Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.vintage > #1690 > unrolled thread

Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.vintage

Contents

  Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole) - 2026-06-19 18:42 +0100
    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon JJenssen <joemajen@arcor.de> - 2026-06-20 12:30 +0200
      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole) - 2026-06-20 13:10 +0100
        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-20 14:42 +0100
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon JJenssen <joemajen@arcor.de> - 2026-06-21 07:51 +0200
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-21 09:35 +0200
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-21 10:29 +0100
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-21 18:10 +0000
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-22 10:16 +1200
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-22 08:13 +0200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-22 10:26 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-22 14:03 +0000
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-22 17:25 +0100
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-22 20:51 +0000
                          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-23 04:22 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-22 17:07 +0000
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-22 20:47 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-23 10:49 +1200
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 01:30 +0000
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-24 12:07 +0200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 11:41 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-24 18:42 +0000
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-24 19:42 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 13:25 -0700
                          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:39 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 21:53 +0100
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-25 01:30 +0000
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 08:29 -0700
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 16:36 +0100
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-24 17:33 +0000
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:13 +0000
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-25 11:26 +0200
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 23:21 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-26 10:55 +0200
                          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-26 10:41 +0100
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-06-24 21:38 +0000
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:12 +0000
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole) - 2026-06-21 14:21 +0100
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-21 17:28 +0100
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-21 18:56 +0200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 17:38 +0000
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-21 23:36 +0000
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-21 18:15 +0000
    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 01:24 +0000
      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-24 17:35 +1200
        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-24 07:45 +0200
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 11:36 +0100
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 09:35 +1200
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:17 +0000
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 18:24 +1200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-25 10:19 +0100
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-26 01:59 +0000
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:50 +0000
                Retroconning closed-source proprietary software, and wiping the rest (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-25 07:12 +0100
                  Re: Retroconning closed-source proprietary software, and wiping the rest (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 18:32 +1200
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 18:27 +1200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 06:50 +0000
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 19:41 +1200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-25 11:37 +0200
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-25 18:19 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-26 10:01 +0100
              """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-25 06:55 +0100
                Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 18:34 +1200
                  Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-26 01:57 +0000
                    Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-26 18:23 +1200
                      Re: """Standard""" software Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-26 09:37 +0100
                        Re: """Standard""" software Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-27 11:00 +1200
                          Re: """Standard""" software Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-28 08:02 +0100
                    Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-26 18:03 +0000
                      Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:23 -0700
                        Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-27 11:09 +1200
                          Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 18:22 +0000
                            Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-27 19:42 +0000
                            Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-28 10:46 +1200
                            Re: “Standard” software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-27 23:03 +0000
                              Re: “Standard” software c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-28 04:13 -0400
                      Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-27 00:10 +0000
                        Can be trusted... (Was: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and) Linux Mint Cinnamon) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-27 12:53 +0000
                        Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 18:22 +0000
                          Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-27 19:36 +0000
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-06-25 15:44 +0000
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 08:01 -0700
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 16:34 +0100
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-06-25 15:49 +0000
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-24 18:16 +0000
      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-06-24 17:15 +0200
        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:14 +0000
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-06-25 18:32 +0200
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 23:22 +0000
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-06-25 23:40 +0000
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-26 09:09 +0100
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-26 18:03 +0000
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-27 00:26 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-27 15:52 +1200
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-27 04:12 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-27 09:41 +0100
                          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 18:22 +0000
                            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-27 19:57 +0000
                            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-28 10:35 +1200
                              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-28 00:13 +0100

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#1765

On 2026-06-25, Carlos E. R. wrote:

[...]

> Unix with a big layer on top that is not Unix.
>
> Is the graphic layer Unix? Do those companies that sell software for
> macOS expect that particular graphical layer, or do they run directly
> on the Unix beneath?

[ Ariana Richards / Lex enters the room ]

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1741 — """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On 2026-06-24, Your Name wrote:

> On 2026-06-24 10:36:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:
>> On 24/06/2026 06:45, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>> Technically, you've got that almost-backwards.
>>>>
>>>> Linux is a "Unix-like" operating system. MacOS X is built on Darwin
>>>> derived from BSD, which is also another Unix-like operating system.
>>>> Although neither is true Unix, MacOS X is certified by Unix, while
>>>> Linux is not ... so legally MacOS X can call itself Unix and Linux
>>>> cannot.  
>>>
>>> Noone cares about the brand any more.
>>
>> Exactly,. we have and operating system that works pretty well
>> available for free across many hardware platforms. With a cute
>> little mascot.
>>
>> Let's call it the Penguin Operating System (POS) and have done with it :-)
>
> "PoS" is definitely he correct term for the numerous different Linux
> varities. None of the standard software runs on it for a start - no
> Adobe, no Microsoft, etc., so if you need to use any of those to be
> fully compatible ("alternatives" are never fully compatible, despite
> what they like to claim), then you need to use a proper operating
> system: MacOS X.

And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"? The utilities
available in UNIX MacOS under GNU/Linux and on BSDs are more "standard
software"[1] than whatever commercial closed-source product Microsoft
comes up with. As for Adobe, if anything they have Postscript and PDF,
but I don't think they've managed to make usable PDF software for UNIX
systems (a heavy acroread certainly won't count as such), and Postscript
has had at least Ghostscript for ages. And, if they did manage to make
something usable, it'd probably be closed-source and with a bunch of
features locked without a paid license.

Were it still in wider use, Shockwave Flash, which they acquired at some
point, could perhaps be better supported by improving Gnash and
Lightspark, as Adobe's own software for it wasn't - IIRC - known for its
quality and performance. Or was the quality part more rumour than
reality?


[1] cf. ISO 9945:2009 / IEEE 1003.1:2008 Vol 1 §3.361, and the whole of
    Vol 3.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1746 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
> On 2026-06-24, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2026-06-24 10:36:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:
>>> On 24/06/2026 06:45, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>>> Technically, you've got that almost-backwards.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Linux is a "Unix-like" operating system. MacOS X is built on Darwin
>>>>> derived from BSD, which is also another Unix-like operating system.
>>>>> Although neither is true Unix, MacOS X is certified by Unix, while
>>>>> Linux is not ... so legally MacOS X can call itself Unix and Linux
>>>>> cannot.
>>>> 
>>>> Noone cares about the brand any more.
>>> 
>>> Exactly,. we have and operating system that works pretty well available 
>>> for free across many hardware platforms. With a cute little mascot.
>>> 
>>> Let's call it the Penguin Operating System (POS) and have done with it :-)
>> 
>> "PoS" is definitely he correct term for the numerous different Linux 
>> varities. None of the standard software runs on it for a start - no 
>> Adobe, no Microsoft, etc., so if you need to use any of those to be 
>> fully compatible ("alternatives" are never fully compatible, despite 
>> what they like to claim), then you need to use a proper operating 
>> system: MacOS X.
> 
> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
<snip>

Most of the business world did years ago ... believe me, I wish it wasn't so!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1759 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:34:01 +1200, Your Name wrote:

> On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>
>> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
> <snip>
>
> Most of the business world did years ago ...

Is this the same “business world” that has largely moved its
operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated by
Linux?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1761 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On 2026-06-26 01:57:11 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:34:01 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>> 
>>> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
>> <snip>
>> 
>> Most of the business world did years ago ...
> 
> Is this the same “business world” that has largely moved its
> operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated by
> Linux?

I think you need to get out into the real world more often, rather than 
sitting in your own deluisonal little room by yourself.  :-\

Another idiot added to the killfile.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1763 — Re: """Standard""" software

On 2026-06-26, Your Name wrote:

> On 2026-06-26 01:57:11 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:34:01 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>>>
>>>> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Most of the business world did years ago ...
>>
>> Is this the same “business world” that has largely moved its
>> operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated by
>> Linux?
>
> I think you need to get out into the real world more often, rather
> than sitting in your own deluisonal little room by yourself.  :-\
>
> Another idiot added to the killfile.

I think relativism from your part would improve matters too. It's not
even a de facto standard the way you stated it, the business world is
not synonymous with reality, and it may also have parts which blur the
distinction between reality and beliefs (where corporate decisionmakers
put money in what they think reality is, out of some belief).

Just for one example: the tech world pretty much has as a sort of
guideline, if not "standard", that you don't top-post and you don't
destroy threading (by properly maintaining and extending References and
In-Reply-To), and that you clearly denote quoted material with a quoting
level indicator on the left side. But some on the corporate world think
differently, and at least one company (MICROS~1) has tried to push hard
their own incompatible and problematic approach to e-mail, possibly
arising out of some metaphor with paper documents flowing in an
office. That Microsoft chose to go with that doesn't make it a standard,
even though the disease (I'd avoid this wording, except this is about
top-posting and lack of quoting levels and mangling references, so I'll
go with "disease") spreads because of them.

Heck, the tech world even has a solution to make plain text e-mails
reflowable.

The business world also includes companies who know better than using
Microsoft products and services (again, I'd use another wording, but
Microsoft has actively done so much damage...)


What follows is in case somebody thinks I'm exaggerating about
Microsoft, and regards the above as, I don't know, "fanboyism"...; Also,
in case somebody needs to be aware of these things:

Bill Gates wants to introduce hardware incompatibilities using ACPI:
<http://web.archive.org/web/1if_/http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf>

Microsoft's FUD:
<https://enwp.org/Halloween_papers#List_of_documents>

So you want to do e-mail with Microsoft? If your server doesn't send a
lot of e-mail, it might get blocked (yes, you read that right, you may
have to spam more, not less).

<news://news.gmane.io/YyGtAsSxjpA0Ky4+@lazarescu.org>
<http://web.archive.org/web/20210225102644/https://guides.downstate.edu/c.php?g=654922&p=4870487>

Some messages will be sent to Quarantine, which users may have not heard
about. And I'm not even sure SmartScreen won't possibly just drop
messages completely without sending to Quarantine.

<http://web.archive.org/web/20210225102644/https://guides.downstate.edu/c.php?g=654922&p=4870487>
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/357214/emails-to-microsoft-365-customers-are-silently-dro>
<https://www.nerd-quickies.net/2020/10/20/microsoft-silently-dropping-emails-a-sad-but-true-story/>

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1770 — Re: """Standard""" software

On 2026-06-26 08:37:41 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
> On 2026-06-26, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2026-06-26 01:57:11 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:34:01 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>>> On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>>>> 
>>>>> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>> Most of the business world did years ago ...
>>> 
>>> Is this the same "business world" that has largely moved its operations 
>>> into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated by Linux?
>> 
>> I think you need to get out into the real world more often, rather than 
>> sitting in your own deluisonal little room by yourself.  :-\
>> 
>> Another idiot added to the killfile.
> 
> I think relativism from your part would improve matters too. It's not 
> even a de facto standard the way you stated it,

The majority of businesses in the world use Microsloth Windoze (about 
60%-66%*) and Microsloth Ofiice (about 82% in 2017*)... they *are* 
basically the standard and have been for decades now. It may be slowly 
beginning to change.

* That figure is for those using the lastest versions Windowze 10 and 11,
  so doesn't include all those still using older versions.

* A very quick search doesn't turn up more up-to-date figures for Microsloth
  Office, only for the online Office 365 version, which doesn't include
  offline users. In terms of just online office apps, Google currently has
  the most users.



> the business world is not synonymous with reality, and it may also have 
> parts which blur the distinction between reality and beliefs (where 
> corporate decisionmakers put money in what they think reality is, out 
> of some belief).
> 
> Just for one example: the tech world pretty much has as a sort of 
> guideline, if not "standard", that you don't top-post and you don't 
> destroy threading (by properly maintaining and extending References and 
> In-Reply-To), and that you clearly denote quoted material with a 
> quoting level indicator on the left side. But some on the corporate 
> world think differently, and at least one company (MICROS~1) has tried 
> to push hard their own incompatible and problematic approach to e-mail, 
> possibly arising out of some metaphor with paper documents flowing in 
> an office. That Microsoft chose to go with that doesn't make it a 
> standard, even though the disease (I'd avoid this wording, except this 
> is about top-posting and lack of quoting levels and mangling 
> references, so I'll go with "disease") spreads because of them.

Microsoloth always tries to push their own stupid ideas as the tech 
standard. Some "succeed" simply due to the scale of their user base, 
others fail miserbaly.

Probably the best known example was Microsloth Exploiter that pushed 
its own way of doing things to the point that website makers had to use 
a variety of techniques try to accomodate two different options, 
depending on which browser you were using. Those that simply went with 
Exploiter's way caused compatibility issues for people using other web 
browsers. This was usually most evident with government websites where 
they never bothered to test things on any other browser or OS.

In fact, one charity company I worked for had to file monthly reports 
to their main funder via a website system. They used Apple computers 
and none of the web browsers would work properly with the website 
report system (including Mac Exploiter). The only option was for them 
to get a Windoze PC with Exploiter solely to do the monthly reports.

Such issues do still come up from time to time, especially with 
government websites, but mainly if you're still using older versions of 
web broswers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1788 — Re: """Standard""" software

On 2026-06-27, Your Name wrote:

> On 2026-06-26 08:37:41 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:34:01 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the business world did years ago ...
[...]
>> I think relativism from your part would improve matters too. It's
>> not even a de facto standard the way you stated it,
>
> The majority of businesses in the world use Microsloth Windoze (about
> 60%-66%*) and Microsloth Ofiice (about 82% in 2017*)... they *are*
> basically the standard and have been for decades now. It may be slowly
> beginning to change.
>
> * That figure is for those using the lastest versions Windowze 10 and 11,
>  so doesn't include all those still using older versions.
>
> * A very quick search doesn't turn up more up-to-date figures for Microsloth
>  Office, only for the online Office 365 version, which doesn't include
>  offline users. In terms of just online office apps, Google currently has
>  the most users.

And Google Docs isn't exactly that good. I kept hitting "why doesn't it
have $BASIC_FEATURE_OOo_HAD_FOR_YEARS_BEFORE?", and the version control
being automatic is a bit too useless. For people who don't want to
bother with it? Maybe it's ok. But if I'm aware of it, I may want to
group the changes under a descriptive label, and make separate labels
for separate sets of changes.

You know what's funny? Even if it misses one feature or another, it has
Wordart. (Or at least had last I checked.)

Overall, besides WYSIWYG not being my thing, (La)TeX is just much easier
to version-control. And can be written using a text editor running on a
video terminal.

But hey, at least Google Docs isn't Microsoft Office, and at least some
of the links to the document have a somewhat parsable form that can be
used to create the download/export URL. (So if your browser does not run
Google Docs, or the computer is not powerful enough, you can instead
download a PDF, if all you need is to read the document, or I guess
download a format for editing - although that's not something I've done
with that, I think it's possible too.)

> Probably the best known example was Microsloth Exploiter that pushed
> its own way of doing things to the point that website makers had to
> use a variety of techniques try to accomodate two different options,
> depending on which browser you were using. Those that simply went with
> Exploiter's way caused compatibility issues for people using other web
> browsers. This was usually most evident with government websites where
> they never bothered to test things on any other browser or OS.
>
> In fact, one charity company I worked for had to file monthly reports
> to their main funder via a website system. They used Apple computers
> and none of the web browsers would work properly with the website
> report system (including Mac Exploiter). The only option was for them
> to get a Windoze PC with Exploiter solely to do the monthly reports.
>
> Such issues do still come up from time to time, especially with
> government websites, but mainly if you're still using older versions
> of web broswers.

No, these days is "if you're using any but a few select browsers", not
"older versions". Be it because of JS or CSS features, be it because
they use some service like Cloudflare that should have no place in
government websites.

(I do wonder if Cloudflare has been intentionally trying to bring along
the better reputation of Browser Integrity Check (which, other than
coding errors on Cloudflare's behalf, including at least one massive
self-DDoS (falling back to step 0 if a subsequent HTTP request lacked
Origin:, with no or little timeout), had plenty of fallbacks to support
more browsers) to the new verification system based on "Turnstile"
(which is designed to support a few listed browsers).)

(Google's reCAPTCHA isn't that much better. It still works on SeaMonkey,
but not thanks to Google who found it fitting to tell me to ask on
StackOverflow for a problem with *Google's* code. That's on top of the
Google issue tracker for reCAPTCHA having a not-so-little issue that
makes it more difficult to report issues with reCAPTCHA... (guess what
the issue is))

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1767 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On 2026-06-26, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:34:01 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>
>> On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>
>>> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
>> <snip>
>>
>> Most of the business world did years ago ...
>
> Is this the same “business world” that has largely moved its
> operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated
> by Linux?

Shhhhh... don't say that too loudly.  Bill might not like it.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  They don't understand Microsoft
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  has stolen their car and parked
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  a taxi in their driveway.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Mayayana

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1769 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:03:12 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> > Is this the same “business world” that has largely moved its
> > operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated
> > by Linux?  
> 
> Shhhhh... don't say that too loudly.  Bill might not like it.

Are you kidding? M$ makes *bank* on Office 365, whether it's running as
a bloated Web app or a bloated native executable. *Herds* of CEOs who
validate themselves by cutting checks for stuff they'll never have to
use have been inflicting this on their workers for like a decade now.
Satya could probably not give less of a shit whether he's getting paid
$xxx/mo. a head for that on Chromium/Linux or Edge/Win11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1771 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On 2026-06-26 19:23:53 +0000, John Ames said:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:03:12 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is this the same "business world" that has largely moved its
>>> operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated
>>> by Linux?
>> 
>> Shhhhh... don't say that too loudly.  Bill might not like it.
> 
> Are you kidding? M$ makes *bank* on Office 365, whether it's running as 
> a bloated Web app or a bloated native executable. *Herds* of CEOs who 
> validate themselves by cutting checks for stuff they'll never have to 
> use have been inflicting this on their workers for like a decade now.

Microsloth Windoze and Orifice have unfortunately been basically 
business standards for multiple decades now. Word was first released in 
1983 and "Office" (with Excel, etc.) in 1989.

Even if people don't use Orifice themselves, almost every document you 
come across (other than PDFs) is in .doc format because that gives the 
widest potential compatibility ... as long as it's a simple document. 
If it's a complex document, then compatibility tends to go out the 
window. (For example, TextEdit and QuickLook on the Mac can read and 
write .doc / .docx format files, but even mildly complicated formatting 
will end up looking a mess, especially in QuickLook.)



> Satya could probably not give less of a shit whether he's getting paid 
> $xxx/mo. a head for that on Chromium/Linux or Edge/Win11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1780 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On 2026-06-26, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Microsloth Windoze and Orifice have unfortunately been basically 
> business standards for multiple decades now. Word was first released in 
> 1983 and "Office" (with Excel, etc.) in 1989.

Don't forget Outlook - which is more correctly pronounced "Look out!"
It is the biggest disease vector for top-posting.

> Even if people don't use Orifice themselves, almost every document you 
> come across (other than PDFs) is in .doc format because that gives the 
> widest potential compatibility ... as long as it's a simple document. 
> If it's a complex document, then compatibility tends to go out the 
> window. (For example, TextEdit and QuickLook on the Mac can read and 
> write .doc / .docx format files, but even mildly complicated formatting 
> will end up looking a mess, especially in QuickLook.)

I've had pretty good results with LibreOffice, although I don't
spend much time in spreadsheet land.  LO doesn't seem to be as
fanatical about meddling with your data - I've spent a lot
of time designing my software to write CSV files that are
"Excel-proof".  I'm tired of bringing up a file to view,
and upon quitting having Excel say, "Would you like to save
the changes you've just made?"  Dammit - I didn't make _any_
changes!  At the very least, the message should read: "Would
you like to save the changes _I've_ made?"  Yes, that includes
Excel's edict that all dates shall be in month/day/year format,
and that anything looking vaguely like a year/month/day date
shall be reformatted.  And, of course, lines with trailing
fields omitted shall be padded with commas, quotes, etc.

In fact, I prefer LibreOffice's spreadsheet to Excel, primarily
because when I pull in a CSV file it automatically sets the
column widths to something reasonable, rather than requiring
you to manually select the hilariously-misnamed "Auto format".

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  No artificial
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  intelligence was
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  used in the creation
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  of this post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1782 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 18:22:31 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-06-26, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
>> Microsloth Windoze and Orifice have unfortunately been basically
>> business standards for multiple decades now. Word was first released in
>> 1983 and "Office" (with Excel, etc.) in 1989.
> 
> Don't forget Outlook - which is more correctly pronounced "Look out!"
> It is the biggest disease vector for top-posting.

Then there was Outlook Express that had absolutely nothing to do with 
Outlook except a vague UX similarity. For all its warts Outlook was COM 
based and you could make it do tricks be calling the exposed methods, 
which were somewhat documented. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1785 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On 2026-06-27 18:22:31 +0000, Charlie Gibbs said:

> On 2026-06-26, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
>> Microsloth Windoze and Orifice have unfortunately been basically
>> business standards for multiple decades now. Word was first released in
>> 1983 and "Office" (with Excel, etc.) in 1989.
> 
> Don't forget Outlook - which is more correctly pronounced "Look out!"
> It is the biggest disease vector for top-posting.
> 
>> Even if people don't use Orifice themselves, almost every document you
>> come across (other than PDFs) is in .doc format because that gives the
>> widest potential compatibility ... as long as it's a simple document.
>> If it's a complex document, then compatibility tends to go out the
>> window. (For example, TextEdit and QuickLook on the Mac can read and
>> write .doc / .docx format files, but even mildly complicated formatting
>> will end up looking a mess, especially in QuickLook.)
> 
> I've had pretty good results with LibreOffice, although I don't spend 
> much time in spreadsheet land.  LO doesn't seem to be as fanatical 
> about meddling with your data - I've spent a lot of time designing my 
> software to write CSV files that are
> "Excel-proof".  I'm tired of bringing up a file to view, and upon 
> quitting having Excel say, "Would you like to save the changes you've 
> just made?"  Dammit - I didn't make _any_ changes!  At the very least, 
> the message should read: "Would
> you like to save the changes _I've_ made?"  Yes, that includes Excel's 
> edict that all dates shall be in month/day/year format, and that 
> anything looking vaguely like a year/month/day date shall be 
> reformatted.  And, of course, lines with trailing fields omitted shall 
> be padded with commas, quotes, etc.
> 
> In fact, I prefer LibreOffice's spreadsheet to Excel, primarily because 
> when I pull in a CSV file it automatically sets the column widths to 
> something reasonable, rather than requiring you to manually select the 
> hilariously-misnamed "Auto format".

Column widths are easily fixed quickly in Excel. Just click in the 
corner "cell" above the row numbers and left of the column letters to 
select the entire spreadsheet, then double-click the divider between 
any column.

Similarly for row heights, although you may need to turn on the 
text-wrapping for all the cells first.

The biggest issue with Excel is that it is simply not accurate, and 
therefore untrustworthy. Because Microsoft stubbornly chose to do 
decimal arithmatic in stupid way, that they claim is a "feature", it 
means miniscule errors creep in, which can then get bigger when using 
those error cells in other calculations. No other spreadsheet (or 
database) that I've used has had this problem because they do decimal 
arithmatic properly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1786 — Re: “Standard” software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 18:22:31 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> In fact, I prefer LibreOffice's spreadsheet to Excel ...

You’re not the only one. Actual researchers who have studied the issue
have come to the same conclusion
<https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008984>:
don’t use spreadsheets to try to do professional-quality data
analyses, but if you must use a spreadsheet, LibreOffice Calc is
preferable to Microsoft Excel.

In general, I absolutely love the recommendations that they make. The
first one is a biggie:

    Scripted analyses are preferred over spreadsheets. Gene name to
    date conversion is a bug specific to spreadsheets and doesn’t
    occur in scripted computer languages like Python or R. In
    addition, analyses conducted with Python and R notebooks (eg:
    Jupyter or Rmarkdown) capture computational methods and results in
    a stepwise fashion meaning these workflows can be more readily
    audited. These notebooks can therefore achieve a higher level of
    computational reproducibility than spreadsheets. Although this
    requires a big investment in learning a computer language, this
    investment pays off in the longer term.

Note that bit: “capture computational methods and results in a
stepwise fashion meaning these workflows can be more readily audited”.
Here I thought reproducibility was an absolutely non-negotiable
foundation stone of scientific research, yet it seems people have been
publishing results with nothing to back up their analyses other than
an Excel spreadsheet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1789 — Re: “Standard” software

On 6/27/26 19:03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 18:22:31 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> In fact, I prefer LibreOffice's spreadsheet to Excel ...
> 
> You’re not the only one. Actual researchers who have studied the issue
> have come to the same conclusion
> <https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008984>:
> don’t use spreadsheets to try to do professional-quality data
> analyses, but if you must use a spreadsheet, LibreOffice Calc is
> preferable to Microsoft Excel.
> 
> In general, I absolutely love the recommendations that they make. The
> first one is a biggie:
> 
>      Scripted analyses are preferred over spreadsheets. Gene name to
>      date conversion is a bug specific to spreadsheets and doesn’t
>      occur in scripted computer languages like Python or R. In
>      addition, analyses conducted with Python and R notebooks (eg:
>      Jupyter or Rmarkdown) capture computational methods and results in
>      a stepwise fashion meaning these workflows can be more readily
>      audited. These notebooks can therefore achieve a higher level of
>      computational reproducibility than spreadsheets. Although this
>      requires a big investment in learning a computer language, this
>      investment pays off in the longer term.
> 
> Note that bit: “capture computational methods and results in a
> stepwise fashion meaning these workflows can be more readily audited”.


   Sounds totalitarian, at least totalitarian bean-counter !

   How about just hiring Good People ?


> Here I thought reproducibility was an absolutely non-negotiable
> foundation stone of scientific research, yet it seems people have been
> publishing results with nothing to back up their analyses other than
> an Excel spreadsheet.

   Like stats, such 'analysis' can be easily tweaked
   to LIE - to support someones political/ideological/
   positional CAUSE. Only look at what serves YOU and
   hurts your opposition.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1773 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:03:12 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-06-26, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:34:01 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>>
>>>> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Most of the business world did years ago ...
>>
>> Is this the same “business world” that has largely moved its
>> operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated
>> by Linux?
>
> Shhhhh... don't say that too loudly.  Bill might not like it.

Regardless of what BillG might think, Microsoft freely admit that
these days. Even their own cloud service is predominantly Linux-based,
and they see no shame in admitting it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1777 — Can be trusted... (Was: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and) Linux Mint Cinnamon)

In article <111n4ee$trog$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DOliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
...
>>> Is this the same business world that has largely moved its
>>> operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated
>>> by Linux?
>>
>> Shhhhh... don't say that too loudly.  Bill might not like it.
>
>Regardless of what BillG might think, Microsoft freely admit that
>these days. Even their own cloud service is predominantly Linux-based,
>and they see no shame in admitting it.

MS can always be trusted to do the right thing.

...

(After they've tried everything else!)

-- 
Res ipsa loquitur.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1779 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On 2026-06-27, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:03:12 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2026-06-26, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:34:01 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>>>
>>>>> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Most of the business world did years ago ...
>>>
>>> Is this the same “business world” that has largely moved its
>>> operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated
>>> by Linux?
>>
>> Shhhhh... don't say that too loudly.  Bill might not like it.
>
> Regardless of what BillG might think, Microsoft freely admit that
> these days. Even their own cloud service is predominantly Linux-based,
> and they see no shame in admitting it.

Not like the old days, when IIS wasn't ready for prime time and
they had to resort to Linux-based web servers.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  No artificial
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  intelligence was
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  used in the creation
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  of this post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1781 — Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 18:22:30 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-06-27, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:03:12 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-06-26, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:34:01 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2026-06-25 05:55:22 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And who declared Microsoft products "standard software"?
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the business world did years ago ...
>>>>
>>>> Is this the same “business world” that has largely moved its
>>>> operations into the cloud these days? The cloud that is dominated by
>>>> Linux?
>>>
>>> Shhhhh... don't say that too loudly.  Bill might not like it.
>>
>> Regardless of what BillG might think, Microsoft freely admit that these
>> days. Even their own cloud service is predominantly Linux-based,
>> and they see no shame in admitting it.
> 
> Not like the old days, when IIS wasn't ready for prime time and they had
> to resort to Linux-based web servers.

IIS finally is ready for prime time?  I only used it once on a DOI project 
where they were touchy about installing anything that wasn't MickeySoft. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.vintage

csiph-web