 | | Re: Reading/posting to LUGNET - an easier way for me?
|
|
(...) You just need to make sure that the "From" line matches what Todd has exactly. (slrn needs to be patched in order to be able to cancel LUGnet messages properly, though.) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Reading/posting to LUGNET - an easier way for me?
|
|
I'm looking for some advice. I'd like to improve/streamline my way of reading and posting to LUGNET, but I'm not sure how. There are three computers I use, at various times, pretty much equally: a Sun Solaris box at work, and two Macs at home (for (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Why are my fonts broken?
|
|
(...) Yes, this is true. Or some more Type 1 fonts. (...) The problem is that there's very few scalable fonts installed. So it's making do with bitmapped ones, which it can't actually scale. Sometimes it pretends to scale bitmapped fonts, but that (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: What do you think?
|
|
Erin Windross <dwindross@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message news:Fnn1F5.JsM@lugnet.com... (...) Real life sucks. Why would you want a real life computer game? Just go outside, buy things and interact with real people. Good grief. The only thing that (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: What do you think?
|
|
Shiri <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Fnn323.MwJ@lugnet.com... (...) Not necessarily. You'd just come up with a seriously complicated and adaptable rules system, plus a Reality Physics engine (MathEngine springs to mind). -- Mark Rendle (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Why are my fonts broken?
|
|
Anyone know how to make Netscape Navigator display the font sizes correctly under Red Hat Linux 6.1 + Gnome? What looks great under Windoze 95 comes out looking like scrap under my installation of RHL... :-( Here are a couple screenshots: (URL) the (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: S3 Trio3D & XFree86?
|
|
(...) Oh, BTW, that worked great -- thanks for the help. I put in an ATI XPERT98 card (8MB, PCI, 3D Rage Pro chipset) and it FLIES, even at 1600x1200x16bit. Very happy! --Todd (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: 100,000 page views!
|
|
On Friday brickshelf had another 90,000 page views and 12 Gigs of transferrs. Although by now I suspect it's mostly people downloading the whole site, it's still amazing. The funny thing is that it was slashdotted in December for the 2000 consumer (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | OpenGL
|
|
Does anybody out there know their way around the OpenGL API? I could use some suggestions right now for a problem I have with the interaction between the Lighting and Material functions and the Back Face Culling. It looks like I'll be spending a (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K bug in action
|
|
(...) aka "reality", as it's known outside the publishing world. (...) I doubt that that will continue for more than a few decades. There's just so much you can do with a computer - immersive VR with more objects than you can handle is probably the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) Absolutely. I've seen it (or possibly a link) posted in the Sacry Devil Monastery and/or the Other Place fairly recently. The denizens all had a good laugh. (...) xntpd. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Passed last exam - call me MCSE
|
|
was 3.51, yes. *sigh* _Lots_ more to do to get "back in the saddle" - if I decide to even go that way. -- -Steven "Nothin' But Net!" (URL) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Passed last exam - call me MCSE
|
|
(...) Hrmmm - are you 3.51 certified or something? If not, your NT4 MCSE will be perfectly valid until ... December 31, 2001 according to M$'s cert page. I'll be taking the accelerated route to the 2000 MCSE, which will involve me passing 70-240: (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Passed last exam - call me MCSE
|
|
Congrats (late, I know). Funnily enuf, this is about the time that mine's expiring and I'm trying to decide if I should head off & start on the Win2K track or just bag it all and (try to) become a Linux "expert" -- -Steven "Nothin' But Net!" "Mike (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K bug in action
|
|
(...) Contemplated it. I give my self some small credit for realizing that there was a better fix somewhere. Part of the problem is that our DCL manuals have been lost to history, so figuring out the answer would have been rather complicated, using (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K bug in action
|
|
(...) Why did you not choose to be a craftsman and fix the problem correctly? The true craftsman makes the back side of the dresser just as good as the front, it matters not that there is no one to see it, for the craftsman would know, and be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) at least not back in '83 :-) nah, actually never did that I know of at any point afterwards either. oh well, would have been a cool feature. -S (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K bug in action
|
|
(...) Hey, look, you want it, you can have it. Comes with a buncha professors who they think that it is the center of the computing universe. Which it probably was, in 1970whenever-the-fir...e-machine. (Hardware's been upgraded several times since (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) Nobody said they were or weren't! DEC was just saying that they chose not to be a supplier. Whoever it was at DEC that wrote that response is a brilliant master of the art of educating and amusing at the same time. At least that's my opinion. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) Come now, atomic clocks aren't that expensive. Probably you can get one for $10k or less. Surplus should be way cheaper. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
