't need immediate attention and something else does,
> for example), when the code is too complicated to understand
> sufficiently regarding to the problem or the problem is deep or,
> obviously in all cases where there's no source code ...
so you want the source but rarely do anything with it. got it.
> How many bugs have you found and fixed in other people's
> code?
quite a few. what does that have to do with what apple does?
> >> And yes, I want to help my neighbours. Would you want to
> >> live in a society where that's no longer common?
>
> > huh?
>
> If your neighbour needs an umbrella or a chainsaw or a certain
> book or tool and you have one, you can lend it ...
apple is in the umbrella and chainsaw business now? what does that have
to do with apple and mac os x?
> except for
> e.g. Digital Restriction Managed books or proprietary software
> tools (where you don't even own the copy of the tool, but just
> a licence that forbids you sometimes to even publish benchmarks,
> never mind lending it to your neighbour.
os x does not include any drm'ed ebooks, so that's also irrelevant and
as i noted, the software development tools that come with os x include
gcc, gdb, etc.
> Baen Books has found, for example, that restriction free access to
> (at least some) books boosts the overall revenue (assuming the
> books are good to read) --- see their free library.
wonderful. what does that have to do with apple?
> And of course free and open source software does allow you to
> give your neighbour any of their tools.
my neighbor would not know what open source *means* let alone what to
do with it.
> Huh!
huh indeed. another feeble attempt at diversion.
> >> > You want something deeper than a CLI??
>
> >> Deeper than a CLI?
> >> That would be "programming a computer", and yes, I want that.
> >> Shouldn't I? WHY shouldn't I?[1]
>
> > surprising as it may seem, it's possible to program a mac.
>
> It's not surprising. After all, one can program a Windows
> computer.
based on what i've seen, it doesn't take much, and many of them have no
idea what they're doing.
> > in fact, the development tools are completely free and ship with every
> > mac. it even uses gcc.
>
> Huh?
>
> You write that as if it was something special. 'And the air
> in this nice hotel is completely free to breathe, no exta fee.
> You may even trap as much in your bags and take home as you
> can carry.'
don't you use gcc on your linux box?
ironic how when linux uses a particular bit of software, it's a plus,
but when apple uses the *same thing* it's not.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq8e17-...@weissel4.weisselberg.net...
>> MikeWhy <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> It's not like
>>> trying on a pair of shoes. Once you're there, you're stuck,
>> ... unless you know what a backup (or an image, if you're using
>> Windows computers as clients, as most people in business do)
>> is for. You *do* know what a backup is, don't you?
> The chances are very good you were still in diapers when I started doing
> this.
That, and *lots* of study, might qualify you as an early computer
historian.
In a field where the halftime of knowledge is 3 years, what does
a decade of experiences gain you, once it's over a quarter or
half a century ago? Maybe you can program in Plankalkül and
run a Z3 --- so what? If I want or need to do that, I'll pick
it up in short order.
>>> and then counted
>>> among those who _are_ using it, against their wishes or otherwise. Ergo,
>>> Vista's lack of popularity has less to do with the common person finding
>>> that it doesn't suit them, than rumor- and fear-mongering puppies
>>> spreading
>>> gossip, almost *ALWAYS* without firsthand knowledge of that which they
>>> speak.
>> And now explain why Vista --- and not XP nor 7 --- is regarded
>> so badly. If your claim was right, then XP and 7 would have/have
>> had the same people who are using it against their wishes, the
>> same lack of popularity and the same rumor- an fear-mongering
>> puppies spreading gossip. Unfortunately for your argument,
>> this is not so. Hence your argument, as stated, is refuted.
>> Thank you for proving that there is indeed more to 'Vista is
>> bad'.
I see you found no explanation why Vista should be singled
out. I also see you with your experience when I was still in
diapers cannot even get your newsreader not to wrap quoted
material, or at least reformat it properly. This speaks
volumes.
[snip. How someone with alleged decades of experience doesn't
know how to trim posts is beyond me.]
> Why that's just wonderful, a pugilist looking for an OS war.
If I want one, I go to *.advocacy.
You seem to want one, given that you claimed that since I wasn't
on 7 already, I must have no (meaningful) experience with Vista
... as if there was nothing BUT windows.
News flash for you: I started computing before there was a Windows
1 even in planning (which isn't a particularly uncommon claim).
Were you still in diapers then, or can't (in which case you're
excused) or won't you remember there being other systems?
> Go ahead, I'll
> give you one if you can say something new and refreshing.
I was waiting for you to say something new and refreshing on
how just Visa did get a bad rep. Unfortunately, you didn't.
> Tell us something you know that no one else knows.
I dreamed wierd stuff last night, and haven't told a soul yet,
so only I know/knew it.
With regards to computers? I doubt there's much relevant stuff
(except passwords and the like) that is known to only one person,
but feel free to divulge *your* completely unique knowledge.
-Wolfgang
Ray Fischer
>nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
>>> > Gosh n golly, Wolfie, what are just a few of the "problems" with the Mac
>>> > OS?
>
>>> Freedom.
>
>> freedom is a problem?
>
>For MacOS.
How?
>>> I've got the choice: fix it myself, pay someone to fix it, beg
>>> the maker to fix it.
>
>> mac users have those choices too,
>
>They get the complete source code from Apple?
>And the rights to use, study, change, pass on the original or
>changed source code?
If you want to write code in order to use your computer, great for
you. I write code for a living and when I get home I want to use the
computer and not write code.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> In article <btde17-...@weissel4.weisselberg.net>, Wolfgang
> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Gosh n golly, Wolfie, what are just a few of the "problems" with the Mac
>> >> > OS?
>> >> Freedom.
>> > freedom is a problem?
>> For MacOS.
> and how exactly is freedom a problem for mac os?
Can you see Apple opening all their sources?
>> >> I've got the choice: fix it myself, pay someone to fix it, beg
>> >> the maker to fix it.
>> > mac users have those choices too,
>> They get the complete source code from Apple?
> quite a bit of os x is open source,
You have a funny way of writing the letters 'n' and 'o'.
> however, most people don't care
> about the source code to their operating system. they're more
> interested in actually *doing something* with their computer.
So?
Most people don't care about photography or quality images,
they use point'n'shoots on full auto --- with all the flat,
white faces and red eyes and black backgrounds that brings.
They only care about their snapshots.
You obviously either troll in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
or actually care about more expensive, harder to use cameras
and their capablities --- so being in exactly the same
positionwith respect to cameras, you tell me "the pink
snapshot can actually disable the flash and allows you to
influence the exposure a bit"?
>> And the rights to use, study, change, pass on the original or
>> changed source code?
> sure. read the license agreements for specifics.
Where do I get the source code and rights for the parts where
it doesn't apply?
>> And how does that relate to the software in question?
> you said you had to beg for repairs.
People beg MS to fix OE for more than a decade now.
How does that make begging a hardware-only proposition?
>> >> I don't depend on a single maker, and I
>> >> don't have my data locked up in proprietary formats.
>> > what proprietary formats are those?
>> Any format that isn't an open format.
> i'm aware of the definition. what proprietary formats does apple force
> on its users?
Try iTunes, iPod (newer ones), iPhone ... in some cases the lock-in
feature has been broken, in others Apple has relented nowadays,
and in some it's an ongoing war between people who want to *own*
the hardware they bought and Apple.
>> As often enough discussed here, software for tagging and finding
>> images should save the data to IPCT (open format) and not (just)
>> to it's own database (proprietary format) where it's hard (or
>> even impossible) to export and re-import into another
>> application.
> that's not part of the operating system.
Thank you for agreeing that locking in the user is a bad idea
for everyone.
>> If you actually stop and think about it, you'll find many
>> more examples from all walks of life.
> and which examples are part of mac os x?
I said, stop and think.
> a very feeble attempt at evading the question. try answering it next
> time.
You're no bad evader yourself, but I don't do thinking for
you without you paying me first. Contact me for payment
details.
>> >> Yes, I have found bugs, and a few of them I could fix myself.
>> > only a few?
>> Only a few. When I don't have the inclination or time (when the
>> bug doesn't need immediate attention and something else does,
>> for example), when the code is too complicated to understand
>> sufficiently regarding to the problem or the problem is deep or,
>> obviously in all cases where there's no source code ...
> so you want the source but rarely do anything with it. got it.
Nope, you don't. There are many many more things you can do
with source than just fix bugs. You can extend it, compile it
(optimized for your machine, or for a certain set of features,
or for low memory use, etc. etc. etc.), look up how things
*really* work (unlike closed source, where all you ever get is
the documentation: lacking, eroneous, wrong, choose any three),
learn techniques and tricks, get ideas for your own programs,
run statistics to see how the code evolved, see how others have
solved the same problems you now have (e.g. interacting with
certain hardware, protocols or entities) and so on.
You probably also think one can photograph only red roses ---
and nothing else.
And before you ask, I touch source code every day, usually
for many hours.
>> How many bugs have you found and fixed in other people's
>> code?
> quite a few. what does that have to do with what apple does?
So, where were you credited for finding and/or fixing the bug?
Nowhere, unlike me.
>> >> And yes, I want to help my neighbours. Would you want to
>> >> live in a society where that's no longer common?
>> > huh?
>> If your neighbour needs an umbrella or a chainsaw or a certain
>> book or tool and you have one, you can lend it ...
> apple is in the umbrella and chainsaw business now? what does that have
> to do with apple and mac os x?
Evader --- or merely overstupid person which cannot even read
and understand a whole sencence?
>> except for
>> e.g. Digital Restriction Managed books or proprietary software
>> tools (where you don't even own the copy of the tool, but just
>> a licence that forbids you sometimes to even publish benchmarks,
>> never mind lending it to your neighbour.
> os x does not include any drm'ed ebooks, so that's also irrelevant
OS X doesn't include you, so you are also irrelevant. Case
closed.
> and
> as i noted, the software development tools that come with os x include
> gcc, gdb, etc.
So? As I noted, that's the minimum one expects. Unless one
only knows Microsoft.
>> Baen Books has found, for example, that restriction free access to
>> (at least some) books boosts the overall revenue (assuming the
>> books are good to read) --- see their free library.
> wonderful. what does that have to do with apple?
Once you reach enlightenment, you'll know.
>> And of course free and open source software does allow you to
>> give your neighbour any of their tools.
> my neighbor would not know what open source *means* let alone what to
> do with it.
Ay, redneck country. Explains a lot.
>> Huh!
> huh indeed. another feeble attempt at diversion.
What has your answer got to do with Apple?
>> >> > You want something deeper than a CLI??
>> >> Deeper than a CLI?
>> >> That would be "programming a computer", and yes, I want that.
>> >> Shouldn't I? WHY shouldn't I?[1]
>> > surprising as it may seem, it's possible to program a mac.
>> It's not surprising. After all, one can program a Windows
>> computer.
> based on what i've seen, it doesn't take much, and many of them have no
> idea what they're doing.
Yep, there's a reason they hide the code.
>> > in fact, the development tools are completely free and ship with every
>> > mac. it even uses gcc.
>> Huh?
>> You write that as if it was something special. 'And the air
>> in this nice hotel is completely free to breathe, no exta fee.
>> You may even trap as much in your bags and take home as you
>> can carry.'
> don't you use gcc on your linux box?
Of course I do, when I compile stuff. But I don't do a "OH
MY GOD, LINUX COMES WITH GCC AND GDB AND SO ON" raindance and
get a hard one just thinking about it. You do, with Apple.
just ... use gcc, I don't masturbate it.
> ironic how when linux uses a particular bit of software, it's a plus,
> but when apple uses the *same thing* it's not.
A *plus*? Gcc is a *given*. It's taken for granted. Just like
air.[1] You scream when it's not there (but noone can hear you
then), not when it's there as required.
-Wolfgang
[1] or the M mode on a semiprofessional camera. Or that you
can exchange lenses on a (D)SLR. Or that the shutter
button actually actuates the shutter.
nospam
Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> > and how exactly is freedom a problem for mac os?
>
> Can you see Apple opening all their sources?
not all, but quite a bit is open source.
> >> They get the complete source code from Apple?
>
> > quite a bit of os x is open source,
>
> You have a funny way of writing the letters 'n' and 'o'.
you have a funny way of not being able to read.
> >> > what proprietary formats are those?
>
> >> Any format that isn't an open format.
>
> > i'm aware of the definition. what proprietary formats does apple force
> > on its users?
>
> Try iTunes,
xml that's easily used.
> iPod (newer ones), iPhone ...
this is about macs, not ipods and iphones.
do you have the source code to the firmware in your cellphone? even
android is not completely open source. how about your microwave oven?
> in some cases the lock-in
> feature has been broken, in others Apple has relented nowadays,
> and in some it's an ongoing war between people who want to *own*
> the hardware they bought and Apple.
people do own their hardware and are not prevented from doing whatever
they want with it.
> >> As often enough discussed here, software for tagging and finding
> >> images should save the data to IPCT (open format) and not (just)
> >> to it's own database (proprietary format) where it's hard (or
> >> even impossible) to export and re-import into another
> >> application.
>
> > that's not part of the operating system.
>
> Thank you for agreeing that locking in the user is a bad idea
> for everyone.
thank you for agreeing that apple doesn't lock anyone down.
> > so you want the source but rarely do anything with it. got it.
>
> Nope, you don't. There are many many more things you can do
> with source than just fix bugs.
most of which don't matter to the vast majority of users.
> You can extend it,
i can extend os x without any need for its source.
> compile it (optimized for your machine,
it already is
> or for a certain set of features, or for low memory use, etc. etc. etc.),
all of the features are there and memory is cheap.
> look up how things
> *really* work (unlike closed source, where all you ever get is
> the documentation: lacking, eroneous, wrong, choose any three),
> learn techniques and tricks, get ideas for your own programs,
> run statistics to see how the code evolved, see how others have
> solved the same problems you now have (e.g. interacting with
> certain hardware, protocols or entities) and so on.
there's no need for the operating system itself to be open source to
find sample code from which to learn, and as i mentioned, a lot of os x
*is* open source, including the kernel.
> > don't you use gcc on your linux box?
>
> Of course I do, when I compile stuff. But I don't do a "OH
> MY GOD, LINUX COMES WITH GCC AND GDB AND SO ON" raindance and
> get a hard one just thinking about it. You do, with Apple.
> just ... use gcc, I don't masturbate it.
i'm just pointing out that macs use the very same compiler you use on
your linux box. if it's good enough for linux users, then it's good
enough for mac users :)
> > ironic how when linux uses a particular bit of software, it's a plus,
> > but when apple uses the *same thing* it's not.
>
> A *plus*? Gcc is a *given*. It's taken for granted. Just like
> air.[1] You scream when it's not there (but noone can hear you
> then), not when it's there as required.
it's a given with macs too, unfortunately. there are much better
compilers but gcc is what became the defacto standard everywhere.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> > and how exactly is freedom a problem for mac os?
>> Can you see Apple opening all their sources?
> not all,
And here you have the answer to your question.
> but quite a bit is open source.
How much of that open source is parts Apple developed, improved,
ported or helped to debug?
>> >> They get the complete source code from Apple?
>> > quite a bit of os x is open source,
>> You have a funny way of writing the letters 'n' and 'o'.
> you have a funny way of not being able to read.
I read you say "No, you cannot get the complete source code for
your Mac OS, but I will not admit it openly" in politicanese.
>> > what proprietary formats does apple force
>> > on its users?
>> iPod (newer ones), iPhone ...
> this is about macs, not ipods and iphones.
This is about "proprietary formats [...] APPLE force[s] on its
users". You set the conditions, don't change them all the time.
> do you have the source code to the firmware in your cellphone? even
> android is not completely open source. how about your microwave oven?
What does Apple and/or OS X have to do with cellphones, android,
and microwave ovens? That's really rich from a guy comlaining
that iPod and iPhone aren't macs when he's talking about Apple.
But how about my MP3-player, to at least stay in the right
direction? Yes, I have the complete source code of the firmware
that runs my player.
>> in some cases the lock-in
>> feature has been broken, in others Apple has relented nowadays,
>> and in some it's an ongoing war between people who want to *own*
>> the hardware they bought and Apple.
> people do own their hardware and are not prevented from doing whatever
> they want with it.
Sure, and being in prison does not prevent you from doing whatever
you want, you just have to imagine it ... same as imagining
getting a benign C=64 emulator on the iPhone.
>> >> As often enough discussed here, software for tagging and finding
>> >> images should save the data to IPCT (open format) and not (just)
>> >> to it's own database (proprietary format) where it's hard (or
>> >> even impossible) to export and re-import into another
>> >> application.
>> > that's not part of the operating system.
>> Thank you for agreeing that locking in the user is a bad idea
>> for everyone.
> thank you for agreeing that apple doesn't lock anyone down.
Thank you for proving that while I can read your evasions, you
lie blatantly. Who complained above that the newer iPods from
Apple(!) and the iPhone fom Apple(!) aren't Macs, fully knowing
that they are locked down? If it was otherwise, you'd have
answered that they are open ...
>> > so you want the source but rarely do anything with it. got it.
>> Nope, you don't. There are many many more things you can do
>> with source than just fix bugs.
> most of which don't matter to the vast majority of users.
You don't matter to the vast majority of the people, therefore
your needs may/should/must be ignored? That's all the logic
you can offer? Go hold your head into a microwave, then, nobody
cares ... by your logic.
>> You can extend it,
> i can extend os x without any need for its source.
Then how come the source code is the programmer's choice for
doing things when you don't need it?
And how do you think you can extend it when "all the features are
[already] there"?
>> compile it (optimized for your machine,
> it already is
So what? Lots of people tune their cars, although they are
already tuned.
>> or for a certain set of features, or for low memory use, etc. etc. etc.),
> all of the features are there
So Mac OS X will never ever add a new feature?
I guess you're a liar. You can extend OS X, which means there
are features missing.
Do you even notice when you claim two mutually exclusive things?
> and memory is cheap.
Sure, what's a couple Exabye of RAM between friends? What,
your computer doesn't have even 100 Gigabyte? And your phone?
And your microwave?
>> look up how things
>> *really* work (unlike closed source, where all you ever get is
>> the documentation: lacking, eroneous, wrong, choose any three),
>> learn techniques and tricks, get ideas for your own programs,
>> run statistics to see how the code evolved, see how others have
>> solved the same problems you now have (e.g. interacting with
>> certain hardware, protocols or entities) and so on.
> there's no need for the operating system itself to be open source to
> find sample code from which to learn,
No, you could read the lion book to understand how to code an OS.
Or you could look to licenses that don't give you all freedoms,
just enough to look at the code. Minix comes to mind.
> and as i mentioned, a lot of os x
> *is* open source, including the kernel.
Guess Apple didn't write it and it would have cost them too much
to close it.
>> > don't you use gcc on your linux box?
>> Of course I do, when I compile stuff. But I don't do a "OH
>> MY GOD, LINUX COMES WITH GCC AND GDB AND SO ON" raindance and
>> get a hard one just thinking about it. You do, with Apple.
>> just ... use gcc, I don't masturbate it.
> i'm just pointing out that macs use the very same compiler you use on
> your linux box. if it's good enough for linux users, then it's good
> enough for mac users :)
Can't you read? I'm not saying it's too good or too bad for
Mac users. I'm saying I'm not acting like a child finding
out the first time that snow is cold over GCC being included
with Linux.
> it's a given with macs too, unfortunately. there are much better
> compilers but gcc is what became the defacto standard everywhere.
GCC isn't perfect. But you can freely buy whatever better compiler
you want and run it on your Mac. Unless your license with Apple
forbids it, of course. You can even recompile your and all your
closed source programs OS with that super-compiler of yours',
then, can't you?
And in an open market (i.e. not one where a microsoft gets a slap
on the hand for major crimes and has strangulating contracts with
most computer retailers and all the force of an evil monopoly
empire) you'll find that the overall 'best' solution --- the one
that is adopted --- isn't the one that's just technically good,
but restrictive regarding licenses or just too hard to use in
comparison. Guess excellence not always wins you friends if
you are obnoxious.
-Wolfgang
nospam
Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> > but quite a bit is open source.
>
> How much of that open source is parts Apple developed, improved,
> ported or helped to debug?
quite a bit actually, including the kernel, webkit and grand central.
in fact, webkit is used by nokia, palm and google. adobe is considering
using grand central.
> > this is about macs, not ipods and iphones.
>
> This is about "proprietary formats [...] APPLE force[s] on its
> users". You set the conditions, don't change them all the time.
what proprietary formats does apple force? you mentioned itunes, i
pointed out that it's xml, not proprietary at all. keep trying.
ipods and iphones play standard audio and video files and can display
standard photos, nothing proprietary there either. there's no source
with them, but that's how virtually all embedded devices are.
> > people do own their hardware and are not prevented from doing whatever
> > they want with it.
>
> Sure, and being in prison does not prevent you from doing whatever
> you want, you just have to imagine it ... same as imagining
> getting a benign C=64 emulator on the iPhone.
you can keep coming up with these ridiculous comments, but exactly what
does apple prevent someone from doing? specifics please.
> > i can extend os x without any need for its source.
>
> Then how come the source code is the programmer's choice for
> doing things when you don't need it?
ask them. maybe like yourself, they're unfamiliar with how a mac
actually works.
> And how do you think you can extend it when "all the features are
> [already] there"?
if the features of your system are all there, you don't actually need
the source code, do you? there's nothing to extend.
> >> compile it (optimized for your machine,
> > it already is
>
> So what? Lots of people tune their cars, although they are
> already tuned.
and lots of people tweak their macs, without having any source code.
big deal.
> > and as i mentioned, a lot of os x
> > *is* open source, including the kernel.
>
> Guess Apple didn't write it and it would have cost them too much
> to close it.
guess again. in fact, it was closed early on, but that was when quite a
bit of it was constantly changing.
> > it's a given with macs too, unfortunately. there are much better
> > compilers but gcc is what became the defacto standard everywhere.
>
> GCC isn't perfect. But you can freely buy whatever better compiler
> you want and run it on your Mac. Unless your license with Apple
> forbids it, of course.
apple doesn't forbid anyone from running anything on a mac. where do
people come up with this nonsense?
> You can even recompile your and all your
> closed source programs OS with that super-compiler of yours',
> then, can't you?
i prefer to actually *do* something with my apps than compile them.
many have a plugin architecture so they can be extended without needing
source code to the apps, such as photoshop.
speaking of which, despite the gimp being open source, it's still far
slower than that closed source photoshop. despite it being open source,
nobody has figured out how to make it fast.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> > but quite a bit is open source.
>> How much of that open source is parts Apple developed, improved,
>> ported or helped to debug?
> quite a bit actually, including the kernel, webkit and grand central.
So Apple is trying in some ways to have their cake (open source ---
for example, they didn't have to write the kernel, saving several
million man hours, just work on it a bit --- and get some/many/a
lot of improvements and bugfixes "for free") and eat it, too
(still having proprietary code).
Of course it is possible Apple is hogtied by proprietary
licenses itself in regards to the closed parts.
> in fact, webkit is used by nokia, palm and google. adobe is considering
> using grand central.
And the kernel is used by Apple --- in just the same way.
>> > this is about macs, not ipods and iphones.
>> This is about "proprietary formats [...] APPLE force[s] on its
>> users". You set the conditions, don't change them all the time.
> what proprietary formats does apple force? you mentioned itunes, i
> pointed out that it's xml, not proprietary at all. keep trying.
Is the format how iPhones and iPods store data on their
devices open, just for example?
> ipods and iphones play standard audio and video files and can display
> standard photos, nothing proprietary there either. there's no source
> with them, but that's how virtually all embedded devices are.
And Internet Explorer 'plays' standard HTML webpages and
images and Javascript, too --- so we can rank the iPod and
the iPhone to be as open as the IE.
Not that the IE doesn't have proprietary 'extensions' of
their own...
>> > people do own their hardware and are not prevented from doing whatever
>> > they want with it.
>> Sure, and being in prison does not prevent you from doing whatever
>> you want, you just have to imagine it ... same as imagining
>> getting a benign C=64 emulator on the iPhone.
> you can keep coming up with these ridiculous comments, but exactly what
> does apple prevent someone from doing? specifics please.
What word of "C=64 emulator" and "iPhone" was too high for you?
If you continue to not read what I write and use your brain
during reading, don't bother answering any more.
>> > i can extend os x without any need for its source.
>> Then how come the source code is the programmer's choice for
>> doing things when you don't need it?
> ask them. maybe like yourself, they're unfamiliar with how a mac
> actually works.
Of course, the Mac's not programmed by software. That's it! Right?
>> And how do you think you can extend it when "all the features are
>> [already] there"?
> if the features of your system are all there, you don't actually need
> the source code, do you? there's nothing to extend.
Yep, you're a liar, you cannot "extend os x without any need for
its source" since you cannot extend it at all: "there's
nothing to extend".
>> >> compile it (optimized for your machine,
>> > it already is
>> So what? Lots of people tune their cars, although they are
>> already tuned.
> and lots of people tweak their macs, without having any source code.
> big deal.
With cars, you open the hood and see the internals. With software,
you open the sourcecode in your editor to see the internals.
Doesn't work with welded shut hoods or no sourcecode.
That's the big deal.
>> > and as i mentioned, a lot of os x
>> > *is* open source, including the kernel.
>> Guess Apple didn't write it and it would have cost them too much
>> to close it.
> guess again. in fact, it was closed early on, but that was when quite a
> bit of it was constantly changing.
Ah, what kernel does OS X run again? You seem to mix that
one up with previous versions of Macs ...
>> > it's a given with macs too, unfortunately. there are much better
>> > compilers but gcc is what became the defacto standard everywhere.
>> GCC isn't perfect. But you can freely buy whatever better compiler
>> you want and run it on your Mac. Unless your license with Apple
>> forbids it, of course.
> apple doesn't forbid anyone from running anything on a mac. where do
> people come up with this nonsense?
Just pointing out that licenses can have arbitrary terms,and
I don't know which license *you* have.
>> You can even recompile your and all your
>> closed source programs OS with that super-compiler of yours',
>> then, can't you?
> i prefer to actually *do* something with my apps than compile them.
So you cannot recompile them, thus the grapes are too sour for you.
Apparently
> many have a plugin architecture so they can be extended without needing
> source code to the apps, such as photoshop.
And of course a plugin can always do everything. How many
plugins to photoshop have you published under your name?
> speaking of which, despite the gimp being open source, it's still far
> slower than that closed source photoshop.
Gimp is much faster than photoshop in most cases. The exception
might be the very few platforms photoshop actually runs on.
So if you are a speed junky, feel free.
> despite it being open source,
> nobody has figured out how to make it fast.
Noone has figured out how to make photoshop use anything
better than bicubic interpolation. For GIMP, the solution is
easy: just spend the $$$$ you save on not buying photoshop
and dozens of expensive plug-ins on a faster machine. For
the quality loss in photoshop with every rotate, there's no
solution, except to use a different program.
And I don't hear many people worry over the speed of GIMP, so
it's not like it is a huge problem after all ...
-Wolfgang
nospam
Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> So Apple is trying in some ways to have their cake (open source ---
> for example, they didn't have to write the kernel, saving several
> million man hours, just work on it a bit --- and get some/many/a
> lot of improvements and bugfixes "for free") and eat it, too
> (still having proprietary code).
where do you get the idea they didn't write the kernel? the person who
created mach worked for apple.
> Of course it is possible Apple is hogtied by proprietary
> licenses itself in regards to the closed parts.
speculation.
the closed source parts are their own, notably carbon and cocoa.
> Is the format how iPhones and iPods store data on their
> devices open, just for example?
of course it is. it's whatever format it was before it was copied to
the device.
you don't really think itunes transcodes every single song or video on
the fly to some secret proprietary format do you?
> > you can keep coming up with these ridiculous comments, but exactly what
> > does apple prevent someone from doing? specifics please.
>
> What word of "C=64 emulator" and "iPhone" was too high for you?
> If you continue to not read what I write and use your brain
> during reading, don't bother answering any more.
apple does not in any way prevent anyone from writing a c64 emulator or
anything else for that matter. anyone can do exactly that and even
distribute the source code for it too.
what apple does not allow is *selling* such an app in apple's apps
store. that's no different than any other store deciding what they sell
or not sell. but of course, it's apple so it must be wrong, even though
everyone else does exactly the same thing.
go write a c64 emulator for whatever platform you prefer and see if
best buy or walmart will sell it.
> With cars, you open the hood and see the internals.
so you can see the source code for the onboard computers just by
lifting the hood??
back in the day, cars could be tweaked with a screwdriver. today, you
need all sorts of equipment to figure out what's in the ecu rom, which
if you replace will void the warranty. and if you do modify the car at
all, the obd system will probably flag the mod and you'll fail an
emissions check, making the vehicle not legal to be driven. in some
states, *any* mod, even if a replacement part causes the car to produce
less emissions, will fail the visual check (and they look).
so although the hood is not 'welded shut' you can't really do anything
beyond just 'seeing' the internals. it's for all intents, closed
source.
> With software,
> you open the sourcecode in your editor to see the internals.
> Doesn't work with welded shut hoods or no sourcecode.
>
> That's the big deal.
os x is not welded shut, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
> Ah, what kernel does OS X run again? You seem to mix that
> one up with previous versions of Macs ...
darwin and i'm not mixing anything up. the previous version was called
nukernel and that was not open source and it's now dead.
> > many have a plugin architecture so they can be extended without needing
> > source code to the apps, such as photoshop.
>
> And of course a plugin can always do everything. How many
> plugins to photoshop have you published under your name?
several.
> > speaking of which, despite the gimp being open source, it's still far
> > slower than that closed source photoshop.
>
> Gimp is much faster than photoshop in most cases.
bullshit. last time i benchmarked the gimp (a year or so ago), it was
an order of magnitude slower than photoshop on the same hardware.
> The exception
> might be the very few platforms photoshop actually runs on.
> So if you are a speed junky, feel free.
if by very few you mean the 95% of computers which are running mac or
windows.
> And I don't hear many people worry over the speed of GIMP, so
> it's not like it is a huge problem after all ...
i don't hear many people worry over not having the source code to
photoshop.
John McWilliams
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> but quite a bit is open source.
>
>>> How much of that open source is parts Apple developed, improved,
>>> ported or helped to debug?
>
>> quite a bit actually, including the kernel, webkit and grand central.
>
> So Apple is trying in some ways to have their cake (open source ---
> for example, they didn't have to write the kernel, saving several
> million man hours, just work on it a bit --- and get some/many/a
> lot of improvements and bugfixes "for free") and eat it, too
> (still having proprietary code).
>
> Of course it is possible Apple is hogtied by proprietary
> licenses itself in regards to the closed parts.
Wolfie-
It occurred to me that you'd do quite well in mac.advocacy- where anti
Maccies love to spread the love.....
--
lsmft
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> In article <sf4p17-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> So Apple is trying in some ways to have their cake (open source ---
>> for example, they didn't have to write the kernel, saving several
>> million man hours, just work on it a bit --- and get some/many/a
>> lot of improvements and bugfixes "for free") and eat it, too
>> (still having proprietary code).
> where do you get the idea they didn't write the kernel? the person who
> created mach worked for apple.
Where do you get the idea that Mach is the OS X kernel?
It's XNU!
Where do you get the idea that the Carnegie Mellon University
--- where the Mach system was developed --- is Apple?
Where do you get the idea that XNU --- which is part Mach and
part BSD 5 --- was developd by Apple? Apple bought NeXT who
had developed it for NeXTStep.
Enough of that, I don't argue facts with those who have none.
End Of Discussion.
You win.
-Wolfgang
nospam
Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> Where do you get the idea that Mach is the OS X kernel?
> It's XNU!
it's called xnu but it's mach inside.
> Where do you get the idea that the Carnegie Mellon University
> --- where the Mach system was developed --- is Apple?
it's creator, avie tevanian, worked for apple. thankfully, he's gone.
> Where do you get the idea that XNU --- which is part Mach and
> part BSD 5 --- was developd by Apple? Apple bought NeXT who
> had developed it for NeXTStep.
so you admit it has mach. progress. apple bought next, thus their work
is now apple. thanks for proving my point.
Ray Fischer
>nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <sf4p17-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
>> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> So Apple is trying in some ways to have their cake (open source ---
>>> for example, they didn't have to write the kernel, saving several
>>> million man hours, just work on it a bit --- and get some/many/a
>>> lot of improvements and bugfixes "for free") and eat it, too
>>> (still having proprietary code).
>
>> where do you get the idea they didn't write the kernel? the person who
>> created mach worked for apple.
>
>Where do you get the idea that Mach is the OS X kernel?
>It's XNU!
It's a Mach kernel. Modified, of course.
>Where do you get the idea that the Carnegie Mellon University
>--- where the Mach system was developed --- is Apple?
Gesundheit.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net