[Long] [OT] That Big Shadow Over Your Shoulder, Part 2, was Re: [Coco] Re: OS Vulnerabilities

[Theodore Evans (Alex)]

On Feb 29, 2004, at 5:16 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

> That's a little extreme, but I'll give it to you (except for IE and 
> WMP).
> No, I don't use WordPad. But even the commercial, over-the-counter 
> software
> for Linux (the best example of an also-ran OS) is largely at the toy 
> level.
> For Windows and Mac, it isn't. It's at the pro level.



>
>> Pagestream (the Linux port having just shipped) has Type 1, and I
>> believe if you use OpenStep for you windowing manager you will have
>> Type 1 support.  Since you were talking about this in reference to DTP
>> (which is supported out of the box by no OS that I know of), then this
>> is more than sufficient to cover your question.
>
> Desktop publishing is supported by, but doesn't ship with, Windows or 
> Mac
> operating systems -- though most Windows systems from the big box 
> stores
> and huge mailorder places are preconfigured with MSWord, which has 
> become
> an effective, if imperfect, DTP system; yes, I edited and designed a
> biography for a publisher who only used MSWord from start to finish.
> Tossing in MSWord on a $499 system is as close to OS reality as you're
> gonna see!

Word is a passable word processor with some very very irritating 
idiosyncrasies rooted largely in trying to be too smart about some 
things.  As it is at toy level when it comes to DTP.  There are, of 
course, serious DTP packages available for Windows and Mac, but Word is 
not it.

> But the point was not the DTP software. It was support for Type 1 and
> OpenType, which is indeed built into the OS -- Mac for much longer, of
> course, since it originated on the platform. So you tell me at least 
> one
> version of Linux is *finally* up to Windows and Mac in having support 
> for
> the 15-plus-year-old standard type (Type 1) built in now.  Can you 
> hear me
> cheering? ;) Okay, it's not modern yet, but trying real hard! I'll 
> give it
> that!

Actually you are mistaken.  Type 1 font support is and had been a part 
of XFree86 for years, so your Red Hat distribution *does* have type 1 
font support built in.

> Sorry to have confused you. There's a great project going on right now
> called "the intention/reception project," which proposes that both 
> sides in
> a discussion are inevitably misunderstood. As I said at the very 
> outset,
> "here's my random questionnaire for whether it is truly a modern
> multi-purpose OS." I gave you random, you expected precision.
> Intention/reception.

Your mention of which Linux version is another case which could have 
been misleasing.  After all except for the context one would assume 
that you meant which kernel version when you meant which distribution 
version.

>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
>
>

-- 
Theodore (Alex) Evans | 2B v ~2B = ?