![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
> FWIW, MetaFont is converging to Epsilon, the base of natural logarithms.
That's actually not greek epsilon, but ordinary latin small e ("Euler's
number").
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>
OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
every version I've tried including the most recent.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
SharkD wrote:
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
> every version I've tried including the most recent.
Really? That's interesting... I often use OpenOffice to *fix* data
corruption bugs caused by MS Word.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the
> software was *too* stable. :-)
>
> Jim
Indeed. As I more than once remarked to PFYs it wasn't the easiest
system to configure but once you'd got it right, it was so easy to
maintain that it could be delegated to them with no particular worries -
thus leaving me with plenty of time for more important tasks like lunch :-)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> SharkD wrote:
>
>> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
>> every version I've tried including the most recent.
>
> Really? That's interesting... I often use OpenOffice to *fix* data
> corruption bugs caused by MS Word.
But we're already aware of the statistically uncanny failure rate of MS
Office in your vicinity. Something about your magnetronic
electrochemical oscillations is off.
In other words, you're giving off bad vibes, man, and Office don't like
it! ;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:32:23 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many
>> reasons
>
> Unless you're using it as a router in the corner or something, yeah.
Well, if you're using it as a router in the corner and can't patch the
latest network vulnerability, the machine could be compromised. More
likely, though, that a box running as a router in the corner is running a
BSD or Linux variant than Windows. Why put a paid-for OS on such a box
when you can license software that does the job for free?
> That's more the sort of thing I'm talking about. If you're the kind of
> person who has a computer so you can once a month check your email and
> occasionally maybe print out a nice photo you took with your digital
> snapshot camera, chances are you never need to upgrade. If you have a
> non-networked computer running a piece of lab equipment, you're probably
> not going to upgrade until you change the lab equipment.
>
> If you use your computer regularly in a desktop environment, yah, you'll
> likely be upgrading it regularly. :-)
That's the use case I'm thinking of. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:56:53 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the
>> software was *too* stable. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> Indeed. As I more than once remarked to PFYs it wasn't the easiest
> system to configure but once you'd got it right, it was so easy to
> maintain that it could be delegated to them with no particular worries -
> thus leaving me with plenty of time for more important tasks like lunch
> :-)
Yup. Consequently, NetWare servers tended to not be noticed. Back in
the 3.x days when Novell added the "Novell NetWare" banner to the
LOGIN.EXE program, it was an attempt to make the server more visible.
Caused all sorts of headaches for system admins because batch files that
displayed information broke. They had to add a switch to disable the
banner.
But the idea was good because often users didn't have any idea that they
were using a NW box.
I've just completed (as of yesterday) updating my Open Enterprise Server
2 system here at home - it's a Linux box, but the eDirectory tree started
on a NetWare 4.01 system back in the early 90's. I definitely am a geek,
running NetWare at home. :-)
The NW system had been upgraded to 4.11, and later to 5 and 6 - and then
I moved it into a VMware instance (it was handling printing for my home
network), but the host system lost power and when it came back up, the
vmdk file was corrupted. :-(
So now printing is handled by that host system instead. Time to move the
printer to the server, I think. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:46:59 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it
>>> (it stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing
>>> that company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design,
>>> I fail to see the problem.
>>
>> Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is
>> incorporated in a GPL'ed program. That doesn't mean you have to
>> distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to
>> provide the company with the code.
>
> (1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be GPL'd,
> unless the whole smash is to be distributed.
If you give the binary to your customer, then you've just distributed it,
making it necessary to GPL the code.
> (2) In that hypothetical example, I /am/ hacking the code into the
> company's copy of the source files anyway - how closer can I possibly
> get to providing them with the source code?? :-P
>
>
> But after reading the GPL again, I guess you're right insofar as in
> order to circumvent having to GPL the changes, I'd have to grant the
> company any rights to the modifications I make - including the right to
> redistribute them (which they'd have to do under the GPL).
>
> Did I mention before that I think the GPL sucks...?
You are entitled to that opinion. If you don't want to release your
code, base your product on code licensed under BSD, or link in if it's
LGPL.
But if you want to modify someone else's program which is released under
the GPL, their express wish is that modifications must be distributed and
that their code needs to continue to be distributed. Just look at all
the lawsuits over BusyBox.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:41:30 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
>> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
>> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>>
>>
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
> every version I've tried including the most recent.
That's impressive, because I use OpenOffice 3.1 (and have used version
2.x and 3.0 as well as even the 1.x versions), and I've never had data be
corrupted in it. Ever. Even when the application crashes, if the files
were saved, the data isn't corrupted.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
SharkD wrote:
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
> every version I've tried including the most recent.
I never said it goes the other direction. ;-) And of course MS it doesn't
matter what the version number is if you haven't gotten a SP yet.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |