Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

An Open Letter To The Linux Enthusiasts.

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 6:20:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.
Is this what Linux advocacy is about?
You people seem to strut your operating system all over the place
claiming how superior it is to other systems, yet when you are called
to produce any kind of proof, you go scurrying about calling people
trolls, changing the subject, going on the offensive and so forth.
It seems that the Linux ehthusiast's bag of tricks is stuffed to the
brim with various techniques designed to deflect the shrapnel that
flies your way.
That's all well and good, but to put it simply it just makes most of
you look like a bunch of pablum puking babies.
Most of the discussions in rec.audio.pro revolved around making audio
at the professional level using Linux.
Who cares if I can alter the source code?
Who cares if there are 300 different versions of Linux?
Who even has the time to play with an evaluate them?

We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
do such.
For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
the issue.

Can Linux do what Samplitude/Sonar/Protools etc can do?
Doubtful, but it can come close and for some close is good enough.
For others, they need to use the heavy guns.
However, the Linux enthusiasts had better start learning how to deal
with laypeople who are not programmers, but may be experts in THEIR
chosen field.
Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
is using Micorsoft Office).

If I can leave the Linux people with one parting thought, it is to stop
acting so dammed arrogant and start realizing that not everyone is a
geek whose life revolves around an operating system that few outside of
the Linux world even know about.
When you post in groups that have nothing to do with Linux, please
leave your arrogance at the door.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jackson Pyle
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 7:14:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:
> I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
> personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
> Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
> Microsoft a way distant 3rd.
>
> What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
> nasty, obscene and self righteous.

This is COLA. Worst of the Worst.

> Some of the comments made to the
> fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.

The fine folks? Um...yeah.... Thats why they kepp trolling and
crossposting over here. Your credibility just about hit zero.

> Is this what Linux advocacy is about?
> You people seem to strut your operating system all over the place
> claiming how superior it is to other systems, yet when you are called
> to produce any kind of proof, you go scurrying about calling people
> trolls, changing the subject, going on the offensive and so forth.
> It seems that the Linux ehthusiast's bag of tricks is stuffed to the
> brim with various techniques designed to deflect the shrapnel that
> flies your way.

Huh? Proof? Look at uptimes of years or more. Solid security
records. Your problems with applications have nothing to do with the
OS.

> That's all well and good, but to put it simply it just makes most of
> you look like a bunch of pablum puking babies.
> Most of the discussions in rec.audio.pro revolved around making audio
> at the professional level using Linux.
> Who cares if I can alter the source code?
> Who cares if there are 300 different versions of Linux?
> Who even has the time to play with an evaluate them?

Then don't waste your time with Linux. More importantly don't waste
our time.


>
> We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
> of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
> for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
> do such.
> For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
> means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
> the issue.

Then why are you even talking about using Linux? Use a Mac. Now go
away.

>
> Can Linux do what Samplitude/Sonar/Protools etc can do?

No OS can do that. Applications do that. Something idiots never seem
to get.

> Doubtful, but it can come close and for some close is good enough.
> For others, they need to use the heavy guns.
> However, the Linux enthusiasts had better start learning how to deal
> with laypeople who are not programmers, but may be experts in THEIR
> chosen field.

Why? Linux is made by the people working on it for themselves. That
is the whole point of open source. You have the ability to join in and
help work on a project to make sure it meets your personal needs.
Don't like it? Then don't use it.

> Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
> thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
> difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
> companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
> is using Micorsoft Office).

I'm not using MS Office, so i guess not everyone on earth is using it.

>
> If I can leave the Linux people with one parting thought, it is to stop
> acting so dammed arrogant and start realizing that not everyone is a
> geek whose life revolves around an operating system that few outside of
> the Linux world even know about.

Then don't use it. Stop wasting our time with your drivel, you can't
even distiguish between an OS and applications.
June 4, 2005 7:43:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

The Linux Advocates bitter wanna-be's.
Plain and simple.

They do nothing, produce nothing, and live off
the work of others.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 9:10:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

<jackson_pyle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117920004.905864.135360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
> personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
> Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
> Microsoft a way distant 3rd.
>

Color My World... seems to fit your optimistic hope.
It is not just about marketing, but about the ability to meet the needs of
the broadest customer base. :o )

As time goes on I realize
Just what you mean to me
And now, now that you're near
Promise your love
That I've waited to share
And dreams of our moments together
Color my world with hope of loving you

Thanks,
Steve
June 4, 2005 9:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:
> I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
> personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
> Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
> Microsoft a way distant 3rd.
>
> What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
> nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
> fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.
> Is this what Linux advocacy is about?

<snip>

yes, even linux users have a few rude morons who need to shoot their
mouth's off.
since there are less of them than windows users...they feel they need to
be nastier.
all you need to do is killfile them.

of course i don't mind a good arguement now and then...
once in a while it ends up that a seemingly rude poster
is just joking a bit.

either way it's not really worth worrying about.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 10:04:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

Yo Mike,

> Not *everyone* uses M$ Office - the OpenOffice users for example.

Absolutes like "everyone" and "never" are easy to shoot down... like
you just did. But the majority of people out there do use MS Office.
Not everyone, but most people do.


> Furthermore, if someone sends me a M$ office file, I can read it with OpenOffice but they can't use M$ office to read an OpenOffice file.

This is the reality of how it must be done. Being the underdog trying
to unseat the king, OpenOffice must be able to read MS Office files.
Not being able to read .doc files would be a huge hurdle for OO users
simply because of how common .doc (and .xls...) files are. MS-Office
had to do the same thing when it was trying to establish itself. It had
to read WordPerfect documents and Lotus-123 Spreadsheets. Similarly
neither WordPerfect nor 123 could read MS-Office files at that time.


> Does M$ office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice does.

MS-Office does not have this ability. I don't see that happening
anytime down the road either. Doing so would be damaging to the
relationship they have with Adobe.

On Windows PDF export works at the printer driver level. You get (buy)
a special printer driver from Adobe and "print" to a PDF file. This way
any and all applications can generate PDF files. There are also a
number of free PDF print-drivers available as well. (I never use them
though... I just email .doc files.)
June 4, 2005 10:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:30:49 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:

Is there some reason why you are attempting to post a virus to newsgroups?

--
Dana Larsen
(Leave one 6 and remove everything after to reply)
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 11:17:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

> On Windows PDF export works at the printer driver level. You get (buy)
> a special printer driver from Adobe and "print" to a PDF file. This way
> any and all applications can generate PDF files. There are also a
> number of free PDF print-drivers available as well. (I never use them
> though... I just email .doc files.)
>

This is pretty close to how Linux does it too. Because all Linux
progams speak PS ghostscript does all the work translating into data the
printers understand. You can just print to file and translate to PDF
even if the application doesn't directly support it.

You can get ghostscript for Windows and I believe there is a way to set
it up to do what the Adobe printer thingy does. It is likely to be a
lot more work to set up, but also a lot cheaper.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 11:40:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:
> I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
> personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
> Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
> Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

If M$'s market share is below 50%, it will then die out within a few
days. There is no loyal window user -- everyone hates it!

>
> What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
> nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
> fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.
> Is this what Linux advocacy is about?
> You people seem to strut your operating system all over the place
> claiming how superior it is to other systems, yet when you are called
> to produce any kind of proof, you go scurrying about calling people
> trolls, changing the subject, going on the offensive and so forth.
> It seems that the Linux ehthusiast's bag of tricks is stuffed to the
> brim with various techniques designed to deflect the shrapnel that
> flies your way.
> That's all well and good, but to put it simply it just makes most of
> you look like a bunch of pablum puking babies.
> Most of the discussions in rec.audio.pro revolved around making audio
> at the professional level using Linux.
> Who cares if I can alter the source code?
> Who cares if there are 300 different versions of Linux?
> Who even has the time to play with an evaluate them?
>
> We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
> of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
> for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
> do such.
> For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
> means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
> the issue.

having source code means you're kept safe!
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 11:51:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

* * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D e u s . ( d 2 0 0 5 x
x , d 2 0 0 4 x x , d 2 0 0 3 x x , d 2 0 0 2 x x ) * * * wrote:
> jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:

> having source code means you're kept safe!
>

Not unless you are actively looking at all the code you install and are
a secure programming expert. I don't, and I am not.

Since exploitable code is widely installed and used, obviously having
source code isn't a free security blanket. It does mean independant
review is available, and without source code this is just impossible,
but it doesn't guarantee security. For it to provide any security
benefit you also have to stay up on those independant reviews and pay
attention to your distro's updates.

Having source code available does bring a LOT of benefits, but I think
the security card is a little overplayed quite often.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 1:35:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

In article <1117920004.905864.135360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:
[blah blah blah]

Why do you keep posting under different names, through open proxies?

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 1:35:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 21:35:28 UTC, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

-> In article <1117920004.905864.135360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
-> jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:
-> [blah blah blah]
->
-> Why do you keep posting under different names, through open proxies?
->

Maybe mail.microsoft.com is down because of a virus.


Mark

--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

http://www.os2voice.org
Warpstock 2005, Hershey, PA, Oct 6-9, 2005 - http://www.warpstock.org
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 1:40:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

jackson_pyle@yahoo.com writes:

>I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
>personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
>Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
>Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

>What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
>nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
>fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.

They are not, just as not everyone who is an advocate for MS, for USA or
for anything else is. A few are.

>Is this what Linux advocacy is about?

Of course not. And you must not have read much to ask this question. There
are lots of people who spend a lot of time and effort to help people.

>You people seem to strut your operating system all over the place
>claiming how superior it is to other systems, yet when you are called
>to produce any kind of proof, you go scurrying about calling people
>trolls, changing the subject, going on the offensive and so forth.

????

>It seems that the Linux ehthusiast's bag of tricks is stuffed to the
>brim with various techniques designed to deflect the shrapnel that
>flies your way.

And why exactly are you posting this? Do you honestly believe it will
contribute to civilised discussion? "strut" "claiming" "scurrying", "bag of
tricks" This is supposed to be an example of how a discussion should be
carried on?


>That's all well and good, but to put it simply it just makes most of
>you look like a bunch of pablum puking babies.

"pablum Puking babies"? Again, a well considered, rational phrase, intended
to further discussion I assume.

>Most of the discussions in rec.audio.pro revolved around making audio
>at the professional level using Linux.

And how do any of the phrases you have just used do that?


>Who cares if I can alter the source code?
>Who cares if there are 300 different versions of Linux?
>Who even has the time to play with an evaluate them?

>We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
>of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
>for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
>do such.
>For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
>means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
>the issue.

Fine. Some people do one thing, some another.


>Can Linux do what Samplitude/Sonar/Protools etc can do?

Who knows. Why do you not tell us what it is you want to do, and ask if
there are tools under Linux that do them. No, None of those programs is
ported to linux and there is nothing in Linux that is EXACTLY the same as
them.

But then they are not exactly the same as each other either. What is it you
actually want to do as you certainly do NOT use everything they do.


>Doubtful, but it can come close and for some close is good enough.
>For others, they need to use the heavy guns.

No. They do not need "heavy guns" they need programs which do what they
want or need to do.


>However, the Linux enthusiasts had better start learning how to deal
>with laypeople who are not programmers, but may be experts in THEIR
>chosen field.

So?
The advantage of open source is that if you find a program which does most
of what you need, you may well find some 15 year old kid in your
neighborhood who can alter it so it does exactly what you want. Spend the
$500 bucks on him rather than on MS or whoever.


>Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
>thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
>difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
>companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
>is using Micorsoft Office).

Which is incompatible with itself. I just watched someone who had developed
a Powerpoint presentation on a Mac try to show it on a PC. It was a
completely garbled mess.



>If I can leave the Linux people with one parting thought, it is to stop
>acting so dammed arrogant and start realizing that not everyone is a
>geek whose life revolves around an operating system that few outside of
>the Linux world even know about.

Actually many know about it, just not very much.
It sounds to me like your problem is more jealousy rather than anything
else. "Maybe those Linux guys are really right and I am too ignorant to
recognize it".

If you want to know what id doable in Linux, it is best to ask nicely and
not go calling people who know what is doable names.



>When you post in groups that have nothing to do with Linux, please
>leave your arrogance at the door.

From you post it seems that this is right, since there is enough
obnoxiousness inside to go around.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 2:48:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

Dana <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> writes:




>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:30:49 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:

>Is there some reason why you are attempting to post a virus to newsgroups?

He is not. That text triggers a bug in the Windows email software.
June 5, 2005 2:48:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:48:45 +0000, Unruh wrote:

> Dana <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:30:49 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>> begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:
>
>>Is there some reason why you are attempting to post a virus to newsgroups?
>
> He is not. That text triggers a bug in the Windows email software.
Ok.
But why would anyone want to do that?
Seems silly to me.
--
Dana Larsen
(Leave one 6 and remove everything after to reply)
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 2:51:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
> nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
> fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.

Rest assured that the majority of Linux users (like me) are not like
that. Nor can we be bothered to particpate in all the mud slinging...

--
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 2:56:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:50:44 -0400, Dana wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:48:45 +0000, Unruh wrote:
>
>> Dana <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:30:49 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>>> begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:
>>
>>>Is there some reason why you are attempting to post a virus to newsgroups?
>>
>> He is not. That text triggers a bug in the Windows email software.
> Ok.
> But why would anyone want to do that?
> Seems silly to me.


It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but tell
people, "don't do that."
June 5, 2005 2:56:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:56:19 +0000, Liam Slider wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:50:44 -0400, Dana wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:48:45 +0000, Unruh wrote:
>>
>>> Dana <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:30:49 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>>> begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is there some reason why you are attempting to post a virus to newsgroups?
>>>
>>> He is not. That text triggers a bug in the Windows email software.
>> Ok.
>> But why would anyone want to do that?
>> Seems silly to me.
>
>
> It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
> software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but tell
> people, "don't do that."
So what does it do?
All I could see was an attachment, which I assumed was a virus so I didn't
download it.

--
Dana Larsen
(Leave one 6 and remove everything after to reply)
June 5, 2005 2:56:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:23:51 +0000, Peter Jensen wrote:

>
> IMHO, not fixing such a trivial bug for so extremely long is nothing
> short of showing contempt for their customers.
>
> This bug, in connection with another bug that has since been fixed,
> actually allowed any properly formatted Usenet message to crash OE when
> you clicked on it. It's therefore not as harmless as it might seem at
> first glance.

Ok, ic, but still what is the purpose of exploiting some bug in software
on purpose? What useful purpose does it serve?
These are discussion groups and I was under the impression the basic
concept was to discuss things, not screw up other persons news programs?
I have never seen this type of thing before so I am ignorant.
Is this a Linux thing, IOW some way for Linux users to exploit Windows
software?
The entire thing seems very silly to me.

--
Dana Larsen
(Leave one 6 and remove everything after to reply)
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 4:09:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> writes:


>It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
>software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but tell
>people, "don't do that."

Of course it affects ordinary users and does nothing to MS, and
furthermore, the user has no idea that he is being affected by a bug in MS
rather than due to the bad behaviour of some poster.
Ie it is not a terribly effective demonstration.
June 5, 2005 4:09:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

Unruh wrote:

> Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> writes:
>
>
>>It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
>>software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but tell
>>people, "don't do that."
>
> Of course it affects ordinary users and does nothing to MS, and
> furthermore, the user has no idea that he is being affected by a bug in MS
> rather than due to the bad behaviour of some poster.
> Ie it is not a terribly effective demonstration.

It gets discussed enough that they soon learn. But the bottom line is, THERE
IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WHAT IS BEING DONE, PERIOD.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 5:04:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

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

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:50:44 -0400,
Dana <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:48:45 +0000, Unruh wrote:
>
>> Dana <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:30:49 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>>> begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:
>>
>>>Is there some reason why you are attempting to post a virus to newsgroups?
>>
>> He is not. That text triggers a bug in the Windows email software.
> Ok.
> But why would anyone want to do that?
> Seems silly to me.


why would someone write a newsreader so poor, it can't handle a couple
of spaces? dunno, ask Microsoft.

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

iD8DBQFCorHyd90bcYOAWPYRAqmwAKDYTRVuOP9J0If25/VSf9g3fq77/ACg8ZmV
w2NRjyBPlPpClkz60k2yoHo=
=FdUt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe
what you just said. --William F. Buckley, Jr.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 5:13:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

Dana schrieb:

> So what does it do?

It may enlighten you :) 

> All I could see was an attachment, which I assumed was a virus so I didn't
> download it.

No, there was no attachment. There was just plain, normal text.
You might want to ask some Outlook Express newsgroup, how you
can circumvent that bug. One way is to use the "source" view of
the message.

Alexander Skwar
--
National security is in your hands - guard it well.
June 5, 2005 5:19:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:

> Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
> thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
> difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
> companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
> is using Micorsoft Office).
>
Not *everyone* uses M$ Office - the OpenOffice users for example.
Furthermore, if someone sends me a M$ office file, I can read it with
OpenOffice but they can't use M$ office to read an OpenOffice file. Does M$
office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice does.

--
Mike
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 5:50:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Mike wrote:

> jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
>> thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
>> difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
>> companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
>> is using Micorsoft Office).
>>
> Not *everyone* uses M$ Office - the OpenOffice users for example.
> Furthermore, if someone sends me a M$ office file, I can read it with
> OpenOffice but they can't use M$ office to read an OpenOffice file. Does
> M$
> office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice does.
>

What a useless debate !

I use neither. LaTeX is the only way to produce portable, professional
looking documents. Once you have tex source code, you can produce pdf, dvi,
ps, anything.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 6:00:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:D 7tfs8$4du$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> writes:
>
>
>>It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
>>software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but tell
>>people, "don't do that."
>
> Of course it affects ordinary users and does nothing to MS, and
> furthermore, the user has no idea that he is being affected by a bug in MS
> rather than due to the bad behaviour of some poster.
> Ie it is not a terribly effective demonstration.
>
Well it is a pretty good demonstration of Peter's mentality and adult
approach to matters as well as that of his followers.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 6:44:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:04:16 -0700, lqualig wrote:

<snip>
>
>> Furthermore, if someone sends me a M$ office file, I can read it with
>> OpenOffice but they can't use M$ office to read an OpenOffice file.
>
> This is the reality of how it must be done. Being the underdog trying to
> unseat the king, OpenOffice must be able to read MS Office files. Not
> being able to read .doc files would be a huge hurdle for OO users simply
> because of how common .doc (and .xls...) files are. MS-Office had to do
> the same thing when it was trying to establish itself. It had to read
> WordPerfect documents and Lotus-123 Spreadsheets. Similarly neither
> WordPerfect nor 123 could read MS-Office files at that time.
>
>
Oh sure...that's why we lso read files for an old DOS version of
StarWriter...as well as Metafiles for OS/2. Spot the flaw in this
argument.


>> Does M$ office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice
>> does.
>
> MS-Office does not have this ability. I don't see that happening anytime
> down the road either. Doing so would be damaging to the relationship
> they have with Adobe.


Too bad. What about Flash? No flash integration either?


> On Windows PDF export works at the printer driver level. You get (buy) a
> special printer driver from Adobe and "print" to a PDF file. This way
> any and all applications can generate PDF files. There are also a number
> of free PDF print-drivers available as well. (I never use them though...
> I just email .doc files.)

Yeah, works that way on Linux too really. *Any* app *can* do pdfs that way
on Linux, but with OO it's just built right into the menu to export as
PDF.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 6:44:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

SSJVCmag wrote:
> On 6/4/05 10:44 PM, in article
> pan.2005.06.05.02.42.23.848386@nospam.liamslider.com, "Liam Slider"
> <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah, works that way on Linux too really. *Any* app *can* do pdfs that way
>>on Linux, but with OO it's just built right into the menu to export as
>>PDF.
>>
>
>
>
> OK kiddies, I'll assume that you're as conversant with email posting to
> newsgroups as Linux and so you DO know how not only to kill the crosspost
> headers but CHANGE the subject header for discussion of LINUX stuff that
> really doesn't need to be floated over in other non-linux NGs.
> It's quick! It's easy! do it Now!
> Thanks!
>
>
multiple copies of same stupid post. By far worse than any purported
topic violation.

*plonk*
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 8:52:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

(Much Gloved Applause)

On 6/4/05 5:20 PM, in article
1117920004.905864.135360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"jackson_pyle@yahoo.com" <jackson_pyle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
> personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
> Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
> Microsoft a way distant 3rd.
>
> What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
> nasty, obscene and self righteous.

(SNIP)
> please leave your arrogance at the door.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Jackson Pyle
>
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 8:54:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

TIM Unruh and robert failed to reply and then:

On 6/4/05 5:51 PM, in article
42a2227b$0$15026$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net, "anahata"
<anahata@reply-to.address> wrote:

> Rest assured that the majority of Linux users (like me) are not like
> that. Nor can we be bothered to particpate in all the mud slinging...

Nice to hear from one of the (hopefully) Silent Majority.

thanks
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 9:43:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

In article <1117920004.905864.135360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:
> We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
> of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
> for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
> do such.
> For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
> means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
> the issue.
>
> Can Linux do what Samplitude/Sonar/Protools etc can do?
> Doubtful, but it can come close and for some close is good enough.
> For others, they need to use the heavy guns.
> However, the Linux enthusiasts had better start learning how to deal
> with laypeople who are not programmers, but may be experts in THEIR
> chosen field.

Where it becomes interesting is when those experts in their chosen field
get involved with the development of Linux software. Take a look at
what's going on in the film industry--could the same thing happen in
audio?

In particular, consider The GIMP. It's an image manipulation program,
comparable to Photoshop in many ways, but not as polished. For people
working in print and most graphics arts, GIMP is not as good as
Photoshop. It can do most of the manipulations they need, but Photoshop
has better workflow, and Photoshop also wins on color matching support.

There is an offshoot of GIMP for film work, called Cinepaint. Several
major movie studios jumped in and had their programmers, on company
time, contribute to Cinepaint development. The result is that Cinepaint
is better than Photoshop for a lot of what they need to do in film work.

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 9:46:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

In article <1117933456.486178.63420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
> > Does M$ office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice does.
>
> MS-Office does not have this ability. I don't see that happening
> anytime down the road either. Doing so would be damaging to the
> relationship they have with Adobe.

Apple did it, and they have much more reason than Microsoft to not want
to annoy Adobe.

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 9:59:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

In article <wnqoe.4709$So7.3482@fe10.lga>,
Dana <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So what does it do?
> All I could see was an attachment, which I assumed was a virus so I didn't
> download it.

There was no attachment. When Outlook Express sees a line that looks
like this (except I'll change spaces to underscores so as to not trigger
this for you):

begin__something_more_stuff

it *guesses* that it is the start of a uuencoded attachment of a file
named "something", and tries to interpret the rest of the file, down to
whatever the marker is that marks the end of uuencoded attachments (I
forget what that is), as the attachment.

So, basically, if an email message or usenet post contains a line that
starts with the word "begin" followed by two spaces, OE will tell you
there is an attachment.

Microsoft knows about this, and they even have a Knowledgebase article
discussing it, which offers the wonderful advice that you should ask
people not to start lines with "begin ". It took them longer to write
that article than it would have taken any programmer who has advanced
past the beginner stage to make the uuencode detection more robust and
fix this problem. They should just fix this stupid bug.

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 12:23:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

Dana wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:23:51 +0000, Peter Jensen wrote:
>
>>
>> IMHO, not fixing such a trivial bug for so extremely long is nothing
>> short of showing contempt for their customers.
>>
>> This bug, in connection with another bug that has since been fixed,
>> actually allowed any properly formatted Usenet message to crash OE when
>> you clicked on it. It's therefore not as harmless as it might seem at
>> first glance.
>
> Ok, ic, but still what is the purpose of exploiting some bug in software
> on purpose? What useful purpose does it serve?

This post is without the "begin" bug
I will tell what useful purpose the inclusion of that bug-trigger has.
It keeps OE users from viewing my posts. I think that OE users are actually
all way too stupid to correctly use a computer, and therefor have nothing
to say which could interest me in any way

So there. Live with it.

< snip >
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 12:23:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> This post is without the "begin" bug
> I will tell what useful purpose the inclusion of that bug-trigger has.
> It keeps OE users from viewing my posts. I think that OE users are actually
> all way too stupid to correctly use a computer, and therefor have nothing
> to say which could interest me in any way

That! is pretty stupid.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 3:58:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

On 2005-06-05, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>> having source code means you're kept safe!
>>
>
> Not unless you are actively looking at all the code you install and are
> a secure programming expert. I don't, and I am not.

But the trick is that you can. Sure, right now it doesn't matter (from
your perspective).

But, what happens when a project is canceled (take i.e. Win95 which
would be ideal for some lousy embedded touch screen device)? Nobody's
developing it and there are no bug patches anymore and you need/like
this piece of software.

What do you do? Get the source and hack it. Soon you find people that
thinks like you and need/like the sw. And the life goes on... No hair
pulling, swearing, cursing...

--
Uspjesne regije, tvrtke, muskarci i zene znaju da je uvijek bolje biti
prvorazredna verzija sebe nego drugorazredna verzija nekog drugog.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 3:58:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
> On 2005-06-05, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
>>>having source code means you're kept safe!
>>>
>>
>>Not unless you are actively looking at all the code you install and are
>>a secure programming expert. I don't, and I am not.
>
>
> But the trick is that you can. Sure, right now it doesn't matter (from
> your perspective).
>
> But, what happens when a project is canceled (take i.e. Win95 which
> would be ideal for some lousy embedded touch screen device)? Nobody's
> developing it and there are no bug patches anymore and you need/like
> this piece of software.
>
> What do you do? Get the source and hack it. Soon you find people that
> thinks like you and need/like the sw. And the life goes on... No hair
> pulling, swearing, cursing...
>

Yes, that is one of the many OTHER benefits of OSS. We actually depend
on such a program called NetReg. Version 1 hasn't seen any active
development in years and version 2 seems like it may have halted as
well. So the colleges that use it swap information and tricks. I doubt
any single install looks remotely similar.

Take Linux Audio for instance as a great example of the many OTHER
benefits of OSS. Linus didn't really seem to get the necessity for the
low-latency stuff at first. The audio community simply continued
because they where able to modify the kernel and provide the tools for
any user to do so. Without this Linux would never have become a useful
audio tool or at least not as useful a one.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 4:12:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

begin risky.vbs
<reply_in_group-3BFED7.22594304062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> In article <wnqoe.4709$So7.3482@fe10.lga>,
> Dana <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So what does it do?
>> All I could see was an attachment, which I assumed was a virus so I didn't
>> download it.
>
> There was no attachment. When Outlook Express sees a line that looks
> like this (except I'll change spaces to underscores so as to not trigger
> this for you):
>
> begin__something_more_stuff
>
> it *guesses* that it is the start of a uuencoded attachment of a file
> named "something", and tries to interpret the rest of the file, down to
> whatever the marker is that marks the end of uuencoded attachments (I
> forget what that is), as the attachment.

'end' on a line by itsel.

> So, basically, if an email message or usenet post contains a line that
> starts with the word "begin" followed by two spaces, OE will tell you
> there is an attachment.
>
> Microsoft knows about this, and they even have a Knowledgebase
> article discussing it, which offers the wonderful advice that you
> should ask people not to start lines with "begin ". It took them
> longer to write that article than it would have taken any programmer
> who has advanced past the beginner stage to make the uuencode
> detection more robust and fix this problem. They should just fix
> this stupid bug.

What is worse, the bug uused to affect Outlook as well. MS fixed it in
Outlook but not OE. I wonder why that is?
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 5:18:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

jackson_pyle@yahoo.com wrote:
> I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
> personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
> Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
> Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

what a joke....keep dreamin buddy

Jonny Durango
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 8:26:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

Jackson Pyle wrote:

"I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd."



If that should happen, then what happens to Windows now, (all the
hacking and viruses) will happen to Linux. The reason they aren't
problems for Lionux and Apple now is because so few people use them in
comparison.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 8:44:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

> MS-Office does not have this ability. I don't see that happening
> anytime down the road either. Doing so would be damaging to the
> relationship they have with Adobe.
>
> On Windows PDF export works at the printer driver level. You get (buy)
> a special printer driver from Adobe and "print" to a PDF file. This way
> any and all applications can generate PDF files. There are also a
> number of free PDF print-drivers available as well. (I never use them
> though... I just email .doc files.)
>

Linux can "print" to a PDF file also, but there is no need to have to
*BUY* a special this or that to make it happen
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 8:47:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

> Linux can "print" to a PDF file also, but there is no need to have to *BUY* a special this or that to make it happen

That's what I clearly acknowledged. But to be clear... Linux is a
kernel. It does not print or create PDF files. The applications that
run on Linux do.

LQualig - posting from this account.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 10:58:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

> I've heard that .doc files can be infected with viruses
> (can anyone confirm this?) and I know that some
> people are very wary of opening them on a
> Windoze machine.

True. The virus comes in the form of an embedded macro that can
basically do anything it wants. MSWord/Excel/etc. can all be fully
automated through the built in "basic-like" language. You can do some
really neat things with this which was the intent. But some of the
"really neat" things can also include really-hideous viruses so opening
Word documents from strangers is not recommended.



> AFAIK, PDF files are safe.
I'm not aware of problems with PDF files.


>> This is the reality of how it must be done. Being the underdog trying
>> to unseat the king, OpenOffice must be able to read MS Office files.

> Maybe it's just more versatile. By using M$ Office, you limit yourself
> to only being able to read M$ Office files, I'd rather not limit my abilities
> that way.

It can also read Wordperfect files (all versions), Wordstar, RTF, etc.
Not just *.doc files. It appears to be versatile enough for the few
hundred million people who use it.




LQualig - posting from this account.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:21:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

probability2003@uku.co.uk wrote:
>>Linux can "print" to a PDF file also, but there is no need to have to *BUY* a special this or that to make it happen
>
>
> That's what I clearly acknowledged. But to be clear... Linux is a
> kernel. It does not print or create PDF files. The applications that
> run on Linux do.
>
> LQualig - posting from this account.
>
You know what was being said, as do most people reading the post. Yes
linux is the kernel and it is an application that does the dirty work of
printing the pdf file. The whole point being made was that *YOU* don't
have to pay extra for an application to print to a pdf file using Linux.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

NYOB123@peoplepc.com wrote:
> Jackson Pyle wrote:
>
> "I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
> personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
> Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
> Microsoft a way distant 3rd."
>
>
>
> If that should happen, then what happens to Windows now, (all the
> hacking and viruses) will happen to Linux. The reason they aren't
> problems for Lionux and Apple now is because so few people use them in
> comparison.
>

Sure...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_window...
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:35:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

> The whole point being made was that *YOU* don't have to pay extra for an application to print to a pdf file using Linux.

I understand especially since this is exactly what I said in my
original post.


(Mike) >> Does M$ office allow you to export documents as PDF file?
OpenOffice does.
(Me) MS-Office does not have this ability. I don't see that happening
anytime down the road either.


I quoted Mikes post where he said that OO can export a PDF file. I
answered that MS-Office can't do this. Do I need to repeat what it is
that MS-Office can't do? I just assumed that readers here would figure
out that I was referring to exporting PDF files.

I never claimed or implied otherwise so what's the confusion here?


LQualig - posting from this account.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:43:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

probability2003@uku.co.uk wrote:
> Linux is a
> kernel. It does not print or create PDF files. The applications that
> run on Linux do.

Although this is true in a very technical sense it is also common
language to refer to the OS by the name of the kernel. Some people
claim this discredits all the authors of the various applications that
run on Linux but I respectfully disagree. I certainly hope we are not
trying to start THAT argument.
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 12:05:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

In article <42A2AD11.4090000@mid.alexander.skwar.name>,
Alexander Skwar <alexander@skwar.name> wrote:
> Yep. Peter didn't "screw up" your program. Peter wrote perfectly
> normal text that your program has chosen to interpret, although
> it's quite clear, that the interpretation is wrong.

No, Peter did not write perfectly normal text. It is not normal to
start a line with "begin ".

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 1:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
> You can get ghostscript for Windows and I believe there is a way to
> set it up to do what the Adobe printer thingy does.


If you can set up Ghostscript to do ANYTHING under Windows, you're doing
better than I did.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 1:33:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux (More info?)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
> "Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
>>You can get ghostscript for Windows and I believe there is a way to
>>set it up to do what the Adobe printer thingy does.
>
>
>
> If you can set up Ghostscript to do ANYTHING under Windows, you're doing
> better than I did.
>

There is a nice little installer. I didn't have any trouble frankly but
this was a long time ago. I just used it to view and print PS files.
!