Text 3802, 184 rader
Skriven 2005-10-13 19:37:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MAURICE KINAL
Ärende: software for linspire
=============================

123c7d84d00f
linux



Hello Maurice - 

CA>> Not where I would expect them to be mainly. I have
CA>> PhotoShop but don't really like it. I've used PaintShop
CA>> Pro most of the time. 

MK> I'll take your word on it. I don't use any of them to be
MK> honest but have had gimp onboard and taken it for a spin.
MK> It worked with a wide variety of formats and all the
MK> tools/filters/etc did a very good job. Beats me what else
MK> the gimp people could do with it to improve things. 

I'm not using any graphics software on a daily or even weekly
basis which means I'm not the one to make recommendations. I'm
sure there are accomodations that the GIMP people could make
for those who are more 'into' graphics than I am. 

CA>> Yes GIMP is definitely different from similar applications
CA>> that I have used under Windows. 

MK> From what I've seen wrt Windows I'd say it is vastly
MK> superior or at least on par with really expensive apps
MK> aimed at Windows, such as Corel Draw. I've never used them
MK> but from what I see of the end result I think gimp is
MK> better or at least as good. 

From my positions as one who 'fiddles' with graphics I think
you may be correct. I do know there are many hundreds of
'addon' filters for Photoshop but have no idea what they do or
why anyone would want to add them? 

CA>> I certainly will let you know. :-) 

MK> Sounds good. Personally I am interested to see if their gut
MK> operation is all that much different then what I tend to
MK> gravitate towards. Offhand I'd think it is simular except
MK> that theirs is probably vastly more expensive and better
MK> hardware but I think the basic operation is simular. I
MK> don't have their budget. 

The article I read describing their hardware and software made
it sound as though they 'kludge' whatever they feel will work
together and don't worry about it much. When they get stuck
they write their own graphics routines and continue on. A
hackers heaven considering they cobble very expensive equipment
together. :-) 

CA>> QWK here. I used BlueWave until the Y2K issue sort of
CA>> 'took it out'. There is an addon that attempts to reset
CA>> the dates but I don't like it. After the time/effort I
CA>> invested in rewriting parts of ATP I do want to use it
CA>> enough to justify the effort? 

MK> Understood. I don't have a QWK<->pkt filter. I've never
MK> needed one so I have never bothered. I have the specs
MK> somewhere but decided long ago not to worry about it. If I
MK> thought it would make a difference (ie if there were local
MK> users with QWK programs) I probably would have. I think
MK> text is the way to go, possibly a dynamic html cgi script
MK> for online display, possibly html for offline messages.
MK> That way they could use their browsers to do offline
MK> messaging. 

No, browsers don't allow you to type in replys. :-) 

CA>> FIDO BBS software that _works_ is available - much of it
CA>> is free. 

MK> Yep. So far I haven't seen one that does what I do here.
MK> The closest would be kermit and it could be scripted to
MK> handle everything. 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "what I do here"? 

CA>> dictators. I have no problem with moderating echos but
CA>> squashing ideas and/or opinions that are not shared by the
CA>> clique or the moderator is a bit too much. No one is paid
CA>> to post messages on FIDO so they eventually get sick of
CA>> the censoring of ideas/opinions and go elsewhere. THAT is
CA>> what is killing FIDO (again, IMO). 

MK> Could very well be. I don't let any of that stop me.
MK> Sometimes I just ditch whatever echoes. I've been kicked
MK> out of this echo and yet here I am. 

Some 'enemies' you can simply outlive, others are more of a
problem. 

CA>> Many FIDO sysops argue that it never happened. I know
CA>> because I can track my messages. 

MK> I've seen that happen. It still does happen. 

Unfortunate. 

CA>> Not sure what you have in mind. There is no way for FTP to
CA>> initiate a scan of the message bases and compile a packet
CA>> for downloading unless the user uploaded a 'semaphore'
CA>> file that the BBS software was scanning for. 

MK> I have a plan. It'll work but seeing as I won't use it I
MK> doubt it'll get used. I tend to use ftp as it was intended
MK> to be used as that is the best. As far as my ftp point
MK> goes, the hub takes care of packing my messages and isn't
MK> part of the ftp scheme. It knows what to do and does it.
MK> ftp just transfers the results. It works really good. 

For a point, yes FTP would be as good as anything. For someone
like myself who wants to login whenever at no particular time
then it gets more complicated. 

CA>> On BBBS I had to intiate the compilation then login using
CA>> FTP for the transfers. Seemed awkward and time consuming
CA>> for such small packets as I get lately (past few years). 

MK> EXACTLY!!! Why bog things down? 

It was, from what I could discern, somewhat experimental. I
tried making suggestions in the BBBS echo and got slaughtered
for saying linux _does_ fragment the drives eventually and one
or two other unpopular things and was told to leave the echo by
the same person who had been deleting my messages (and
continued to try after that). I emailed the author of BBBS with
some suggestions and got no replies so I just gave up. 

CA>> What I'm saying is whoever decided to subsume the 'zip'
CA>> into the names of gzip, bzip, etc. was being a bit
CA>> dimwitted rather than make up something new/different. I
CA>> also don't think some *nix users are consciously aware
CA>> that their 'zip' is not compatible with the PKzip of
CA>> DOS/Windows. 

MK> Who cares? If you stick to one format, pkt in this case,
MK> then it doesn't matter. The only issue then is endianess
MK> but that is a minor problem these days methinks if indeed
MK> it is an issue at all. It certainly isn't an issue between
MK> our respective PC's. 

I was referring to newbies trying to setup an offline reader
for access to FIDO getting bad advice to use gzip or bzip2 when
they aren't compatible with the 'zip' being used on existing
FIDO BBS. 

CA>> MulitMail, ATP, and probably other offline readers already
CA>> handle the QWK format. 

MK> Good for them. Are they supplying a feed for them? 

No but 99% of all BBS do supply QWK packets. 

CA>> Wait a minute. YOU said that you wanted to do something
CA>> about FIDO access. I'm just making suggestions here. 

MK> Right. However we already decided that you don't wish to
MK> access here. I already decided before this particular
MK> exchange not to worry about any other formats other then
MK> the one I have to worry about Fidoally speaking. I am not
MK> going to change that attitude for anyone who refuses to
MK> commit. Like I said before, they are only dead weight.
MK> Right? 

If I gave you the impression I was trying to persuade you to
accomodate my setup here I'm truly sorry. I thought we were
discussing ways to increase the numbers of linux users who also
access FIDO echos by creating a 'package' they could use for
FIDO echo access until they were knowledgeable enough to create
their own FIDO read/write setups. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)