Text 3808, 157 rader
Skriven 2005-10-14 00:27:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MAURICE KINAL
Ärende: software for linspire
=============================

123c7d912252
linux



Hello Maurice - 

CA>> I'm not using any graphics software on a daily or even
CA>> weekly basis which means I'm not the one to make
CA>> recommendations. 

MK> Same here but nobody else was so I took the liberty of
MK> throwing one into the ring and see what happened. I also
MK> threw in observations that I think are valid. 

I can't disagree with anything you've said re:GIMP so far. 

CA>> I'm sure there are accomodations that the GIMP people
CA>> could make for those who are more 'into' graphics than I
CA>> am. 

MK> Me too. 

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

MK> That I wouldn't know. Anyhow, from the end results I have
MK> seen, gimp looked to do a very good job. My cousin was
MK> impressed with what he could do with it and kept it
MK> installed after jumping through the required hoops. Perhaps
MK> his experiences with Linux made it easier for him to adapt
MK> to it on XP. I'll have to ask him. 

I was reading about a scripting language resembling LISP that
can write filters for AUDACITY and it seemed to imply there is
something much the same for GIMP (I wasn't aware of either). 

CA>> The article I read describing their hardware and software
CA>> made it sound as though they 'kludge' whatever they feel
CA>> will work together and don't worry about it much. 

MK> Hm. Interesting. 

Gutsy if nothing else. :-) 

CA>> When they get stuck they write their own graphics routines
CA>> and continue on. A hackers heaven considering they cobble
CA>> very expensive equipment together. :-) 

MK> Hm again. Very interesting. I think a visit to their lab
MK> might be a very good idea. I wonder if Lucas would offer us
MK> a free ride there to give it our seal of approval. :-) 

Not for me, maybe for you. ;-) 

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

MK> Sure they do. You just have to know how to talk to them. 

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

MK> The good stuff. 

Could you elaborate a bit on 'good stuff'? 

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

MK> They are only a problem if you let them win. 

I've outlived most of them, time is working on the others as we
type. 

--8<--cut 

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

MK> I am not so sure about that. I think a suitable method
MK> could be easily hacked together. 

As I've suggested I think a semaphore file to initiate the
compilation of a QWK packet for me to FTP (download) would be
sufficient. 

MK> The thing I disagree on with you is formatting and not the
MK> method of exchanging messages, other then zmodem. That will
MK> never fly since you aren't local and even if you were I
MK> doubt zmodem would be the way we did things anyhow. I see
MK> absolutely no good reason for zmodem these days and
MK> expecially not in a situation where a dialup modem isn't
MK> being employed. Heck even if it was I doubt I'd worry about
MK> zmodem. 

I keep re-stating that zmodem is one of the best of the
_existing_ protocols utilized by the majority of FIDO BBS. I
never said it was the best protocol, only best of what's
already out there. 

MK> What the heck for?!?!?!?! Man! You are old aren't you? ;-) 

Unfortunately, yes I am and getting older by the minute. 

--8<--cut 

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

MK> Which is why I thought raw pkt's would be the way to go,
MK> even with offlining, since a Fido node is required to
MK> support that format. 'Lose it or use it' sort of dealie.
MK> Also that might prompt everyone to either change that
MK> format to something more universal or adapt to it ... or
MK> both. Perhaps that could also lead to the creation of
MK> better apps for Fido. That wouldn't hurt my feelings any. 

When 'campaigning' for a new offline packet format for FIDO I
found that most experienced FIDO software authors are either
long gone or embittered to a point where they refuse to
co-operate with any 'plan' that might make their original works
obsolete. 

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

MK> Bully for them. It isn't a requirement. 

Nope, it's not a requirement but regardless most do offer QWK.

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

MK> Works for me. Nobody here has QWK editors. :-) 

Downloading ATP source/binaries gives anyone a QWK offline
editor (or MultiMail). 

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

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