Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #955
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 03:13:20 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #955, Volume #2                Mon, 17 Oct 94 03:13:20 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Weakest Linux Box (David E. Fox)
  Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (David E. Fox)
  Re: What is Linux good for? (Daniel Woodard)
  Re: Help getting HP Deskjet 500 to work under Linux (zachary brown)
  Re: Copyright Violations Plague the Net (Hutsel Barry E)
  [INFO WANTED] Memory required for 100 terminals? (Harmon Seaver)
  Re: [INFO WANTED] C/SLIP vs. PPP (Harmon Seaver)
  Re: Linux doesn't like my cache (Sean A. Long)
  Which file to auto-run X programs in? (Jay Ward)
  Word Processors for Linux (John S Walker)
  Re: Fintronic ---> VERY impressive!!! (Marc Fraioli)
  Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (Byron A Jeff)
  Joy of recycling (root)
  Re: Copyright Violations Plague the Net (just another theatre geek)
  Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom (Guess who?)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (David E. Fox)
Subject: Re: Weakest Linux Box
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 19:14:17 GMT

I started out with a 386SX/16, 4 megs RAM, and a Cyrix math coprocessor,
and ran Linux on it quite nicely for sometime. Although I upgraded to 8
megs of RAM sometime ago, I still use a 386SX/16; and since it is my
only machine I do everything on it - news/mail processing, compiling, and
whatever else that I do.

-- 
David Fox                       [email-masked]
5479 Castle Manor Drive
San Jose, CA 95129              Thanks for letting me change
408/253-7992                    magnetic patterns on your hard disk.

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
From: [email-masked] (David E. Fox)
Subject: Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processors for Linux?
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 19:45:47 GMT

Mat Ballard ([email-masked]) wrote:

: more seriously, i'd like to suggest that what is needed, particularly
: to appeal to the average dos/win user, is a series of useful and capable
: applets, in roughly this order of need:

:       0. a very simple editor, like "notepad";

FWIW, notepad becomes rather useless as the user progresses. Perhaps it's
easy, perhaps it's suitable for small changes to files (which happen to be
small, of course) but I wouldn't want to use it. What's wrong with vi? I
know it has a steeper learning curve than does Notepad, but one doesn't
have to learn all of vi's commands at once. And, the number of needed
commands that you need to do most typical edits in vi is probably roughly
the same as those in Notepad.

So, stick with vi. People won't need to relearn when they find out that a
Notepad-like editor can't do the editing that they need.

:       1. a word processor: maybe similar to "write";

ez is quite likely superior to write. Personally I prefer document
formatting programs such as troff/TeX over word processors. The reason is
simple - the editing process (i.e, moving cursor around, deleting &
inserting text etc.) should be divorced from the word processing process
(flushing text, centering, etc.) The reason for this is simple - in my
experience with DOS/Windows, one usually finds nice word processors which
excel in the processing department but are limited in the editing
department.
 
:       2. a spreadsheet: similar to "quattro pro dos";

While 'sc', 'oleo' and 'xspread' are nice, they just don't look as nice as
do the DOS spreadsheets.  I agree with this point mostly for the reason
that I've used DOS spreadsheets so much that touch-typing 123-style
commands is second nature, but not so with things like oleo (although they
do use emacs-style keystrokes for some things, which is a win).

:       3. a paint program: similar to "paintbrush";

xpaint does a rather good job.

:       4. a draw program: something the drawing package in "amipro";
:       5. a pim / calendar: something better than "calendar", but simpler
:          than "organiser";
:       6. a database: like DBase 3;.

There are databases (but not like dbase) for linux such as Postgres. I
don't use them. For most needs, I'm not sure databases are as necessary
under Unix, since you can use all the unix text-processing tools (that are
largely nonexistent under DOS) to manage data.

: they would need to have certain abilities and properties:

:       a. a "common look and feel" (which one ? hell, pick a popular 
:          GUI and copy it; other people have);

Well, there's plenty of that type of thing common in the X-windows world,
such as Athena widgets, Motif, etc.

:       b. ability to read and write the common formats: eg: the word
:          processor must have filters for text, RTF, ps, Word (in as
:          many incarnations as possible), etc; the spreadsheet must do
:          .wk1, .wk3, .xls, etc.

I _hate_ proprietary data formats. Flat ascii is preferable - it's likely
much easier, for instance, to generate a sc-spreadsheet file with filters,
shell scripts, or C than it is to generate something in a DOS spreadsheet
format.

But since this cancer is so prevalent under DOS, some data interchange
format is a necessity. Flat Ascii doesn't cut it usually -- I've had quite
a few problems reading Ascii files into WP for instance.

: Mat Ballard
-- 
David Fox                       [email-masked]
5479 Castle Manor Drive
San Jose, CA 95129              Thanks for letting me change
408/253-7992                    magnetic patterns on your hard disk.

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Daniel Woodard)
Subject: Re: What is Linux good for?
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 23:06:28 GMT

>I "found" the linux news groups yesterday also.  However, I read the
>FAQ and the HOW-TOs before this, my first posting.  I found the FAQ on
>comp.os.linux.announce yesterday.  So they are there.  No excuses for
>not seeing them.  On the other hand, some of you linux advocates may
>want to be a little nicer with potential brethren.  Just a thought.

  How come the FAQ is not even in this newsgroup?  I haven't ever seen 
another newsgroup that keeps the FAQ in another newsgroup, and doesn't even 
post it in their own.

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (zachary brown)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Help getting HP Deskjet 500 to work under Linux
Date: 16 Oct 1994 23:56:27 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Ren B. Bitonio <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Trying to fix the staircase effect of my HP DeskJet 500 printer,
>I modified my printcap with an inclusion of a filter.
>
>However, I got nothing and I got a status saying 
>"waiting for myprinter to become ready (offline?)" but it is online.

GENERAL INFO:
In the Owner's Manual, there should be an appendix with HP PCL Printer
Command Summary, which in turn should have a section under Printer Control,
called Line Termination. The last entry of that section is the relavant one.
It indicates sending, with the escape character represented by Ec,
Ec&k3G
to the printer before printing.

SPECIFICS:
In practice, I have to send that escape sequence every time I bring the
printer online, which is usually every time I turn it on. To be on the safe
side you should have the sequence sent before every print job.

To generate the sequence is easy.

echo -e "\033[&k3G"

is one way

#include <stdio.h>
void main(){
printf("\x01b\x026\x06b\x033\x047");
}

is another.

-ZB-

p.s. read the docs before you post to the net.
Printing-HOWTO section 3.11

>
>Ren
>-- 
>< Ren B. Bitonio ([email-masked], [email-masked], et. al. ) >
>     "On your own admission, you raised up the knife
>      And you brought it down ending another man's life."
>          -- David Gilmour

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Hutsel Barry E)
Crossposted-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc,misc.legal,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Copyright Violations Plague the Net
Date: 17 Oct 1994 04:45:20 GMT

Binesh Bannerjee ([email-masked]) wrote:

: And noone has yet told me any tangible
: way that Paramount is getting hurt... I've heard "potential loss"
: I've heard "it's not the writers final draft" etc. etc, but no real
: way that Paramounts wallet is hurting... Certainly not per EACH
: copy that is made (cause I've heard about the 1% of the population
: who reads the script and says "I ain't paying to see that", which
: if Paramount counts that, they should bring libel suits against
: every reviewer also... Unless people tell me that reviewers all
: have to be registered with Paramount before they do a review.) 

The fact remains that under the copyright legislation Paramont does not 
have to prove any loss.  The original poster of the scipt violated the 
law and any subsequent posters (whether or not they were the ones who 
stole the script) are also in violation.  Paramont's loss is irrelevant.

However, if you do want to consider loss (say for example if Paramont was 
to sue the poster of the script in tort), the amount of loss would only 
be relevant to the amount of damages awarded.  All Paramont would have to 
prove to be awarded judgment would be some loss.  All it would have to 
prove is that one person who might have purchased the script or bought a 
ticket to the movie did not do so because of the unauthorized 
publication.  AND, I think even YOU would have to agree that this would 
be an easy thing for Paramont to do (I dare say that it might be the law 
that Paramont would only have to prove potential loss, but I'm not 
certain on that point and therefore do not assert it here).

Hope this helps....

--Barry

=============================   
Barry E. Hutsel                  O___    
2-542 Frontenac                  _.>/ _
Kingston, Ont.                  (_) \(_) ................
K7K 4M2
ph (613) 531-8819       "... I'd rather be on the road."
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Harmon Seaver)
Subject: [INFO WANTED] Memory required for 100 terminals?
Date: 16 Oct 1994 07:34:40 -0600
Reply-To: [email-masked]

    I'm doing a class project to try to convince various grade and high
 school officials that they would be much smarter to buy a 586 and 100
 dumb terminals and run Linux/Xwindows/Motif than buying 100 macs. Or even
 just running Linux in text mode, since mostly what school computers are
 used for is just word processing anyway, and have a few macs or whatever
 for the other stuff. 
    So here's my question: How much RAM and how much swap space does a 586
 need (or a 486 even) to run 100 terminals, either in text mode or Xwin
 mode?  And can I even run Xwin on dumb terminals? Also, does anyone know
 of any good cheap vga res terminals w/color? Last time I looked, a few
 years ago, the cheapest was about $800. Also, what would you use for 
 ports for that many terminals?
 
 Thanx.

Harmon Seaver 
[email-masked]

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> "The Way of the Samurai is death." - Jocho Yamamoto 1710  Hagakure <>
<> "Let no man's life stand in the way -- especially your own."       <>
<>                                       Miyamoto Musashi 1584-1645   <>
<> "The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here <>
<> and you are out there."                           Yasutani Roshi   <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Harmon Seaver)
Subject: Re: [INFO WANTED] C/SLIP vs. PPP
Date: 16 Oct 1994 07:34:43 -0600
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:
>      Harmon Seaver wrote in article <[email-masked]> :
> >
> >   I'm doing a class project to try to convince various grade and high
> >school officials that they would be much smarter to buy a 586 and 100
> >dumb terminals and run Linux/Xwindows/Motif than buying 100 macs. Or even
> >just running Linux in text mode, since mostly what school computers are
> >used for is just word processing anyway, and have a few macs or whatever
> >for the other stuff. 

  (Stuff deleted)

>       Personally, if they have the money, I think their solution with
> 100 Macs is a better idea.  Linux and Xwindows aren't particularly friendly
> for novice users.  They'd probably be far more productive with the Macs.

    You've got to be kidding! Number One -- a hundred Macs is a 1/4 
million dollars. The problem is that -- if you haven't noticed -- the
school systems in this country are broke. They need new solutions,
and real quick. 
> 
>       Mind you, personally I don't like Macs, and much prefer the Unix
> style environment... but I don't deceive myself into thinking it's the
> right environment for everyone.

     Number Two -- you obviously are very new to the unix
world. If you take a look around, you will find that 90% of unix end
users are clueless computer illiterates -- secretaries, file clerks, and 
people using the computerized card catalog at college and public libraries.
You only need one person to administer the system --- the users just
do word processing, databasing, etc from a menu.

Harmon Seaver 
[email-masked]

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> "The Way of the Samurai is death." - Jocho Yamamoto 1710  Hagakure <>
<> "Let no man's life stand in the way -- especially your own."       <>
<>                                       Miyamoto Musashi 1584-1645   <>
<> "The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here <>
<> and you are out there."                           Yasutani Roshi   <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Sean A. Long)
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't like my cache
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 18:58:56 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (David Flood) writes:
>>Try increasing the cache read/write wait states...  I have a similiar 
setup >>and at 33 Mhz, works nicely but at 40Mhz, get errors compiling and 
random >>other little faults which eventually hose something important and 
the >>machine dies a rather entertaining death...

>Well, the default is write is 1.  When I try 2, lilo bombs with a crc error
>during uncompress.  The only other availible setting is 0.  The only read
>setting is one called 'Cache Read Cycle'.  It is set to 2-1-1-1 and can be
>set to 3-2-2-2 or 2-2-2-2.  I'll try the others with a 1 write setting and
>get back to you.

Me again... I upgraded my 386dx33 to a 486dlc40, simple chip swap since my 
MB directly supports the chip.  Well, 70ns main memory appears to be a bit 
slow, while my 20ns cache works fine at 40 with no wait states.  After 
trying bunches of stuff, it turns out that I NEED 1 read and write wait 
state on main memory, but no wait states on cache.  I had thought that 70ns 
memory was good up to 40 mhz, but I guess 60 is REALLY required.  I tested 
this by (grin) compiling the kernel over and over.  If it compiled, the 
combo worked.  If it bombed (usually late in "make dep" or early in "make 
zlilo", I needed to change something.  Got to try on a lot of kernels that 
way... got compiles down to around 40 min thou... (486DLC/8meg ram).

Good luck finding problem.

-=>Sean Long

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Jay Ward)
Subject: Which file to auto-run X programs in?
Date: 16 Oct 1994 21:39:18 -0700

Hi folks!

  I'm trying to start up some programs (xclock, xbiff, etc.) when X
starts, but everything in my .xsession is being ignored.  Does fvwm
use some other file in my home dir to load from?  I've modified the
system.fvwmrc in /usr/X11/lib/X11, but that's just for menus, colors,
etc. right?

-- 
          ||  Jay Ward || [email-masked]  || 
          ||=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-||
          ||        Portland State University       ||
          ||            Portland, Oregon            ||

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (John S Walker)
Subject: Word Processors for Linux
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 17:47:54 GMT

Just thought I'd throw my two cents worth into the fray.

Does anybody remember a word processor put out by Lotus in the mid '80s
called `Manuscript'.  It was a damn good processor with an emphasis on
structured documents like academic papers.  It followed the same trend
as LateX by using logical formatting rather than a WYSIWYG interface.
It also had an integrated outline processor that makes all the other
outliners look weak (even now).  It had an equation language somewhat 
similar to TeX and could produce excellent output.  It had a page preview
function which gave a reasonable but not excellent indication of how the
final document would look. It could import graphics and produce post-
script output.  In short it was a high-end wordprocessor with
all the bells and whistles PC users had come to expect.

The program was dropped by Lotus when AmiPro was aquired.
I'm no programmer, but it might be worth tracking down whatever happened
to the source code to see if it could be ported to Linux.
If it could be ported over It would come close to serving
everybody's needs; a text based interface that could be used
over a modem, a page previewer that could run under VGA mode
or in an X-window.  Until someone with a lot more programming
capability than I come up with `Manuscript for Linux'  I'll just 
have to content myself with running it in DOSEMU and printing the 
postscript files using aps.

Just a thought!  ;-)

John Walker
Dept of Physiology
University of Virginia

`A total Newbie to Linux, and loving it!'

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Fintronic ---> VERY impressive!!!
Date: 14 Oct 1994 22:31:06 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In article [email-masked],  [email-masked] (Dan Pop) writes:
>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>>Wow, for that money you're in low-end RISC territory.  You can get entry
>>level RISC boxes from Sun, HP, or IBM for less than that, all with 16MB
>>RAM and at least 16" color monitors.  True, they have smaller disks (Sun
>>gives you a 535, IBM a 260, not sure about HP) and no tape, but you
>                                            ^^ -- it's 260, too.
>>get a _much_ faster CPU.  Of course, they don't include source to their
>>OSes either...
>
>Have you ever tried to work on one of these entry level workstations?

Yes, a SPARC 5/70MHz, running SunOS 4.1.3.

>They're severely underconfigured, especially as far as disks and memory
>are concerned, which means that they swap madly when you try to do
>anything. And a system with a 260 MB disk can be used only in a network,
>where almost everything is stored on a remote file server. You can't fit
>the full OS and a decent swap partition on such a disk, don't even think
>of users home directories.  The graphics hardware (adaptor and monitor)
>usually sucks, too.
>
I found the SS5 to be pretty good.  True, it swapped, but it was fast
enough that it didn't seem to matter much.  Doing the basic editing,
compiling, word processing and e-mailing that I do, the 5/70 with
16MB of RAM was faster than the SPARC 10 Model 30 with 32MB RAM that
I had sitting next to it.  I considered it a pretty good machine.

>When you start considering adding another 16 MB RAM (a must) a decent
>disk and a better display (if you want better resolution you usually
>have to add some video memory, too), you find out that the price of the
>system has doubled (at least).
>
Again, I didn't find the 16MB too bad, although I only used the system
for two weeks.  The disk would be a little tight, I agree, if I didn't
have my home directory and apps NFS-mounted (but I did, so I had some
200MB of empty space on that 535 disk).

>Compare this with a pretty well configured PC, that works like a 
>charm with a nice OS. I won't hesitate a single moment if I had to make
>a choice between a PC and a workstation having the same price. The 
>workstation could be a winner only if all you have to do is number
>crunching. But even in this field, a P90 system beats most entry level
>workstations (especially Sun's):
>
>MACHINES               MHz SPECint92 SPECfp92
>
>SUN/SPARC/5/70         70  57        47.3 
>SUN/SPARC/5/85         85  64        54.6
>SGI/INDY/R4000SC      100  57.5      63
>IBM/RISC/6000/250      66  62.6      72.2 
>DEC/3000/300LX        125  63.5      75.5
>HP/712/60              60  58.1      79        
>
>Pentium                66  64        57  
>Pentium                90  86        77 
>
These numbers are fine, but keep in mind that the system under discussion
was a 486/66 which cost $4100 (pretty well decked out).  To make that machine
a Pentium would have bumped it up some more, possibly into the next price
class of RISC machines.

---
Marc Fraioli          | "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist- " 
[email-masked]         |    - Last words of Union General John Sedgwick,
                      |    Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, U.S. Civil War

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processors for Linux?
Date: 16 Oct 1994 22:32:14 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
David E. Fox <[email-masked]> wrote:
-Mat Ballard ([email-masked]) wrote:
-
-: more seriously, i'd like to suggest that what is needed, particularly
-: to appeal to the average dos/win user, is a series of useful and capable
-: applets, in roughly this order of need:
-
-:      0. a very simple editor, like "notepad";
-
-FWIW, notepad becomes rather useless as the user progresses. Perhaps it's
-easy, perhaps it's suitable for small changes to files (which happen to be
-small, of course) but I wouldn't want to use it. 

-What's wrong with vi? 

Um the first word I think of when vi comes up is "brain-damaged". vi simply
didn't have the advantage of the human interaction research or the
benefit of other full-screen editors to get ideas from. But honestly it's
the most counter intuitive piece of software ever developed.

BTW I still use it everyday and can run it as effortlessly as I drive my
car. However I'd never ever ever recommed that someone learn it. JED, Joe
and emacs are all infintely better.

-
-:      1. a word processor: maybe similar to "write";
-
-ez is quite likely superior to write. 

True.

-Personally I prefer document
-formatting programs such as troff/TeX over word processors. The reason is
-simple - the editing process (i.e, moving cursor around, deleting &
-inserting text etc.) should be divorced from the word processing process
-(flushing text, centering, etc.) The reason for this is simple - in my
-experience with DOS/Windows, one usually finds nice word processors which
-excel in the processing department but are limited in the editing
-department.

That doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact is that most of the
users of a wordprocessor expect wordprocessors to work the same way.
So a wordprocessor is needed.

More importantly a wordprocessor that functions using standard tools like
terminals, consoles, modems, telnetting, and the like because there are
a bunch of situations where these are the only tools available.

- 
-:      2. a spreadsheet: similar to "quattro pro dos";
-
-While 'sc', 'oleo' and 'xspread' are nice, they just don't look as nice as
-do the DOS spreadsheets.  I agree with this point mostly for the reason
-that I've used DOS spreadsheets so much that touch-typing 123-style
-commands is second nature, but not so with things like oleo (although they
-do use emacs-style keystrokes for some things, which is a win).

I think Linux is fine in this area.

-
-:      3. a paint program: similar to "paintbrush";
-
-xpaint does a rather good job.

Agreed.

-:      6. a database: like DBase 3;.
-
-There are databases (but not like dbase) for linux such as Postgres. I
-don't use them. For most needs, I'm not sure databases are as necessary
-under Unix, since you can use all the unix text-processing tools (that are
-largely nonexistent under DOS) to manage data.
-
-: they would need to have certain abilities and properties:
-
-:      a. a "common look and feel" (which one ? hell, pick a popular 
-:         GUI and copy it; other people have);
-
-Well, there's plenty of that type of thing common in the X-windows world,
-such as Athena widgets, Motif, etc.
-
-:      b. ability to read and write the common formats: eg: the word
-:         processor must have filters for text, RTF, ps, Word (in as
-:         many incarnations as possible), etc; the spreadsheet must do
-:         .wk1, .wk3, .xls, etc.
-
-I _hate_ proprietary data formats. Flat ascii is preferable - it's likely
-much easier, for instance, to generate a sc-spreadsheet file with filters,
-shell scripts, or C than it is to generate something in a DOS spreadsheet
-format.

Agreed. In fact propritary data formats foremost purpose is to make it
difficult for other folks to duplicate tools that manage those files. And
that is exactly what we want here. ASCII is definitely the way to go.

-
-But since this cancer is so prevalent under DOS, some data interchange
-format is a necessity. Flat Ascii doesn't cut it usually -- I've had quite
-a few problems reading Ascii files into WP for instance.

YUP. We need converters.

Later,

BAJ
-- 
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: [email-masked]

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (root)
Subject: Joy of recycling
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 02:44:04 GMT

I bought a big box of used floppies from an ad on the net for 5 cents
apiece.  Some of them are factory labeled "Microsoft Windows
Operating Environment."  (This was in the days before uSoft had the
audacity to call its kludge an OS.)  It gives me great pleasure to

  mke2fs -c -m0 /dev/fd1h1200 1200

and make these units useful again.

Cameron

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (just another theatre geek)
Crossposted-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc,misc.legal,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Copyright Violations Plague the Net
Date: 17 Oct 1994 06:11:13 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Binesh Bannerjee <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Gina Goff ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: I'm following the perhaps conservative but undoubtedly safe assumption
>                                                              ^^^
>: that Paramount may have a legal basis for their objections.  You, Binesh,
>: are the one who's so convinced no further damage can be done by continuing
>: to circulate the script.  Until you call someone at the legal department at
>: Paramount and convince them you're right, I'll continue to believe that you're
>: just talking out your ass.
>                        ^^^
>
>(We all know what happens when you make assumptions)

        Yes, which makes wonder why you continue to spout your drivel.

        There aint no assumption about it; Paramount DEFINITELY has a 
legal standing to protect there copyright.

>Well, I'm not the one making assumptions about an incremental damage
>that may or may not exist, in the absence of any evidence that it
>does (by your own admission).

        Irrelevant. (You love to attend to irrelevancies, don't you).

>I can't see any proof for incremental damage, despite your fervent
>FAITH that there is such a thing.

        This is simply because you have no WISH to see any.

-- 
Roger Tang, [email-masked], Artistic Director  PC Theatre

        The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Guess who?)
Subject: Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 01:48:55 GMT

Jeff Kesselman ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>, Ken Sorensen <ksore@atr-14> wrote:
: >Thomas Gschwind ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >: Sujat Jamil ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >: : I'd really like to know why does Linux DOOM run significantly slower
: >: : on Linux than it does on DOS for the same machine.  Is it because it
: >: : has to go through multiple layers of X and Linux?  I've also played it
: >: : on a SGI workstation, where it is reasonably fast.  Of course, the
: >: : machine also had a 150 MHz MIPS processor.  Is there any way to
: >: : make doom run faster on Linux besides getting a faster machine?

One thing I've noticed--
It runs a HELUVA lot faster in XFree3.1 than it did in previous versions...

--
#------------------------------------------------------------------------#
|  //\\  Jim McPherson         | [email-masked]     | 
| <<  >> Business Manger, WEXP | [email-masked]   |
|  \\//  IDC Rep., Palmer 3rd. | [email-masked]          |
#>----------------------------------------------------------------------<#
|               "Insanity is necessary for understanding."               |
#>----------------------------------------------------------------------<#
| GCS/MU d?>! H-() s+:++ g-(+)>! p1+ !au>- a-- w+ v(-)(?)@>--- C++(+++)  |
|       UL++++S+U+X(-) P? L++>+++ 3- E- N(-) K- W(---)>! M-- V-(--)      |
|       -po+ Y+ t+ !5 j R(+) G'''>'''' !tv() b+ D+ B-- e+(++)>+++        |
|       u(-)(**) h()@ f+@ r++ n- y+(**)                                  |
#------------------------------------------------------------------------#

------------------------------

** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:

    Internet: [email-masked]

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:

    Internet: [email-masked]

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
    nic.funet.fi				pub/OS/Linux
    tsx-11.mit.edu				pub/linux
    sunsite.unc.edu				pub/Linux

End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************