Discussion:
MS Office: so powerful, yet so easy
(too old to reply)
DFS
2005-04-09 06:15:28 UTC
Permalink
The MS Office object libraries expose a variety of objects, properties and
methods that let you automate the heck out of Office apps, and create
systems that can offer extreme time-savings.

Here I use 15 lines to automatically generate (from Access) a set of Outlook
emails that previously were produced by manually cutting and pasting
addresses and attachments. It will save the client about 8 hours per week
(they do 2500+ of these), and it's presented to the user with a nice DFS
'click and drool' interface.

========================================================================
Dim olApp As Outlook.Application, olItem As Outlook.MailItem
Set olApp = New Outlook.Application

Set rs = db.OpenRecordset("SELECT * FROM RestaurantMthly WHERE Status =
'pending' ORDER BY EmailID;")
Do Until rs.EOF

Set olItem = olApp.CreateItem(olMailItem)

olItem.To = rs("Email1")
olItem.CC = buildCCString(rs("Email2"), rs("Email3"), rs("Email4"),
rs("Email5"))
olItem.Subject = Replace(DLookup("EmailSubject", "EmailSettings"),
"<LocationNbr>", rs("LocationNbr"))
olItem.Body = DLookup("EmailBody", "EmailSettings") & vbCrLf

evFile = frm.searchFolder & "\Mthly " & rs("LocationNbr") & ".xls"
olItem.Attachments.Add evFile

olItem.Send

rs.MoveNext
Loop
rs.close

===================================================================

Is there anything close in the Linux/OSS world, or in OpenOffice?
Peter Köhlmann
2005-04-09 06:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
The MS Office object libraries expose a variety of objects, properties and
methods that let you automate the heck out of Office apps, and create
systems that can offer extreme time-savings.
Here I use 15 lines to automatically generate (from Access) a set of
Outlook emails that previously were produced by manually cutting and
pasting
addresses and attachments. It will save the client about 8 hours per week
(they do 2500+ of these), and it's presented to the user with a nice DFS
'click and drool' interface.
========================================================================
Dim olApp As Outlook.Application, olItem As Outlook.MailItem
Set olApp = New Outlook.Application
Set rs = db.OpenRecordset("SELECT * FROM RestaurantMthly WHERE Status =
'pending' ORDER BY EmailID;")
Do Until rs.EOF
Set olItem = olApp.CreateItem(olMailItem)
olItem.To = rs("Email1")
olItem.CC = buildCCString(rs("Email2"), rs("Email3"), rs("Email4"),
rs("Email5"))
olItem.Subject = Replace(DLookup("EmailSubject", "EmailSettings"),
"<LocationNbr>", rs("LocationNbr"))
olItem.Body = DLookup("EmailBody", "EmailSettings") & vbCrLf
evFile = frm.searchFolder & "\Mthly " & rs("LocationNbr") & ".xls"
olItem.Attachments.Add evFile
olItem.Send
rs.MoveNext
Loop
rs.close
===================================================================
Is there anything close in the Linux/OSS world, or in OpenOffice?
piece of cake
interface "dcop kmail MailTransportServiceIface" with db of choice
steve
2005-04-09 10:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
The MS Office object libraries expose a variety of objects, properties and
methods that let you automate the heck out of Office apps, and create
systems that can offer extreme time-savings.
Here I use 15 lines to automatically generate (from Access) a set of Outlook
emails that previously were produced by manually cutting and pasting
addresses and attachments. It will save the client about 8 hours per week
(they do 2500+ of these), and it's presented to the user with a nice DFS
'click and drool' interface.
========================================================================
Dim olApp As Outlook.Application, olItem As Outlook.MailItem
Set olApp = New Outlook.Application
Set rs = db.OpenRecordset("SELECT * FROM RestaurantMthly WHERE Status =
'pending' ORDER BY EmailID;")
Do Until rs.EOF
'SELECT *' == lazy programmer.
DFS
2005-04-09 14:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve
Post by DFS
The MS Office object libraries expose a variety of objects,
properties and methods that let you automate the heck out of Office
apps, and create systems that can offer extreme time-savings.
Here I use 15 lines to automatically generate (from Access) a set of
Outlook emails that previously were produced by manually cutting and
pasting addresses and attachments. It will save the client about 8
hours per week (they do 2500+ of these), and it's presented to the
user with a nice DFS 'click and drool' interface.
========================================================================
Dim olApp As Outlook.Application, olItem As Outlook.MailItem
Set olApp = New Outlook.Application
Set rs = db.OpenRecordset("SELECT * FROM RestaurantMthly WHERE
Status = 'pending' ORDER BY EmailID;")
Do Until rs.EOF
'SELECT *' == lazy programmer.
Insult without knowing the table structure = immature and stupid
7
2005-04-09 15:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by steve
'SELECT *' == lazy programmer.
Insult without knowing the table structure = immature and stupid
"SELECT * FROM EMPLOYEE WHERE EMPLOYEE.TALLYWHACKER = 'GAY'"

--
 "A party in a gay club was followed up by a recruitment
  pitch by Microsoft.."

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/04/microsoft_black_hat_job_pitch/
  WAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Daniel Tryba
2005-04-12 01:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
The MS Office object libraries expose a variety of objects, properties and
methods that let you automate the heck out of Office apps, and create
systems that can offer extreme time-savings.
Here I use 15 lines to automatically generate (from Access) a set of Outlook
emails that previously were produced by manually cutting and pasting
addresses and attachments. It will save the client about 8 hours per week
(they do 2500+ of these), and it's presented to the user with a nice DFS
'click and drool' interface.
What's the use of click and drool here? It's a fire and forget job...
Post by DFS
========================================================================
[snip]
Post by DFS
===================================================================
I was impressed in 2000, when I was told about this... It's nice to see
that you got exicted over this almost 10 years after MS last rename
of this technology.
Post by DFS
Is there anything close in the Linux/OSS world, or in OpenOffice?
You must be kidding? You never noticed all those little "unix" commands?
They can be used to do accomplish snipped lines. If you are looking for
the same type of technology you could search for CORBA (since COP was
already mentioned), but using the "commandline" capablilities is much
more widespread on "unix".
DFS
2005-04-12 04:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
The MS Office object libraries expose a variety of objects,
properties and methods that let you automate the heck out of Office
apps, and create systems that can offer extreme time-savings.
Here I use 15 lines to automatically generate (from Access) a set of
Outlook emails that previously were produced by manually cutting and
pasting addresses and attachments. It will save the client about 8
hours per week (they do 2500+ of these), and it's presented to the
user with a nice DFS 'click and drool' interface.
What's the use of click and drool here? It's a fire and forget job...
It is, mostly, but there are several options (not shown) the user can choose
on the interface that get passed into other parts of the send routine. And
there's address validation, and so on.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
========================================================================
[snip]
===================================================================
I was impressed in 2000, when I was told about this... It's nice to
see that you got exicted over this almost 10 years after MS last
rename of this technology.
It always has and probably always will excite me to write these kind of
apps. Server-side code? Boring. Middleware routines to handle db
connection pooling? Necessary but blah. db triggers and posting logic?
Alright... but do I have to?

But end-user interface apps? That's the ticket! Today the client said this
about that little email system "I really like it!!!"

Good systems, a little praise, and a timely paycheck is what I like.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Is there anything close in the Linux/OSS world, or in OpenOffice?
You must be kidding? You never noticed all those little "unix"
commands? They can be used to do accomplish snipped lines. If you are
looking for the same type of technology you could search for CORBA
(since COP was already mentioned), but using the "commandline"
capablilities is much more widespread on "unix".
That's what I expected (knew actually), but that's why I asked: I wanted to
hear a *nix bozo admit it. Nearly 14 years after GUIs took over the
desktop, Linux power is still mainly derived from command-line scripts.

Haven't you guys learned? Surely some of you cola nuts have written
interface systems to do some of the hundreds of repetitive tasks cubicle
workers do every day? Surely some Linux / OO user has an EIS system on his
resume, somewhere?

How is Linux going to gain any traction in the business office market
without office automation programs that don't require the user to actually
open a shell and type arcane commands and switches?
Daniel Tryba
2005-04-12 10:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Is there anything close in the Linux/OSS world, or in OpenOffice?
You must be kidding? You never noticed all those little "unix"
commands? They can be used to do accomplish snipped lines. If you are
looking for the same type of technology you could search for CORBA
(since COP was already mentioned), but using the "commandline"
capablilities is much more widespread on "unix".
That's what I expected (knew actually), but that's why I asked: I wanted to
hear a *nix bozo admit it. Nearly 14 years after GUIs took over the
desktop,
Only 14 years?
Post by DFS
Linux power is still mainly derived from command-line scripts.
And that is a bad thing why exactly?
Post by DFS
Haven't you guys learned?
That is GUI can be usefull? Yes.
Post by DFS
Surely some of you cola nuts have written
interface systems to do some of the hundreds of repetitive tasks cubicle
workers do every day? Surely some Linux / OO user has an EIS system on his
resume, somewhere?
Most do, but you knew that: manipulating streams of data "the unix way"
is just one of those "frameworks". But what do you think of the others
mentioned?
Post by DFS
How is Linux going to gain any traction in the business office market
without office automation programs that don't require the user to actually
open a shell and type arcane commands and switches?
So how come they asked you to write such a trivial mail script?
Apparently even the MS platform isn't up to the task described here,
with or without opening a "shell".

When I used to do this kind of scripting I often got frustrated by the
bad documentation of most MS COM objects. Searching the MSDN library was
sure a lot harder compared to a simple 'man mutt' to find out what the
parameters are.
DFS
2005-04-12 13:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Is there anything close in the Linux/OSS world, or in OpenOffice?
You must be kidding? You never noticed all those little "unix"
commands? They can be used to do accomplish snipped lines. If you
are looking for the same type of technology you could search for
CORBA (since COP was already mentioned), but using the "commandline"
capablilities is much more widespread on "unix".
That's what I expected (knew actually), but that's why I asked: I
wanted to hear a *nix bozo admit it. Nearly 14 years after GUIs
took over the desktop,
Only 14 years?
Yes.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Linux power is still mainly derived from command-line scripts.
And that is a bad thing why exactly?
Because it's boring and arcane and difficult to learn and remember -
especially for end users.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Haven't you guys learned?
That is GUI can be usefull? Yes.
Post by DFS
Surely some of you cola nuts have written
interface systems to do some of the hundreds of repetitive tasks
cubicle workers do every day? Surely some Linux / OO user has an
EIS system on his resume, somewhere?
Most do, but you knew that: manipulating streams of data "the unix
way" is just one of those "frameworks". But what do you think of the
others mentioned?
Post by DFS
How is Linux going to gain any traction in the business office market
without office automation programs that don't require the user to
actually open a shell and type arcane commands and switches?
So how come they asked you to write such a trivial mail script?
When I've been in the mood to bite the hand that feeds me, I ask them "Can't
employee so and so write that for you?" and the usual response is "No" or
"He doesn't feel comfortable doing it" or "He's not available."
Post by Daniel Tryba
Apparently even the MS platform isn't up to the task described here,
with or without opening a "shell".
? That code, nearly unmodified, can be placed inside Excel, Access or
Outlook to accomplish the same thing.
Post by Daniel Tryba
When I used to do this kind of scripting I often got frustrated by the
bad documentation of most MS COM objects. Searching the MSDN library
was sure a lot harder compared to a simple 'man mutt' to find out
what the parameters are.
I'll agree with you there. Some of the ActiveX documentation stinks.
Daniel Tryba
2005-04-12 14:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
That's what I expected (knew actually), but that's why I asked: I
wanted to hear a *nix bozo admit it. Nearly 14 years after GUIs
took over the desktop,
Only 14 years?
Yes.
Then define GUI. I'd considered the IDE for Borland's Turbo Pascal/C a
GUI, even though the actual videomode is in what we'd call a textmode.
Unix workstations have had X11 available the last 20 something years,
but still scripting was done from the commandline.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Linux power is still mainly derived from command-line scripts.
And that is a bad thing why exactly?
Because it's boring
Subjective.
Post by DFS
and arcane
Why?
Post by DFS
and difficult to learn and remember -
Subjective.
Post by DFS
especially for end users.
Please explain why every version of Windows is introducing more and more
commandline stuff.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
How is Linux going to gain any traction in the business office market
without office automation programs that don't require the user to
actually open a shell and type arcane commands and switches?
So how come they asked you to write such a trivial mail script?
When I've been in the mood to bite the hand that feeds me, I ask them "Can't
employee so and so write that for you?" and the usual response is "No" or
"He doesn't feel comfortable doing it" or "He's not available."
So any excuse except the last makes clear scripting on the windows
platform is still not for the simple user, the same is true on any
other.

It's even worse, almost no Windows user knows that their system comes with
a powerfull scripting engine. At most some can remember the batch files
from the dos era. Should they know or care? I don't thinks so, educating
would kind like "biting the hand that feeds you", this is easy money.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Apparently even the MS platform isn't up to the task described here,
with or without opening a "shell".
? That code, nearly unmodified, can be placed inside Excel, Access or
Outlook to accomplish the same thing.
So any program that implements the COM inteface stuff can do that, the
same as any "unix" tools that can read/write a stream from an external
process can do with the commandline utils.
DFS
2005-04-12 15:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
That's what I expected (knew actually), but that's why I asked: I
wanted to hear a *nix bozo admit it. Nearly 14 years after GUIs
took over the desktop,
Only 14 years?
Yes.
Then define GUI.
Windows. And before you go blabbing about Apple, I said "took over the
desktop."
Post by Daniel Tryba
I'd considered the IDE for Borland's Turbo Pascal/C a
GUI, even though the actual videomode is in what we'd call a textmode.
Unix workstations have had X11 available the last 20 something years,
but still scripting was done from the commandline.
And mostly still is, correct?
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Linux power is still mainly derived from command-line scripts.
And that is a bad thing why exactly?
Because it's boring
Subjective.
It's not subjective when 500,000,000 people around the world reject the
command line in favor of GUIs.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
and arcane
Why?
Because AUD_CHAN=`mplayer -vo null -ao null -frames 0 -v dvd://1
2>/dev/null| grep "en aid:" | cut -d ":" -f 5 | tr -d ' '
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
and difficult to learn and remember -
Subjective.
So tell me the Linux command to list octal file modes. And tell me what the
above AUD_CHAN statement does.

I HATE the command line, though it's easy enough to see how powerful it is.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
especially for end users.
Please explain why every version of Windows is introducing more and
more commandline stuff.
What? Where? Enhancements to the GUI far, far outnumber and outweigh
additional commandline capabilities MS might add to Windows from time to
time.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
How is Linux going to gain any traction in the business office
market without office automation programs that don't require the
user to actually open a shell and type arcane commands and
switches?
So how come they asked you to write such a trivial mail script?
When I've been in the mood to bite the hand that feeds me, I ask
them "Can't employee so and so write that for you?" and the usual
response is "No" or "He doesn't feel comfortable doing it" or "He's
not available."
So any excuse except the last makes clear scripting on the windows
platform is still not for the simple user, the same is true on any
other.
Yes.
Post by Daniel Tryba
It's even worse, almost no Windows user knows that their system comes
with a powerfull scripting engine.
I've found over the years that even when I tell users about VBA or scripting
host solutions or even how to write or run simple Access queries, the vast
majority aren't interested, refuse to learn or explore, and prefer to pay me
to do what they (some anyway) could learn in due course.

It floors me, actually.
Post by Daniel Tryba
At most some can remember the
batch files from the dos era. Should they know or care? I don't
thinks so, educating would kind like "biting the hand that feeds
you", this is easy money.
Well...yes. But it's also interesting money, and useful money.

The 'send email' script is the relatively easy part - often, the more
challenging part is building a lucid interface that doesn't let the user get
in their own way.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Apparently even the MS platform isn't up to the task described here,
with or without opening a "shell".
? That code, nearly unmodified, can be placed inside Excel, Access
or Outlook to accomplish the same thing.
So any program that implements the COM inteface stuff can do that, the
same as any "unix" tools that can read/write a stream from an external
process can do with the commandline utils.
I'm not denying that. I'm just wondering where are the nice-looking, click
and drool Linux interface systems for office automation tasks.
Daniel Tryba
2005-04-12 15:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Only 14 years?
Yes.
Then define GUI.
Windows. And before you go blabbing about Apple, I said "took over the
desktop."
So what about all those GUI programs that ran on the desktop before
Windows?
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
I'd considered the IDE for Borland's Turbo Pascal/C a
GUI, even though the actual videomode is in what we'd call a textmode.
Unix workstations have had X11 available the last 20 something years,
but still scripting was done from the commandline.
And mostly still is, correct?
Are you refering to 1st or second line, for me yes on both.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Because it's boring
Subjective.
It's not subjective when 500,000,000 people around the world reject the
command line in favor of GUIs.
What is the relationship between a GUI and commandline scripting?
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
and arcane
Why?
Because AUD_CHAN=`mplayer -vo null -ao null -frames 0 -v dvd://1
2>/dev/null| grep "en aid:" | cut -d ":" -f 5 | tr -d ' '
Because the person who wrote this didn't read all functions available on
the commandline.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
and difficult to learn and remember -
Subjective.
So tell me the Linux command to list octal file modes.
man chmod
Post by DFS
And tell me what the above AUD_CHAN statement does.
Nothing, it's a variable assigment (and incomplete). But I already
commented on the script where you got that line from before when someone
posted (other than rapskat) reposted it.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Please explain why every version of Windows is introducing more and
more commandline stuff.
What? Where? Enhancements to the GUI far, far outnumber and outweigh
additional commandline capabilities MS might add to Windows from time to
time.
So why add anything to the commandline? My guess is that there is
actually a market for this on the Windows platform.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
At most some can remember the
batch files from the dos era. Should they know or care? I don't
thinks so, educating would kind like "biting the hand that feeds
you", this is easy money.
Well...yes. But it's also interesting money, and useful money.
IMHO it's extremly boring.
Post by DFS
The 'send email' script is the relatively easy part - often, the more
challenging part is building a lucid interface that doesn't let the user get
in their own way.
Guess why al those toolkits for creating simple GUI's exist.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
? That code, nearly unmodified, can be placed inside Excel, Access
or Outlook to accomplish the same thing.
So any program that implements the COM inteface stuff can do that, the
same as any "unix" tools that can read/write a stream from an external
process can do with the commandline utils.
I'm not denying that. I'm just wondering where are the nice-looking, click
and drool Linux interface systems for office automation tasks.
If that was true, you wouldn't be asking it here.
DFS
2005-04-12 16:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Only 14 years?
Yes.
Then define GUI.
Windows. And before you go blabbing about Apple, I said "took over
the desktop."
So what about all those GUI programs that ran on the desktop before
Windows?
There was no GUI desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor does
DesqView. Or the Turbo Pascal IDE.
Post by Daniel Tryba
What is the relationship between a GUI and commandline scripting?
One is intuitive and interesting and productive, and the other sucks.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
So tell me the Linux command to list octal file modes.
man chmod
So you can't remember the command. I don't fault you: ls and the various
switches provide something like 52 ways to list your files.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
And tell me what the above AUD_CHAN statement does.
Nothing, it's a variable assigment (and incomplete). But I already
commented on the script where you got that line from before when
someone posted (other than rapskat) reposted it.
OK. So you're a script maniac. Maybe 1 in 1,000 people could look at that
line and see and understand what it does.

But probably 900 in 1,000 people could look at the GUI for my emailer and
see and understand what it does.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Please explain why every version of Windows is introducing more and
more commandline stuff.
What? Where? Enhancements to the GUI far, far outnumber and
outweigh additional commandline capabilities MS might add to Windows
from time to time.
So why add anything to the commandline? My guess is that there is
actually a market for this on the Windows platform.
Not among the general end-user population. Among network admins, yes.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
At most some can remember the
batch files from the dos era. Should they know or care? I don't
thinks so, educating would kind like "biting the hand that feeds
you", this is easy money.
Well...yes. But it's also interesting money, and useful money.
IMHO it's extremly boring.
What? There's nothing better than writing interface/db apps hundreds of
users interact with half the day.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
The 'send email' script is the relatively easy part - often, the more
challenging part is building a lucid interface that doesn't let the
user get in their own way.
Guess why al those toolkits for creating simple GUI's exist.
Google for 'Linux power tools' and you get back hundreds of difficult,
arcane scripts.

Google for 'Windows power tools' and you get back hundreds of
interface-driven programs.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
? That code, nearly unmodified, can be placed inside Excel, Access
or Outlook to accomplish the same thing.
So any program that implements the COM inteface stuff can do that,
the same as any "unix" tools that can read/write a stream from an
external process can do with the commandline utils.
I'm not denying that. I'm just wondering where are the
nice-looking, click and drool Linux interface systems for office
automation tasks.
If that was true, you wouldn't be asking it here.
That is true.

What better place to ask than in a group of rabid Linonuts who have been
using Linux for years, and who claim it's better than Windows in every way?
They have a hard time demonstrating it, but that doesn't stop them from
repeating themselves.
Roy Culley
2005-04-12 17:16:08 UTC
Permalink
begin risky.vbs
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by Daniel Tryba
Only 14 years?
Yes.
Then define GUI.
Windows. And before you go blabbing about Apple, I said "took over
the desktop."
So what about all those GUI programs that ran on the desktop before
Windows?
There was no GUI desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor does
DesqView. Or the Turbo Pascal IDE.
Sun's sunview was available in 1985. Windows has barely caught up with
it to date. Of course Sun dropped sunview in favour of networked
window systems such as OpenWindows, CDE and now offer gnome and kde.
All of these are better windowing systems than MS windows. We might
all be running NeWS has Sun not tried to keep it proprietory. Hence X
took off and the rest is history.
Linønut
2005-04-12 19:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Culley
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
So what about all those GUI programs that ran on the desktop before
Windows?
There was no GUI desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor does
DesqView. Or the Turbo Pascal IDE.
Sun's sunview was available in 1985. Windows has barely caught up with
it to date. Of course Sun dropped sunview in favour of networked
window systems such as OpenWindows, CDE and now offer gnome and kde.
All of these are better windowing systems than MS windows. We might
all be running NeWS has Sun not tried to keep it proprietory. Hence X
took off and the rest is history.
It is also worth noting that, when Windows 1.0 was a barely useable piece of
shit, the Atari ST (single-tasking, like Windows) and Commodore Amiga
(multi-tasking) were in existence, and far more useable.

As usual, DFS shows how little he knows. Yet he won't shut the hell up.
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
DFS
2005-04-12 19:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linønut
Post by Roy Culley
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
So what about all those GUI programs that ran on the desktop before
Windows?
There was no GUI desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor
does DesqView. Or the Turbo Pascal IDE.
Sun's sunview was available in 1985. Windows has barely caught up
with it to date. Of course Sun dropped sunview in favour of networked
window systems such as OpenWindows, CDE and now offer gnome and kde.
All of these are better windowing systems than MS windows. We might
all be running NeWS has Sun not tried to keep it proprietory. Hence X
took off and the rest is history.
It is also worth noting that, when Windows 1.0 was a barely useable
piece of shit, the Atari ST (single-tasking, like Windows) and
Commodore Amiga (multi-tasking) were in existence, and far more
useable.
As usual, DFS shows how little he knows. Yet he won't shut the hell up.
Of course I won't shut up, not when you guys make claims like the above.
Of course there were computer GUIs around before and at the same time as
early Windows.
Of course none are around today.
Of course Windows bested all of them, and has continued to best them for 10
years.
Of course this fact burns your asses.
Kier
2005-04-12 22:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
Post by Roy Culley
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
So what about all those GUI programs that ran on the desktop before
Windows?
There was no GUI desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor
does DesqView. Or the Turbo Pascal IDE.
Sun's sunview was available in 1985. Windows has barely caught up
with it to date. Of course Sun dropped sunview in favour of networked
window systems such as OpenWindows, CDE and now offer gnome and kde.
All of these are better windowing systems than MS windows. We might
all be running NeWS has Sun not tried to keep it proprietory. Hence X
took off and the rest is history.
It is also worth noting that, when Windows 1.0 was a barely useable
piece of shit, the Atari ST (single-tasking, like Windows) and
Commodore Amiga (multi-tasking) were in existence, and far more
useable.
As usual, DFS shows how little he knows. Yet he won't shut the hell up.
Of course I won't shut up, not when you guys make claims like the above.
Of course there were computer GUIs around before and at the same time as
early Windows.
Then how come you said there weren't?
Post by DFS
Of course none are around today.
And? No one said they were.
Post by DFS
Of course Windows bested all of them, and has continued to best them for 10
years.
Of course this fact burns your asses.
That isn't what you said, arsehole. You said: "There was no GUI
desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor does DesqView. Or the
Turbo Pascal IDE."

I remember my brother using the Atari ST long before we'd heard of
Windows.
--
Kier
--
Kier
William Poaster
2005-04-12 23:18:42 UTC
Permalink
begin fcukyou.vbs It was on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:27:39 +0100, that Kier
<snip>
Post by Kier
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
As usual, DFS shows how little he knows. Yet he won't shut the hell up.
Of course I won't shut up, not when you guys make claims like the above.
Of course there were computer GUIs around before and at the same time as
early Windows.
Then how come you said there weren't?
Post by DFS
Of course none are around today.
And? No one said they were.
Post by DFS
Of course Windows bested all of them, and has continued to best them for 10
years.
Of course this fact burns your asses.
That isn't what you said, arsehole. You said: "There was no GUI
desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor does DesqView. Or the
Turbo Pascal IDE."
Looks he's forgetting what he said now! Poor thing's getting confused, heh.
Post by Kier
I remember my brother using the Atari ST long before we'd heard of
Windows.
--
Still waiting for Phillip Cornwallis,
aka Flatfish, to tell me who I am.
"As if everyone here doesn't know who you are "wiiliam Poaster"
Re: Another Gentoo-related tale (gdb), Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:55:22 GMT
Philip Callan
2005-04-12 23:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
Looks he's forgetting what he said now! Poor thing's getting confused, heh.
Should remind him:

Message-ID: <b4sQd.1936$***@fe07.lga>
JEDIDIAH
2005-04-13 13:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
begin fcukyou.vbs It was on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:27:39 +0100, that Kier
<snip>
Post by Kier
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
As usual, DFS shows how little he knows. Yet he won't shut the hell up.
Of course I won't shut up, not when you guys make claims like the above.
Of course there were computer GUIs around before and at the same time as
early Windows.
Then how come you said there weren't?
Post by DFS
Of course none are around today.
And? No one said they were.
Post by DFS
Of course Windows bested all of them, and has continued to best them for 10
years.
Of course this fact burns your asses.
MacOS is still around.
X is still around.

[deletia]

The fact that GEM still isn't does infact "burn my ass" as the ST
was a full 32bit system in 1985 as was the Amiga.

Superior machines and superior system software at a lower price.

...instead, the Lemming market decides it needs Lotus 123 and puts
up with MANUAL MEMORY MANAGEMENT for the privelege.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
William Poaster
2005-04-13 14:25:58 UTC
Permalink
begin fcukyou.vbs It was on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:02:51 -0500, that
JEDIDIAH was seen to write:

<snip>

Except I didn't say any of that, it was DFS.
--
Still waiting for Phillip Cornwallis,
aka Flatfish, to tell me who I am!
"As if everyone here doesn't know who you are "wiiliam Poaster"
Re: Another Gentoo-related tale (gdb), Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:55:22 GMT
Philip Callan
2005-04-13 14:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
...instead, the Lemming market decides it needs Lotus 123 and puts
up with MANUAL MEMORY MANAGEMENT for the privelege.
Hey, don't underestimate the Lemming market, after all I'm fairly
certain Lemmings was more cross compatible than anything else of the
era, they had versions of that game for /every/ platform almost ;)
DFS
2005-04-12 23:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
Post by Roy Culley
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
So what about all those GUI programs that ran on the desktop
before Windows?
There was no GUI desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count.
Nor does DesqView. Or the Turbo Pascal IDE.
Sun's sunview was available in 1985. Windows has barely caught up
with it to date. Of course Sun dropped sunview in favour of
networked window systems such as OpenWindows, CDE and now offer
gnome and kde. All of these are better windowing systems than MS
windows. We might all be running NeWS has Sun not tried to keep it
proprietory. Hence X took off and the rest is history.
It is also worth noting that, when Windows 1.0 was a barely useable
piece of shit, the Atari ST (single-tasking, like Windows) and
Commodore Amiga (multi-tasking) were in existence, and far more
useable.
As usual, DFS shows how little he knows. Yet he won't shut the hell up.
Of course I won't shut up, not when you guys make claims like the
above. Of course there were computer GUIs around before and at the
same time as early Windows.
Then how come you said there weren't?
Post by DFS
Of course none are around today.
And? No one said they were.
Post by DFS
Of course Windows bested all of them, and has continued to best them
for 10 years.
Of course this fact burns your asses.
That isn't what you said, arsehole. You said: "There was no GUI
desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor does DesqView. Or
the Turbo Pascal IDE."
Dullard, I meant in the sense that there was no popular, widely-used GUI.

Windows installations worldwide: 500 to 700 million, maybe more. Very
impressive!
Post by Kier
I remember my brother using the Atari ST
A relic, just like your sense of humor.
Post by Kier
long before we'd heard of Windows.
Kier
Linønut
2005-04-13 02:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Windows installations worldwide: 500 to 700 million, maybe more. Very
impressive!
And to think, it all began with embedding non-DOS-detection code in Windows.

Win!

I got suckered along with the rest of the world. Took me about 12 years to
wake up!
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Kier
2005-04-13 08:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
Post by Roy Culley
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
So what about all those GUI programs that ran on the desktop
before Windows?
There was no GUI desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count.
Nor does DesqView. Or the Turbo Pascal IDE.
Sun's sunview was available in 1985. Windows has barely caught up
with it to date. Of course Sun dropped sunview in favour of
networked window systems such as OpenWindows, CDE and now offer
gnome and kde. All of these are better windowing systems than MS
windows. We might all be running NeWS has Sun not tried to keep it
proprietory. Hence X took off and the rest is history.
It is also worth noting that, when Windows 1.0 was a barely useable
piece of shit, the Atari ST (single-tasking, like Windows) and
Commodore Amiga (multi-tasking) were in existence, and far more
useable.
As usual, DFS shows how little he knows. Yet he won't shut the hell up.
Of course I won't shut up, not when you guys make claims like the
above. Of course there were computer GUIs around before and at the
same time as early Windows.
Then how come you said there weren't?
Post by DFS
Of course none are around today.
And? No one said they were.
Post by DFS
Of course Windows bested all of them, and has continued to best them
for 10 years.
Of course this fact burns your asses.
That isn't what you said, arsehole. You said: "There was no GUI
desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor does DesqView. Or
the Turbo Pascal IDE."
Dullard, I meant in the sense that there was no popular, widely-used GUI.
No, there wasn't just one GUI that stifled the rest, there were several,
all usable and popular.
Post by DFS
Windows installations worldwide: 500 to 700 million, maybe more. Very
impressive!
Back when the Atari and Amiga reigned? Doubt it.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
I remember my brother using the Atari ST
A relic, just like your sense of humor.
And as of a year or two ago, it still worked. Pity it didn't continue to
be as popular as it was back in those days when Windows was nothing, from
what I saw of it, it was a great little computer.
--
Kier
Linønut
2005-04-13 02:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
It is also worth noting that, when Windows 1.0 was a barely useable
piece of shit, the Atari ST (single-tasking, like Windows) and
Commodore Amiga (multi-tasking) were in existence, and far more
useable.
Of course I won't shut up, not when you guys make claims like the above.
Of course there were computer GUIs around before and at the same time as
early Windows.
Of course none are around today.
Of course Windows bested all of them, and has continued to best them for 10
years.
It wasn't Windows that bested them. It was Microsoft. Big difference.
Post by DFS
Of course this fact burns your asses.
Yer damn skippy it does.

Of course, some of the others' failure was due to mistakes by Atari,
Commodore, and, of course, IBM.
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
DFS
2005-04-13 03:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linønut
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
It is also worth noting that, when Windows 1.0 was a barely useable
piece of shit, the Atari ST (single-tasking, like Windows) and
Commodore Amiga (multi-tasking) were in existence, and far more
useable.
Of course I won't shut up, not when you guys make claims like the
above. Of course there were computer GUIs around before and at the
same time as early Windows.
Of course none are around today.
Of course Windows bested all of them, and has continued to best them
for 10 years.
It wasn't Windows that bested them. It was Microsoft. Big
difference.
Nein. It was the public practically sprinting to the computer store to buy
Windows 3.0 and 3.1 and 95 and all those millions of apps. When was the
last time anyone stayed up after midnight to download the latest Linux
kernel? huh? huh?
Post by Linønut
Post by DFS
Of course this fact burns your asses.
Yer damn skippy it does.
When I said it I put on an English accent and screamed it just like Terence
Stamp in "Wall Street."

Makes it much more dramatic...
Post by Linønut
Of course, some of the others' failure was due to mistakes by Atari,
Commodore, and, of course, IBM.
I was working at IBM, off and on from 1989 through 1994/5. I remember lots
of people ran OS/2, but from inside it you could actually launch Win 3.1,
and the standard office tools at IBM were MS Access and Excel running on
Windows inside OS/2.
Linønut
2005-04-13 12:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
It wasn't Windows that bested them. It was Microsoft. Big
difference.
Nein. It was the public practically sprinting to the computer store to buy
Windows 3.0 and 3.1 and 95 and all those millions of apps.
No, only for 95 was their a big sprint, thanks to MS hype.

Win 3 took off only because Windows was finally useable at that point, and
because there was nothing else out there for the PC.

And why was there nothing else out there for the PC? IBM. They screwed up.
They trusted Microsoft. Again.
Post by DFS
When was the
last time anyone stayed up after midnight to download the latest Linux
kernel? huh? huh?
Why would you have to stay up to do that? Anyway, you have a point. Linux
won't get anywhere in the mass market until the Microsoft stranglehold on
OEMs can be broken.
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
Of course, some of the others' failure was due to mistakes by Atari,
Commodore, and, of course, IBM.
I was working at IBM, off and on from 1989 through 1994/5. I remember lots
of people ran OS/2, but from inside it you could actually launch Win 3.1,
and the standard office tools at IBM were MS Access and Excel running on
Windows inside OS/2.
Yeah, but IBM tried to keep development to itself, while Microsoft, in the
one big move I truly appreciate in them, supported the developer.

But FOSS, for the most part, is even kinder to the developer. That's
probably the main reason why Linux (and the BSDs) are so rampant in the back
office.
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
William Poaster
2005-04-13 12:47:59 UTC
Permalink
begin fcukyou.vbs It was on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:13:41 -0500, that
Linønutlinønut was seen to write:

<snip>
Post by Linønut
As usual, DFS shows how little he knows. Yet he won't shut the hell up.
He's too stupid is why.
As someone said "Better to remain silent & be thought a fool, than open
one's mouth & remove all doubt"
--
Still waiting for Phillip Cornwallis,
aka Flatfish, to tell me who I am!
"As if everyone here doesn't know who you are "wiiliam Poaster"
Re: Another Gentoo-related tale (gdb), Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:55:22 GMT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2005-04-14 00:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Culley
begin risky.vbs
Post by DFS
There was no GUI desktop before Windows.
I wonder what she/he/it is smoking?
Post by Roy Culley
Post by DFS
Apple doesn't count.
Well that's an easy way to argue. There are no &X, and all of the
counterexamples don't count.
Post by Roy Culley
Sun's sunview was available in 1985.
To say nothing of the stuff from Xerox PARC, and various other
graphics workstations.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to ***@library.lspace.org
Ku Karlovsky
2005-04-13 00:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
There was no GUI desktop before Windows.
Microsoft was the last company to have a working GUI. Xerox had a
fully functional GUI, with multitasking and multiprocessing, in the
1970s. This is the system on which MacOS, Windows, X, and the others
were based.
Post by DFS
Apple doesn't count.
It's not a secret why you're called DooFuS.
DFS
2005-04-13 01:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ku Karlovsky
Post by DFS
There was no GUI desktop before Windows.
Microsoft was the last company to have a working GUI. Xerox had a
fully functional GUI, with multitasking and multiprocessing, in the
1970s. This is the system on which MacOS, Windows, X, and the others
were based.
I sometimes forget I have to be extremely pedantic when addressing
nitpicking cola idiots. When I say there was no GUI desktop before Windows,
I don't mean they were first. I mean they were the first big and popular
GUI the world knew and loved. Like Elvis was the first rock 'n roller, or
the Model T was the first auto. Others came before them, and they might
have been inspired by others, but to most of the world they were the first.

Such is Windows - the first rock star GUI.
Post by Ku Karlovsky
Post by DFS
Apple doesn't count.
It's not a secret why you're called DooFuS.
You have a name only a mother could love.
Linønut
2005-04-13 02:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
I sometimes forget I have to be extremely pedantic when addressing
nitpicking cola idiots. When I say there was no GUI desktop before Windows,
I don't mean they were first. I mean they were the first big and popular
GUI the world knew and loved. Like Elvis was the first rock 'n roller, or
the Model T was the first auto. Others came before them, and they might
have been inspired by others, but to most of the world they were the first.
Such is Windows - the first rock star GUI.
Actually, the first rock star GUI was probably GEM, on the Atari ST.

By that, I mean a GUI used by rock stars (musicians).

Otherwise, the most famous GUI at that time was the Mac.
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Somebody
2005-04-13 20:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Ku Karlovsky
Post by DFS
There was no GUI desktop before Windows.
Microsoft was the last company to have a working GUI. Xerox had a
fully functional GUI, with multitasking and multiprocessing, in the
1970s. This is the system on which MacOS, Windows, X, and the others
were based.
I sometimes forget I have to be extremely pedantic when addressing
nitpicking cola idiots. When I say there was no GUI desktop before Windows,
I don't mean they were first. I mean they were the first big and popular
GUI the world knew and loved. Like Elvis was the first rock 'n roller, or
the Model T was the first auto. Others came before them, and they might
have been inspired by others, but to most of the world they were the first.
Yes, and if enough people make a mistake it's correct ?. Or if enough
say a lie it suddeenly becomes pure truth?
Post by DFS
Such is Windows - the first rock star GUI.
Yes, and on drugs and alcohol like a rock star, 'cause it crashed to the
floor just as often, and needed restarting all the time. Before windows
the on/off switch was on the BACK of the cabinet remember ??
Post by DFS
Post by Ku Karlovsky
Post by DFS
Apple doesn't count.
Because it contradicts you stupid claims ?
Post by DFS
Post by Ku Karlovsky
It's not a secret why you're called DooFuS.
You have a name only a mother could love.
Philip Callan
2005-04-14 01:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Somebody
Before windows
the on/off switch was on the BACK of the cabinet remember ??
Heh, gotta pull a billwg here, LOL!!!!!!!
Roy Culley
2005-04-14 01:26:28 UTC
Permalink
begin risky.vbs
Post by Philip Callan
Post by Somebody
Before windows
the on/off switch was on the BACK of the cabinet remember ??
Heh, gotta pull a billwg here, LOL!!!!!!!
Just like the IBM guy, LOL!!!!!!!, who thought up the 3 finger salute,
LOL!!!!!!!, telling Gates he never realised at the time just how often
it would be needed. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Windows, insecure by design. LOL!!!!!!!

I hope all the wintrolls have downloaded the latest monthly security
fixes. LOL!!!!!!! As MS said it won't be long before exploits are
in the wild. LOL!!!!!!!
Linønut
2005-04-14 04:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Culley
begin risky.vbs
Post by Philip Callan
Post by Somebody
Before windows
the on/off switch was on the BACK of the cabinet remember ??
Heh, gotta pull a billwg here, LOL!!!!!!!
Just like the IBM guy, LOL!!!!!!!, who thought up the 3 finger salute,
LOL!!!!!!!, telling Gates he never realised at the time just how often
it would be needed. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure Gates had that IBM guy killed a couple weeks later,
LOL!!!!!
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Mark Kent
2005-04-14 12:38:40 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Linønut
Post by Roy Culley
begin risky.vbs
Post by Philip Callan
Post by Somebody
Before windows
the on/off switch was on the BACK of the cabinet remember ??
Heh, gotta pull a billwg here, LOL!!!!!!!
Just like the IBM guy, LOL!!!!!!!, who thought up the 3 finger salute,
LOL!!!!!!!, telling Gates he never realised at the time just how often
it would be needed. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure Gates had that IBM guy killed a couple weeks later,
LOL!!!!!
;_))))))))))))))))))))!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
He who renders warfare fatal to all engaged in it will be the greatest
benefactor the world has yet known.
-- Sir Richard Burton
DFS
2005-04-14 02:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Somebody
Post by DFS
Post by Ku Karlovsky
Post by DFS
There was no GUI desktop before Windows.
Microsoft was the last company to have a working GUI. Xerox had a
fully functional GUI, with multitasking and multiprocessing, in the
1970s. This is the system on which MacOS, Windows, X, and the
others were based.
I sometimes forget I have to be extremely pedantic when addressing
nitpicking cola idiots. When I say there was no GUI desktop before
Windows, I don't mean they were first. I mean they were the first
big and popular GUI the world knew and loved. Like Elvis was the
first rock 'n roller, or the Model T was the first auto. Others
came before them, and they might have been inspired by others, but
to most of the world they were the first.
Yes, and if enough people make a mistake it's correct ?. Or if enough
say a lie it suddeenly becomes pure truth?
That's how cola seems to operate. The nuts here constantly blare "Linux
won! Game over!" or other idiocy. They _constantly_ lie about Windows,
Microsoft and Bill Gates.
Post by Somebody
Post by DFS
Such is Windows - the first rock star GUI.
Yes, and on drugs and alcohol like a rock star, 'cause it crashed to
the floor just as often, and needed restarting all the time. Before
windows the on/off switch was on the BACK of the cabinet remember ??
Why do I need an on/off switch on the front? I run Windows Server 2003. It
chugs along, day after day.

Windows XP is very stable. So is Windows 2000. So, you have to go back 7
years, to Win98 to find an unstable Microsoft operating system.
Post by Somebody
Post by DFS
Post by Ku Karlovsky
Post by DFS
Apple doesn't count.
Because it contradicts you stupid claims ?
Because, Nobody, it sold so poorly.
Post by Somebody
Post by DFS
Post by Ku Karlovsky
It's not a secret why you're called DooFuS.
You have a name only a mother could love.
Linønut
2005-04-14 04:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Why do I need an on/off switch on the front? I run Windows Server 2003. It
chugs along, day after day.
Just don't run MS SQL Server on it!
Post by DFS
Windows XP is very stable. So is Windows 2000. So, you have to go back 7
years, to Win98 to find an unstable Microsoft operating system.
Yeah, they got some crazy uptimes now. What, like three months! Cray zee!
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
DFS
2005-04-14 05:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linønut
Post by DFS
Why do I need an on/off switch on the front? I run Windows Server
2003. It chugs along, day after day.
Just don't run MS SQL Server on it!
I do, in fact. About every 3rd day I fire it up for some testing. I keep
Oracle running 95% of the time.
Post by Linønut
Post by DFS
Windows XP is very stable. So is Windows 2000. So, you have to go
back 7 years, to Win98 to find an unstable Microsoft operating
system.
Yeah, they got some crazy uptimes now. What, like three months!
Cray zee!
There you go again 7, I mean Rex, I mean JEDIDIAH, I mean rapskat, I mean
mlw.... ad nauseum

I'm about to make you eat some crow - beak and claws and all:

http://www.wininsider.com/news/?3321
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/performance.html


And, I'm on my way to increasing that 3 months: \\DFS-WIN2003 has been up
for: 5 day(s), 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s), 17 second(s)

(actually, that's the longest I've left my system on in months. Waste of
electricity.)
Linønut
2005-04-14 12:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
Yeah, they got some crazy uptimes now. What, like three months!
Cray zee!
There you go again 7, I mean Rex, I mean JEDIDIAH, I mean rapskat, I mean
mlw.... ad nauseum
http://www.wininsider.com/news/?3321
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/performance.html
Actually, I knew about some Win 2000 sites that have been up for a year.
However:

1. These sites are the exception, rather than the rule.

2. These sites are obviously going unpatched.

3. The Microsoft software you run on your server can make a big
difference in uptimes.

Here's our own experience:

1. Our project (earlier version) runs on Win NT. After a lot of labor,
we were able to remove all memory leaks, and the system runs for quite
a long time. (No numbers).

2. Now, on Win 2003 Server, we added an SQL Server database. The
sumbitch eats memory until it reaches the limit we imposed, then it
keels over. So currently we have to institute mandatory reboots.

So I would add:

4. Versions matter.
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
William Poaster
2005-04-13 12:48:46 UTC
Permalink
begin fcukyou.vbs It was on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:07:45 -0600, that Ku
Post by Ku Karlovsky
Post by DFS
There was no GUI desktop before Windows.
Microsoft was the last company to have a working GUI. Xerox had a
fully functional GUI, with multitasking and multiprocessing, in the
1970s. This is the system on which MacOS, Windows, X, and the others
were based.
Post by DFS
Apple doesn't count.
It's not a secret why you're called DooFuS.
It is to him.
--
Still waiting for Phillip Cornwallis,
aka Flatfish, to tell me who I am!
"As if everyone here doesn't know who you are "wiiliam Poaster"
Re: Another Gentoo-related tale (gdb), Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:55:22 GMT
Daniel Tryba
2005-04-13 01:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
What is the relationship between a GUI and commandline scripting?
One is intuitive and interesting and productive, and the other sucks.
So there is not relation between them.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
So tell me the Linux command to list octal file modes.
man chmod
So you can't remember the command. I don't fault you: ls and the various
switches provide something like 52 ways to list your files.
man chmod is a valid answer to your question, it list the octal file
modes, maybe you should read it or rephrase your question.

BTW I never use the octals, see man chmod for the alternative.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
And tell me what the above AUD_CHAN statement does.
Nothing, it's a variable assigment (and incomplete). But I already
commented on the script where you got that line from before when
someone posted (other than rapskat) reposted it.
OK. So you're a script maniac. Maybe 1 in 1,000 people could look at that
line and see and understand what it does.
But probably 900 in 1,000 people could look at the GUI for my emailer and
see and understand what it does.
So you are comparing the lines of a script with it's UI. The user of a
commandline script doesn't need to know its contents, just like the user
of your script doesn't need to know the exact commands.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Please explain why every version of Windows is introducing more and
more commandline stuff.
What? Where? Enhancements to the GUI far, far outnumber and
outweigh additional commandline capabilities MS might add to Windows
from time to time.
So why add anything to the commandline? My guess is that there is
actually a market for this on the Windows platform.
Not among the general end-user population. Among network admins, yes.
Why do they need those commandline utils? Latest versions come with RDP.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Guess why al those toolkits for creating simple GUI's exist.
Google for 'Linux power tools' and you get back hundreds of difficult,
arcane scripts.
Google for 'Windows power tools' and you get back hundreds of
interface-driven programs.
Maybe you should search for GUI builders instead.
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
I'm not denying that. I'm just wondering where are the
nice-looking, click and drool Linux interface systems for office
automation tasks.
If that was true, you wouldn't be asking it here.
That is true.
What better place to ask than in a group of rabid Linonuts who have been
using Linux for years, and who claim it's better than Windows in every way?
They have a hard time demonstrating it, but that doesn't stop them from
repeating themselves.
So have you googled for the answers given in this thread?
JEDIDIAH
2005-04-13 12:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by Daniel Tryba
Only 14 years?
Yes.
Then define GUI.
Windows. And before you go blabbing about Apple, I said "took over
the desktop."
So what about all those GUI programs that ran on the desktop before
Windows?
There was no GUI desktop before Windows. Apple doesn't count. Nor does
DesqView. Or the Turbo Pascal IDE.
...or the Atari ST
...or the Amiga
...or GEM
...or GEOS

...or XWINDOWS!

[deletia]
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-04-12 20:00:03 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Daniel Tryba
<***@invalid.tryba.nl>
wrote
on 12 Apr 2005 10:49:33 GMT
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Is there anything close in the Linux/OSS world, or in OpenOffice?
You must be kidding? You never noticed all those little "unix"
commands? They can be used to do accomplish snipped lines. If you are
looking for the same type of technology you could search for CORBA
(since COP was already mentioned), but using the "commandline"
capablilities is much more widespread on "unix".
That's what I expected (knew actually), but that's why I asked: I wanted to
hear a *nix bozo admit it. Nearly 14 years after GUIs took over the
desktop,
Only 14 years?
Well, yes. Windows 3.1 took over the desktop in 1989-91,
by leveraging DOS dominance, if memory serves.

One might have to squint a bit. :-) I never did get
around to acquiring a copy of Desqview/X or OS/2, which
IIRC were its prime competitors on the PC desktop at
the time. The Amiga, Atari, and Apple camps had by then
been relegated to the sidelines, which is unfortunate for
all concerned; the Amiga in particular had lots of promise
-- just not with Commodore, as it turned out. Apple was
being criticized for being the "GUI thought police" at
some point in the mid-80's, which probably didn't help.
Their stuff looks reasonably good now, though, compared
to Microsoft Windows, and we'll see what happens later on
if Apple and Linux duke it out. And then there's Duke,
a.k.a. Java's little "applet-man logo"... :-)

I don't remember what happened to Atari offerings like
the 520 and 1040, which were serious contenders for the
game/computer/Amiga market at the time. Atari is now
involved with UT2004, that much I know.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Linux power is still mainly derived from command-line scripts.
And that is a bad thing why exactly?
Because DFS says so! After all, everyone wants to get
caught up in a GUI. Erm, I mean, everyone wants the ease
of use of sliding into one's desktop chair, drooling all
over the keyboard, and then clicking with the mouse and
getting stuck. Um, what I meant to say is ... :-)

There is an advantage to a GUI, if done well: it's
self-documenting. One knows the program's capabilities.
Of course, one could just as easily fire up another
xterm and consult the manpage (or, nowadays, a Webpage).
It's less integrated but is that an issue?
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Haven't you guys learned?
That is GUI can be usefull? Yes.
For coordinate point entry I can't think of a better
method, although with some caveats (mostly because I want
it to snap the points into the right place).

But this is MS Office. It's mostly typing anyway.

[rest snipped]
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
DFS
2005-04-12 20:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Daniel Tryba
on 12 Apr 2005 10:49:33 GMT
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Is there anything close in the Linux/OSS world, or in OpenOffice?
You must be kidding? You never noticed all those little "unix"
commands? They can be used to do accomplish snipped lines. If you
are looking for the same type of technology you could search for
CORBA (since COP was already mentioned), but using the
"commandline" capablilities is much more widespread on "unix".
That's what I expected (knew actually), but that's why I asked: I
wanted to hear a *nix bozo admit it. Nearly 14 years after GUIs
took over the desktop,
Only 14 years?
Well, yes. Windows 3.1 took over the desktop in 1989-91,
by leveraging DOS dominance, if memory serves.
Such is the case.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
One might have to squint a bit. :-) I never did get
around to acquiring a copy of Desqview/X or OS/2, which
IIRC were its prime competitors on the PC desktop at
the time. The Amiga, Atari, and Apple camps had by then
been relegated to the sidelines, which is unfortunate for
all concerned; the Amiga in particular had lots of promise
-- just not with Commodore, as it turned out. Apple was
being criticized for being the "GUI thought police" at
some point in the mid-80's, which probably didn't help.
Their stuff looks reasonably good now, though, compared
to Microsoft Windows, and we'll see what happens later on
if Apple and Linux duke it out. And then there's Duke,
a.k.a. Java's little "applet-man logo"... :-)
I don't remember what happened to Atari offerings like
the 520 and 1040, which were serious contenders for the
game/computer/Amiga market at the time. Atari is now
involved with UT2004, that much I know.
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Linux power is still mainly derived from command-line scripts.
And that is a bad thing why exactly?
Because DFS says so!
Well, I wouldn't say it's a bad thing in all cases. In my case, yes.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
After all, everyone wants to get
caught up in a GUI.
But you see, they do. The focus of nearly all Linux vendors and distros for
the past few years has been on desktop/GUI apps. Without which none of us
would be here talking right now.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Erm, I mean, everyone wants the ease
of use of sliding into one's desktop chair, drooling all
over the keyboard, and then clicking with the mouse and
getting stuck. Um, what I meant to say is ... :-)
Finish the twinkie first...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
There is an advantage to a GUI, if done well: it's
self-documenting. One knows the program's capabilities.
Of course, one could just as easily fire up another
xterm and consult the manpage (or, nowadays, a Webpage).
It's less integrated but is that an issue?
It is, indeed.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Daniel Tryba
Post by DFS
Haven't you guys learned?
That is GUI can be usefull? Yes.
For coordinate point entry I can't think of a better
method, although with some caveats (mostly because I want
it to snap the points into the right place).
But this is MS Office. It's mostly typing anyway.
Into a most-excellent GUI.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
[rest snipped]
Linønut
2005-04-13 02:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Into a most-excellent GUI.
That most-excellent GUI performs like a dog when you have other apps running
hard at the same time. By other apps I mean "COPY".
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
* * * 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 ) * * *
2005-04-12 14:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
The MS Office object libraries expose a variety of objects,
properties and
Post by DFS
methods that let you automate the heck out of Office apps, and create
systems that can offer extreme time-savings.
If you really want to save time (and money!), why not use plain text
document instead of the useless word and powerpoint? Can they even do
anything useful which your text editor cannot?
It's much more easier to do automation in plain text files!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...