From jcw at highperformance.net Fri Jan 9 06:54:30 2009 From: jcw at highperformance.net (Jason C. Wells) Date: Fri Jan 9 06:54:36 2009 Subject: Top Talent for Free Message-ID: <4966EB68.4030200@highperformance.net> Something occured to me recently when I was listening the the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing Handel's Messiah the other day. There is no shortage of top talent willing to perform some tasks for free. In this particular case, one could argue that some of the very best in the world are singing for free. Many musicians work for free in well established orchestras, for example in Seattle where I paid money to hear Messiah. It seems like the same is true for open source. There are some very clever people right here in the FreeBSD community. Some are more widely known (jkh, Watson, McKusick) than others but all of them are very good. Some open source developers have turned their open source involvement into a lucrative gig. But many remain volunteers. Then you have situations like football here in the US or even football as you call it everywhere else. There is no shortage of top talent in these sports. These people command sizable incomes in this effort though. So what's the difference? How do some fields of endeavor get top talent for free and other fields of endeavor pay big bucks for the top talent? Certainly we could find footballers to play on TV for free. Later, Jason From ekerberos at web.de Sat Jan 10 05:07:24 2009 From: ekerberos at web.de (Sisantha Godawela-Ohle) Date: Sat Jan 10 05:07:32 2009 Subject: freebsd-chat Digest, Vol 288, Issue 2 Message-ID: <977828450@web.de> Hello, is anyone (freebsd users)who knows how/where to get php-imap-5.2.8.tar.gz file ? as there is only rpm packages to find but not .tar.gz ;-(( thnx in advance, sisantha > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: > Gesendet: 09.01.09 13:01:38 > An: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org > Betreff: freebsd-chat Digest, Vol 288, Issue 2 > Send freebsd-chat mailing list submissions to > freebsd-chat@freebsd.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > freebsd-chat-owner@freebsd.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of freebsd-chat digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Top Talent for Free (Jason C. Wells) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:15:04 -0800 > From: "Jason C. Wells" > Subject: Top Talent for Free > To: fbsd_chat > Message-ID: <4966EB68.4030200@highperformance.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Something occured to me recently when I was listening the the Mormon > Tabernacle Choir sing Handel's Messiah the other day. There is no > shortage of top talent willing to perform some tasks for free. In this > particular case, one could argue that some of the very best in the world > are singing for free. Many musicians work for free in well established > orchestras, for example in Seattle where I paid money to hear Messiah. > > It seems like the same is true for open source. There are some very > clever people right here in the FreeBSD community. Some are more widely > known (jkh, Watson, McKusick) than others but all of them are very > good. Some open source developers have turned their open source > involvement into a lucrative gig. But many remain volunteers. > > Then you have situations like football here in the US or even football > as you call it everywhere else. There is no shortage of top talent in > these sports. These people command sizable incomes in this effort though. > > So what's the difference? How do some fields of endeavor get top talent > for free and other fields of endeavor pay big bucks for the top talent? > Certainly we could find footballers to play on TV for free. > > Later, > Jason > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > End of freebsd-chat Digest, Vol 288, Issue 2 > ******************************************** > _______________________________________________________________________ Sensationsangebot verl?ngert: WEB.DE FreeDSL - Telefonanschluss + DSL f?r nur 16,37 Euro/mtl.!* http://dsl.web.de/?ac=OM.AD.AD008K15039B7069a From jayton.garnett at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 11:01:59 2009 From: jayton.garnett at gmail.com (Jayton Garnett) Date: Sat Jan 10 11:02:05 2009 Subject: freebsd-chat Digest, Vol 288, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <977828450@web.de> References: <977828450@web.de> Message-ID: /ports/mail/php5-imap/ http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/php5-imap/ :-) On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Sisantha Godawela-Ohle wrote: > Hello, > > > is anyone (freebsd users)who knows how/where to get php-imap-5.2.8.tar.gz > file ? as there is only rpm packages to find but not .tar.gz ;-(( > > thnx in advance, > > sisantha > From gbell72 at rogers.com Thu Jan 15 13:19:04 2009 From: gbell72 at rogers.com (Gardner Bell) Date: Thu Jan 15 13:19:11 2009 Subject: Kernel Videos Message-ID: <572865.32717.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hello, Would anyone here happen to know where I can purchase the freebsd kernel internal videos that were referenced in the back of Dr McKusick's book on the design and implementation of the freebsd operating system? My book is out on loan and I am interested in purchasing the videos after watching the first hour of his course on youtube. Thanks Gardner Bell From personrp at UPMC.EDU Thu Jan 15 15:18:15 2009 From: personrp at UPMC.EDU (Person, Roderick) Date: Thu Jan 15 15:18:23 2009 Subject: Kernel Videos In-Reply-To: <572865.32717.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <572865.32717.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1AE59099C6D80E41BEB64A1768AFB4EA058587A8@msxmbxnsprd18.acct.upmchs.net> http://www.mckusick.com/buylist.html ________________________________________ From: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Gardner Bell [gbell72@rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:52 PM To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Kernel Videos Hello, Would anyone here happen to know where I can purchase the freebsd kernel internal videos that were referenced in the back of Dr McKusick's book on the design and implementation of the freebsd operating system? My book is out on loan and I am interested in purchasing the videos after watching the first hour of his course on youtube. Thanks Gardner Bell _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From murray at stokely.org Thu Jan 15 15:50:45 2009 From: murray at stokely.org (Murray Stokely) Date: Thu Jan 15 15:50:52 2009 Subject: Kernel Videos In-Reply-To: <1AE59099C6D80E41BEB64A1768AFB4EA058587A8@msxmbxnsprd18.acct.upmchs.net> References: <572865.32717.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <1AE59099C6D80E41BEB64A1768AFB4EA058587A8@msxmbxnsprd18.acct.upmchs.net> Message-ID: <2a7894eb0901151522i1a171230yfee01c0ebe6b4d8c@mail.gmail.com> And as you probably saw, Kirk posted the first lecture for free on YouTube last night : http://www.youtube.com/bsdconferences http://murrayfreebsd.blogspot.com/2009/01/freebsd-kernel-internals-lecture-posted.html The video includes the links that Roderick provided to buy the full set. - Murray On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Person, Roderick wrote: > http://www.mckusick.com/buylist.html > ________________________________________ > From: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Gardner Bell [gbell72@rogers.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:52 PM > To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org > Subject: Kernel Videos > > Hello, > > Would anyone here happen to know where I can purchase the freebsd kernel internal videos that were referenced in the back of Dr McKusick's book on the design and implementation of the freebsd operating system? My book is out on loan and I am interested in purchasing the videos after watching the first hour of his course on youtube. > > Thanks > > Gardner Bell > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From lab at gta.com Mon Jan 19 14:09:40 2009 From: lab at gta.com (Larry Baird) Date: Mon Jan 19 14:09:47 2009 Subject: FreeBSD 7 stable, firefox 3 and www.yahoo.com Message-ID: <20090119214257.GA43926@gta.com> Since I upgraded to the latest firefox (firefox-3.0.5_1,1) I get the following at www.yahoo.com: Why miss out? To see all the new Yahoo! home page has to offer, please upgrade to a more recent browser. Supported browsers include: Internet Explorer 7 optimized by Yahoo! Firefox 3 Safari 3 Opera 9 Flock Is anybody else seeing this? Larry -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Larry Baird | http://www.gta.com Global Technology Associates, Inc. | Orlando, FL Email: lab@gta.com | TEL 407-380-0220, FAX 407-380-6080 From kdk at daleco.biz Fri Jan 23 09:13:53 2009 From: kdk at daleco.biz (Kevin Kinsey) Date: Fri Jan 23 09:14:06 2009 Subject: Top Talent for Free In-Reply-To: <4966EB68.4030200@highperformance.net> References: <4966EB68.4030200@highperformance.net> Message-ID: <4979F70A.2000900@daleco.biz> Jason C. Wells wrote: > Something occured to me recently when I was listening the the Mormon > Tabernacle Choir sing Handel's Messiah the other day. There is no > shortage of top talent willing to perform some tasks for free. In this > particular case, one could argue that some of the very best in the world > are singing for free. Many musicians work for free in well established > orchestras, for example in Seattle where I paid money to hear Messiah. > > It seems like the same is true for open source. There are some very > clever people right here in the FreeBSD community. Some are more widely > known (jkh, Watson, McKusick) than others but all of them are very > good. Some open source developers have turned their open source > involvement into a lucrative gig. But many remain volunteers. > > Then you have situations like football here in the US or even football > as you call it everywhere else. There is no shortage of top talent in > these sports. These people command sizable incomes in this effort though. > > So what's the difference? How do some fields of endeavor get top talent > for free and other fields of endeavor pay big bucks for the top talent? > Certainly we could find footballers to play on TV for free. 1] Love of the field of endeavor. 2] Idealism. 3] Knowing it's a pipe dream to get paid for it anyway. My $0.02, -- Any man who hates dogs and babies can't be all bad. -- Leo Rosten, on W.C. Fields From kdk at daleco.biz Fri Jan 23 09:13:58 2009 From: kdk at daleco.biz (Kevin Kinsey) Date: Fri Jan 23 09:14:06 2009 Subject: Think before you type, Volume 42b... Message-ID: <4979F5FD.4020002@daleco.biz> [28] Fri 23.Jan.2009 10:45:25 [admin@archangel][~] ssh mailhost sudo ls -l /var/amavis/tmp | wc -l ^CKilled by signal 2. [29] Fri 23.Jan.2009 10:47:09 [admin@archangel][~] ssh mailhost "sudo ls -l /var/amavis/tmp | wc -l" 25381 [30] Fri 23.Jan.2009 10:47:13 [admin@archangel][~] Doh! So very glad I don't pay by the kB. Kevin Kinsey -- Have you flogged your kid today? From chuckr at telenix.org Sat Jan 24 12:40:24 2009 From: chuckr at telenix.org (Chuck Robey) Date: Sat Jan 24 12:40:30 2009 Subject: text formatting tools. Message-ID: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just felt like venting my own opinions on what's the current best toolset for writing documents. I think that this opinion isn't a popular one, but that's what this list is for. I'll give you all of my reasons, so at least you'll know what to argue about, if you feel strongly about this. Well, I think no one could argue that the most popular toolset is that based upon xml and probably xsl. When it first came out, I reacted very coolly towards it, because while that xml/xsl approach could do everything my own choice could do, the only available tools with either very expensive, or very gigantic. What's my choice? I like to use groff for text formatting and page layout, xfig for technical drawings, and something like inkscape for the more artistic approach. Let me get back to the comparisons. I didn't want to get all that oud about xml/xsl, because I felt that given time, hopefully, better tools would appear. While the ability to spend money on that has hugely expanded, and the number of incompatible macro sets have also hugely appreared, the minimum size of any free software toolsets remains gigantic. If I'm wrong here, PLEASE, tell me, I would be only too happy to be proved wrong, but I can't find any yet. And don't think that if you give me one particular tool that gets one particular part of the entire job and say that single part is small, I will ignore you. It's either all of the tools, or it's not, trying to sneak in one small part is not an honest tactic to take. Most of the ways I've ever seen require an entire TeX suite, which is probably larger in itself than all the rest of FreeBSD all put together. Take as comparison the size of groff, which is really relatively tiny, but it takes the exact same part of the job on (not based upon TeX, it's based upon the troff command set. Documentation? Well, I could point to the book named "Unix Text Processing", by Dougherty/O'Reilly. It's out of print, which is actually really pretty nice, because the publisher decided that instead of reprinting it, they just release a PDF of it for free. That's hugely good luck, because the book is totally fantastic, not only covering all of the various pieces of groff, but also going deep enough into the internal language so that you have no problem writing your own macros. Groff then leaves a key item, whether to base the formatting on solely hierarchical features, or allowing one to do it all like a typist might be expected to do, up to the writer, even allowing a pretty good amount of flexibility to mix the 2 approaches. Seeing as I personally don't really like being handcuffed into a hierarchical document approach, I really like the freedom. OK, I've described 2 of my reasons for liking it, that it's relatively tiny, and that it's far more flexibile in allowing an author to take their own approach. The fact that xml forces one to regard a document more like it is a database is probably a good thing for things like Web pages which are actually electronic salespeople, but it's a LOUSY method to force upon authors. Most books just aren't approached with preplanning and hierarchical control which is an endemic requirement for a sales database tool. So if you're not writing something like "newegg.com", well, maybe you do like it, but I never, ever, heard of anyone using any approach like this in any major piece of fiction, at least before some businesses (in another case of follow the leaderism) required it. Just like many commercial companies require you use MicroSoft Word, nothing but marketing propaganda. Heard of this before? I know we use this tool in our very good tool, the handbook. So, what we've done is deny to a large number of folks the ability to format the handbooks unelss they're willing to install a set of enormous tools. Used to be the Handbook formatted directly out of the OS with no added tools needed. Think that's difficult for a non-fiction tool? Ask Richard Stevens ghost, because his books could have been formatted using only the base FreeBSD IS also. OK, I don't know of any negative to using groff, except that you don't get to point at your toolset and claim it's the latest. All that internationalization, it would not be terrifically difficult to write macros sets for groff that would give the exact same effects, all done within the limits of FreeBSD's own tools. Groff even produces html, and it does a really bang-up job of formatting ASCII text pages, something which xml tools have never been able to do. I just don't get the reason to go with xml, except a bad case of follow the leader. What's the benefit that the users, or even the authors, accrue? And don't fail to realize that our groff cames with a set of ancillary tools like "pic", to be a very good job of doing technical drawings. That's what Richard Stevens did, so don't argue that it's either impossible, or even difficult to do well. If you argue this, please drop all the marketing propaganda, drop all references to what it does for Web pages, lets talk about writing things intended for paper. All those companies who base all their future on selling xml tools, they can't be considered non-interested observers, this is where their bread and butter comes from. Argue about real things that are different in an xml versus groff approach, from the point of view of non-database and non-sales oriented things. God, the amount of marketing crap that has gone out to push dynamic features (which web pages really do need) upon paper authors is impressive, but I never saw any use of this in any piece of fiction, or even in any technical dissertation, anything not destined for presentation via paper. Many companies depend on this for their future, so I'm skeptical. Show me a book which needs these features, a book that would be better written via an expensive hierarchical tool. Pencils might be low-tech, but they also allow folks without major finance to write, NOT using xml. This is going to get howls, but I really disliked our moving from a cheap, commonly available toolset to a complicated monstrosity (which our handbook did) was a mistake in strategy, trying to go the popular way. Making it so the number of folks who can format the sources is limited to folks which have the resources. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl7d8cACgkQz62J6PPcoOkDoACdHf2kmkqHU+FgXJHtCQDfAMbz +O8An2PtC8sKSQ1pHXNYK2j6P7oayjuG =RQLB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From murray at stokely.org Sat Jan 24 13:53:40 2009 From: murray at stokely.org (Murray Stokely) Date: Sat Jan 24 13:53:47 2009 Subject: text formatting tools. In-Reply-To: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> References: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> Message-ID: <2a7894eb0901241353l56be13b4s9860b9e949bc9ec2@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Chuck Robey wrote: > I didn't want to get all that oud about xml/xsl, because I felt that given time, > hopefully, better tools would appear. While the ability to spend money on that > has hugely expanded, and the number of incompatible macro sets have also hugely > appreared, the minimum size of any free software toolsets remains gigantic. If > I'm wrong here, PLEASE, tell me, I would be only too happy to be proved wrong, I think your criticism of the distribution size of the tools is accurate but you are focusing on a dimension that the rest of the world has chosen to ignore in the era of 1TB disk drives. You are correct that any XML/XSLT based solution uses far more disk space than any groff based solution. I do not think many people care about this. Separation of content and presentation is worth far more to me then a few bits on a disk, to say nothing of the greater portability and programmability of XML. > Documentation? Well, I could point to the book named "Unix Text Processing", by > Dougherty/O'Reilly. It's out of print, which is actually really pretty nice, Would be a minority of O'Reilly books if that one was typeset with groff rather than DocBook XML. > OK, I've described 2 of my reasons for liking it, that it's relatively tiny, and > that it's far more flexibile in allowing an author to take their own approach. First reason is granted, but I think the second reason depends on a very particular definition of "flexible" and that many reasonable people would disagree with this and argue XML is the more flexible solution. > The fact that xml forces one to regard a document more like it is a database is > probably a good thing for things like Web pages which are actually electronic > salespeople, but it's a LOUSY method to force upon authors. Most books just > aren't approached with preplanning and hierarchical control which is an endemic > requirement for a sales database tool. So if you're not writing something like Technical manuals are generally highly hierarchical, as are most books actually with parts, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. Even those items need not be imposed on anyone with an XML/XSL tool. > "newegg.com", well, maybe you do like it, but I never, ever, heard of anyone > using any approach like this in any major piece of fiction, at least before some > businesses (in another case of follow the leaderism) required it. Just like > many commercial companies require you use MicroSoft Word, nothing but marketing > propaganda. Heard of this before? I think the MS connection is a pretty big leap as is a reduction without argument of XML's benefits to newegg.com. > I know we use this tool in our very good tool, the handbook. So, what we've > done is deny to a large number of folks the ability to format the handbooks > unelss they're willing to install a set of enormous tools. Used to be the > Handbook formatted directly out of the OS with no added tools needed. Think > that's difficult for a non-fiction tool? Ask Richard Stevens ghost, because his > books could have been formatted using only the base FreeBSD IS also. Sure, your problem could be solved by importing more XML tools into the base system, but I think that is the opposite direction we are going in. A number of base system tools are in FreeBSD because they were historically part of BSD but would today be kept as ports/packages if they weren't already there. LiveCD distributions such as PC-BSD could have a much larger base system pre-installed if this is something you seem to care a lot about in an operating system distribution. > OK, I don't know of any negative to using groff, except that you don't get to > point at your toolset and claim it's the latest. All that internationalization, I can think of dozens of reasons why we're not using groff for the Handbook. Off the top of my head I'll list a few : 1. How would you identify the first occurrence of each technical acronym in the Handbook so that it could be rendered with a mouseover definition or link to the glossary in hyper-text versions of the Handbook (only the first occurrence because these presentation details would be distracting and make it difficult to read if applied to every occurrence). 2. How do you programatically extract all of the Armenian FTP sites mentioned in a groff version of the Handbook? (so they can be listed on the web site separately). 3. How do you pull in content from other sites on the net and dynamically include parts of it each time you rebuild the document in a structured way? (e.g. the way we pull in external RSS feeds on the website, the way we pull in the results of the latest kernel stress tests to add to the release TODO page, etc..) 4. How do you render the same content in multiple presentation styles in the same output format? E.g. maybe one web based version with one color scheme for the website, and another web based version with a different layout and color scheme? Or one with per-chapter table of contents and one with only a per-book table of contents for a printed format? All configurable with make flags to the build script and with the key separation of content and presentation since different people with very different skill sets will be responsible for those two tasks in general. 5. How do you generate texts for electronic book readers, open office, or other modern formats? I use groff occasionally, but am a novice, so I am sure there are solutions to some of these problems, but the ones I know of are clearly sub-optimal. > Groff even produces html, and it does a really bang-up job of formatting ASCII > text pages, something which xml tools have never been able to do. I just don't Sure, but those are basic output formats we've supported for a decade with XML based tools. What about Amazon Kindle ebooks? Mobi ebooks? OpenOffice documents? We distribute more than just those three very basic output formats. > get the reason to go with xml, except a bad case of follow the leader. What's > the benefit that the users, or even the authors, accrue? And don't fail to Why don't you ask the publisher of the book you just cited. Or better yet, the author of groff, James Clark, that moved on to write most of the open source SGML/XML tools we use in building the handbook. I must admit to not following him closely and only reading his blog rarely -- did he work for Microsoft or something? Still trying to find where that connection comes in. > realize that our groff cames with a set of ancillary tools like "pic", to be a > very good job of doing technical drawings. That's what Richard Stevens did, so > don't argue that it's either impossible, or even difficult to do well. If you > argue this, please drop all the marketing propaganda, drop all references to Richard Stevens is a highly technical network engineer. He created great figures as people often do with pic. Whether you are using groff or LaTeX or XML tools however you can hardly argue that manual editing of a programming language is a better way to generate diagrams than a graphical tool for most needs. Sure I get great figures with pic or pstricks but some of my best figures are drawn with OmniGraffle in a fraction of the time. > God, the amount of marketing crap that has gone out to push dynamic features > (which web pages really do need) upon paper authors is impressive, but I never > saw any use of this in any piece of fiction, or even in any technical > dissertation, anything not destined for presentation via paper. Many companies > depend on this for their future, so I'm skeptical. This seems to change the scope of your argument significantly. If you are now conceding the general usefulness of XML for things like Handbook and only saying it is overkill for a paper-only document then I'd tend to agree. I'd go straight to LaTeX, but many would go straight to groff. To each his own. Kind of makes me wonder why all the ranting about newegg.com and microsoft and evil xml vendors. > Show me a book which needs these features, a book that would be better written Any book published by O'Reilly -- because they need to publish not just PDFs but hyperlinkable electronic book versions in addition to dead tree versions. > to a complicated monstrosity (which our handbook did) was a mistake in strategy, > trying to go the popular way. Making it so the number of folks who can format > the sources is limited to folks which have the resources. You've done a very poor job in this rant of pointing out any advantages to using groff for the Handbook over DocBook XML, and I think you know this which is why you sent it to an unrelated list. I will grant you that you listed one solid advantage in this mail. The tools use less disk space. I assure you that your points will be discussed and listened to if you try again without all the ranting and weird logical fallacies and if you post it to the appropriate place, doc@FreeBSD.org. Thanks! - Murray From murray at stokely.org Sat Jan 24 14:49:57 2009 From: murray at stokely.org (Murray Stokely) Date: Sat Jan 24 14:50:03 2009 Subject: text formatting tools. In-Reply-To: <20090124224237.GA96097@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> References: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901241353l56be13b4s9860b9e949bc9ec2@mail.gmail.com> <20090124224237.GA96097@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> Message-ID: <2a7894eb0901241449y49391f6aj6414875e8781ea4@mail.gmail.com> Yea, that is a good point. The one last thing I meant to add was that in general I think we have plenty of people in the doc project that can work to render the documentation and work on the stylesheets and presentation and such. What we really need is simply more authors. Text can be submitted in plain text with no markup at all in groff, xml, or anything else through the mailing lists or PR database. There are plenty of volunteers that can mark up the text and get it committed. - Murray On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Frank Shute wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:53:38PM -0800, Murray Stokely wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Chuck Robey wrote: > > > > Another advantage of XML is greater familiarity with the toolset > amongst the target authorship. > > I dare say a number of people have tackled the similar HTML/XHTML/CSS > for authoring on the www, whereas few have tackled a manpage or > suchlike. > > With regards a huge toolset, for the FreeBSD docs you don't need TeX > to produce the HTML version. The HTML can also always be converted to > postscript using, for example, Firefox for hardcopy. > > Apologies for the big snip but I didn't particularly want to reply to > any one point & wanted to avoid redundancy. > > Regards, > > -- > > Frank > > > Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html > > From frank at shute.org.uk Sat Jan 24 15:06:50 2009 From: frank at shute.org.uk (Frank Shute) Date: Sat Jan 24 15:07:08 2009 Subject: text formatting tools. In-Reply-To: <2a7894eb0901241353l56be13b4s9860b9e949bc9ec2@mail.gmail.com> References: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901241353l56be13b4s9860b9e949bc9ec2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090124224237.GA96097@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:53:38PM -0800, Murray Stokely wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Chuck Robey wrote: Another advantage of XML is greater familiarity with the toolset amongst the target authorship. I dare say a number of people have tackled the similar HTML/XHTML/CSS for authoring on the www, whereas few have tackled a manpage or suchlike. With regards a huge toolset, for the FreeBSD docs you don't need TeX to produce the HTML version. The HTML can also always be converted to postscript using, for example, Firefox for hardcopy. Apologies for the big snip but I didn't particularly want to reply to any one point & wanted to avoid redundancy. Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html From lawrence.auster at att.net Sun Jan 25 07:46:50 2009 From: lawrence.auster at att.net (Lawrence Auster) Date: Sun Jan 25 07:47:16 2009 Subject: Why are the Zionist leaders in Israel so happy about the new President? Message-ID: <20090125151611.IQLK93.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@2ao1z> Why is the President of Israel, the terrorist who just oversaw the Zionist mass murder and maiming of thousands of Palestinians so happy that Obama is President of the USA? by David Duke Read the excerpt from the Israeli News about how President Perez and Israel think that Obama’s becoming U.S. President is great day for Israel. "Israel’s President Shimon Peres ecstatic over the election of Obama" Ronen Medzini Israel News Jan. 21 “Today is a great day not only for the United States of America, but for the entire world,” President Shimon Peres wrote in a letter addressed to Barack Obama on the day of his inauguration as president of the United States. “Obama was elected by the United States, but as a matter of fact, he was chosen by the whole of humankind,” Why is Peres so ecstatic? Why shouldn’t he be, he knows that Obama is completely in the grip of the extremist Jewish Zionists in America, and he knows that the greater Obama’s popularity and idol worship, the more Obama can do for the International Zionist Cause. Any thinking and caring human being who realizes that the Zionist-controlled American foreign policy has been a disaster for the robbed and murdered people of Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and a catastrophe for the 50,000 American wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as an economic catastrophe for the hardworking Americans who pay trillions to finance these wars for Israel — must wake up the fact that supporting Obama and increasing his popularity will only aid Zionist terrorism, war, and their murder and oppression of the Palestinians. It will also hasten the economic suffering of billions of people around the world as his popularity enables him to more easily aid the Zionist International Bankers steal the wealth of the United States, Europe and the world. Obama is totally in the bloodstained and green ink- stained hands of the Zionists. The hard truth is that the more good will and support Obama has also gives more power to support the Zionist agenda! Mark my words. The Obama Presidency will be disaster for America and for the world. Obama was put into office by the Zionists. His top two cohorts for years have been the radical Jews David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel. Both have long records of radical Zionism and have been attack dogs against anyone perceived as having the slightest opposition to Israel. One such victim was Sen. Charles Percy, who both men worked to defeat and destroy because he dared to only be 99 percent rather than 100 percent pro-Israel. Rahm Emmanuel, a dual citizen of Israel who went to fight for Israel, he has a long pedigree of Jewish extremism. His father served in the Irgun Terrorist Gang and he himself is named after an Irgun terrorist. Zionist leaders in Chicago actually call Obama “the first Jewish President” and boast that Jews were key players in Obama’s every step up the ladder to President. from the very earliest days, extremist Jews were the largest contributors to his campaign. In the beginning of his Presidential bid, three Hollywood Jews that constantly make movies about Jewish suffering, but never about the Zionist terrorism and theft against the Palestinian people, Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Katzenberg raised 1.2 million for Obama in a single Hollywood party. By the time Obama’s campaign was in full swing, he had huge support from the criminal Zionist International Banking firms such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman brothers. Goldman Sachs was Obama’s biggest single contributor, and his vast war chest came not from American manufacturing firms like GM or even American oil companies, (not one was in his top twenty) it was overwhelmingly dominated by Zionist international bankers, the same ones whose thievery and fraud are giving the world this economic depression. For those looking for meaningful social and political change, do you really think it will come from this man who has already been bought heart, head and soul by the most powerful czars of the international financial establishment and the biggest globalists in the world? I know that many are desperate for change, so desperate that you want to believe anything. But in the face of these facts can’t you see that Obama will be even more dangerous to freedom and justice than even George Bush and his band of Neocons were. What better way to wipe out George Bush’s hated legacy and make the world believe that America has really changed than with the election of Obama. But, all the real Zionist power, Zionist media power, and Zionist financial power in America is still in place, even stronger than ever. Many Americans and others around the world who want to do good are now telling us how wonderful Obama will be as president. What a great change it will be from the old policies. This is because of the Zionist-Controlled media hype, promoting Obama. The fact is that these poor sods are ignorantly helping the radical Zionist agenda in Israel and around the world. Every day that you don’t help expose Obama for the Zionist servant that he actually is, his popularity will be a greater danger to peace and freedom. If the Zionist terrorist Shimon Perez is happy about the coronation of Obama, then why in the hell should you be? –David Duke Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/7303_7303.html ------------------------------------- You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster@att.net ------------------------------------- From chuckr at telenix.org Sun Jan 25 16:57:58 2009 From: chuckr at telenix.org (Chuck Robey) Date: Sun Jan 25 16:58:05 2009 Subject: text formatting tools. In-Reply-To: <2a7894eb0901241449y49391f6aj6414875e8781ea4@mail.gmail.com> References: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901241353l56be13b4s9860b9e949bc9ec2@mail.gmail.com> <20090124224237.GA96097@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <2a7894eb0901241449y49391f6aj6414875e8781ea4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <497CE231.5000202@telenix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Murray Stokely wrote: > Yea, that is a good point. The one last thing I meant to add was that > in general I think we have plenty of people in the doc project that > can work to render the documentation and work on the stylesheets and > presentation and such. What we really need is simply more authors. > > Text can be submitted in plain text with no markup at all in groff, > xml, or anything else through the mailing lists or PR database. There > are plenty of volunteers that can mark up the text and get it > committed. > > - Murray > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Frank Shute wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:53:38PM -0800, Murray Stokely wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Chuck Robey wrote: >> >> >> Another advantage of XML is greater familiarity with the toolset >> amongst the target authorship. >> >> I dare say a number of people have tackled the similar HTML/XHTML/CSS >> for authoring on the www, whereas few have tackled a manpage or >> suchlike. >> >> With regards a huge toolset, for the FreeBSD docs you don't need TeX >> to produce the HTML version. The HTML can also always be converted to >> postscript using, for example, Firefox for hardcopy. >> >> Apologies for the big snip but I didn't particularly want to reply to >> any one point & wanted to avoid redundancy. Well, firstly, if no one else complains, then I don't mind whatever snipping you do. However, that's not the only comment I wanted to make: You said that most written things are hierarchical. Sorry, I strongly disagree, except for the tech manuals and web pages. Please, reach over your bedpost, grab ANY of the fiction books you are likely to read (any sci-fi?) and then show me where that is done hierchically. Some authors bother to give numbers to their chapters, but seeing as they don't even bother to give a table of contents, you can see in clear terms just how *non-hierarchical* they are. These books lose nothing whatever if you even remove all references to chapter breaks entirely. Take also a look at most of the letters you've ever written (with the exception which I noted, of commercial things), and show me where they need a database. If you look at fiction or nearly all articles of any type, they don't use or need any database approach. Now take a look at your college textbooks, and note that (outside of indexes which are easily handled by far simpler tools) very few of them have any need of hierarchical database approaches. At least my Physics textbooks, which I'm looking at now, seem that way. Tech manuals which are full of references to values that change, yes, they are exceptions, as are all commercial things, but not the mass of written materials. OK, look at the size thing: The size is far more than a figure of 10 to 1, as anyone who's tried to fix a bug in those huge things, makes a difference. I just don't like something that is huge for the simple reasons of being follow the leader: nearly nothing I have ever written would benefit from being formatted in xml. The Handbook, it's a tech manual (you'll agree?) and it would be, but not most things. Lastly, you reacted poorly to my peripheral reference to MS (to the Word tool). You'd like to be able to say that I made some anti-MS comment, but read it again, while my personal feelings ARE that way, I did no such thing. I was only making the argument thatfolks who trumpet "compatibilty" with tools should be given more than a slightly suspicious glance, and that's a very strong reason (beyond the database features) that most give for using xml. You comment that most folks know the xml tools better. If that was any kind of meaningful argument, then xml would never ever have even been considered at all, right? Xml isn't an author-friendly protocol. Like Cobol before it, it's quite wordy, and so gigantic, it's difficult to use. Most authors (outside of tech manuals and web pages) don't bother to carefully, hierarchically lay out their writeups. They hafve probably an outline, but that's the more common limit. Can't do that with xml, can you? Try it without using some wysiwig editor to help. That's not true of groff, none of it. Yes, this is a very unpopular argument, but I still think it's got more than a little truth behind it, if you look past web pages and tech manuals. Many people see this as a trend of the future, but it's certainly not a big help in writing most items. What it does is force one to use wysiwyg tools, something I've always disliked. I think that that bias isn't an unpopular one among FreeBSDers, either. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> >> Frank >> >> >> Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl84jEACgkQz62J6PPcoOnEdACeNwruYO+hVOlFfCHNsymZNeyL kwwAoJu2FWP3Emdn0ESkByXPXNnnIkdL =v9KW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From murray at stokely.org Sun Jan 25 18:21:31 2009 From: murray at stokely.org (Murray Stokely) Date: Sun Jan 25 18:21:43 2009 Subject: text formatting tools. In-Reply-To: <497CE231.5000202@telenix.org> References: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901241353l56be13b4s9860b9e949bc9ec2@mail.gmail.com> <20090124224237.GA96097@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <2a7894eb0901241449y49391f6aj6414875e8781ea4@mail.gmail.com> <497CE231.5000202@telenix.org> Message-ID: <2a7894eb0901251821i6e25bfd3i4c235f946d2e581b@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Chuck Robey wrote: > You said that most written things are hierarchical. Sorry, I strongly disagree, I disagree also. Nobody on this thread said that except you. Your entire response is based on this significant mis-quote. What I did say, is that _technical manuals_ are generally hierarchical, and I was also thinking of some of the same examples you brought up (scifi books, personal correspondence, etc..) when choosing which qualifier to use when writing that statement. You actually agree with this statement later in this mail where you acknowledge that tech manuals and the handbook benefit from this approach "but not most things". > which are easily handled by far simpler tools) very few of them have any need of > hierarchical database approaches. At least my Physics textbooks, which I'm My use of hierarchy was based on chapters, sections, and paragraphs, as I said in my mail. My textbooks all had that. You have moved the discussion from a hierarchy of chapters, sections, and paragraphs into one involving "hierarchical database approaches". Please define that if you want to talk about it. It has not been used by anyone other than you in this thread. > formatted in xml. The Handbook, it's a tech manual (you'll agree?) and it would > be, but not most things. So you've agreed with a large part of my email here, but framed it as a disagreement. My mail specifically pointed out the advantages for technical documentation, and then the bulk of the mail was for the benefits for the Handbook in particular. > You comment that most folks know the xml tools better. If that was any kind of No, I didn't make that comment, Frank did. Please read the mails to which you respond more carefully. Lets take any follow ups offline. Or as I said, if you are looking for ways to get involved with FreeBSD Documentation that don't involve XML there are plenty of opportunities for that -- lets move this to a more productive discussion on the doc@FreeBSD.org list. - Murray From chuckr at telenix.org Mon Jan 26 12:54:45 2009 From: chuckr at telenix.org (Chuck Robey) Date: Mon Jan 26 12:54:51 2009 Subject: text formatting tools. In-Reply-To: <2a7894eb0901251821i6e25bfd3i4c235f946d2e581b@mail.gmail.com> References: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901241353l56be13b4s9860b9e949bc9ec2@mail.gmail.com> <20090124224237.GA96097@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <2a7894eb0901241449y49391f6aj6414875e8781ea4@mail.gmail.com> <497CE231.5000202@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901251821i6e25bfd3i4c235f946d2e581b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <497E216D.1060903@telenix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Murray Stokely wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Chuck Robey wrote: >> You said that most written things are hierarchical. Sorry, I strongly disagree, > > I disagree also. Nobody on this thread said that except you. Your > entire response is based on this significant mis-quote. Yeah, I did a fubar, and in that sentence, inverted things by droppig the word "not". My comments were all directed towards the fact that xml is (and enforces) a hierarchical approach to writing, and that (outside of tech manuals and web pages) most written things aren't hierarchical in nature. > > What I did say, is that _technical manuals_ are generally > hierarchical, and I was also thinking of some of the same examples you > brought up (scifi books, personal correspondence, etc..) when choosing > which qualifier to use when writing that statement. > > You actually agree with this statement later in this mail where you > acknowledge that tech manuals and the handbook benefit from this > approach "but not most things". Again, pretty obvious, when you give the fact that I'd left out the "not". I'd have thought that would have been a more obvious mistake, given my original post's nature. > >> which are easily handled by far simpler tools) very few of them have any need of >> hierarchical database approaches. At least my Physics textbooks, which I'm > > My use of hierarchy was based on chapters, sections, and paragraphs, > as I said in my mail. My textbooks all had that. Is there a difference between a book where the information is organized in topics, and a book which is full of references which change all the time and could benefit from using a database approach? I could as well claim that the Bible needed that support, instead of merely being broken up for easier access. It ought to be clearly obvious that most printed materials have no intrinsic need for any of xml's database-like features (like, say, any commercial web site obviously *does* need). You have moved the > discussion from a hierarchy of chapters, sections, and paragraphs into > one involving "hierarchical database approaches". Wow, that bothers me, it's a direct distortion. I have posted on this twice. In the first one, I never even mentioned the terms Chapters, sections, or paragraphs, and in the second, I only mentioned chapters in passing, to show that their use in most printed matter was merely to allow easier topic access, NOT to supply the kind of database access commonly used by commercial websites like Newegg. Since I started this thread, it's never been a "discussion from a hierarchy of chapters, sections, and paragraphs", it's always been an examination of the usefulness of xml in printed matter. I made one error at the top, in dropping the word "non", but that's as far as it goes, fella. My thesis is (and has been) that xml's main added feature over pre-existing formatters (like groff) is that xml requires a hierarchical approach so that database techniques can be used, and that those database features are an unneeded frill in most printed matter. And, that merely breaking things up into chapters makes no use of those database features, so terribly and obviously used in most commercial websites. And, I detailed a host of features groff has that xml has never had. NO ONE AT ALL was discussing chapters, paragraphs, and sections. I made one error at the top, dropping (once) the word "non". Outside of your distortion, that's your whole argument? Could we move this BACK to the topic of groff versus xml? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl+IW0ACgkQz62J6PPcoOme5QCfWt7+8/qaFogcqva+Ge80Djje yoUAn1nOSL0pmajHOVYrHfWLE+8JyPis =CkuD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From murray at stokely.org Mon Jan 26 14:35:48 2009 From: murray at stokely.org (Murray Stokely) Date: Mon Jan 26 14:35:55 2009 Subject: text formatting tools. In-Reply-To: <497E216D.1060903@telenix.org> References: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901241353l56be13b4s9860b9e949bc9ec2@mail.gmail.com> <20090124224237.GA96097@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <2a7894eb0901241449y49391f6aj6414875e8781ea4@mail.gmail.com> <497CE231.5000202@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901251821i6e25bfd3i4c235f946d2e581b@mail.gmail.com> <497E216D.1060903@telenix.org> Message-ID: <2a7894eb0901261435hfc78dbctc41340b52c286b4c@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Chuck Robey wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Chuck Robey wrote: >>> You said that most written things are hierarchical. Sorry, I strongly disagree, >> >> I disagree also. Nobody on this thread said that except you. Your >> entire response is based on this significant mis-quote. > > Yeah, I did a fubar, and in that sentence, inverted things by droppig the word > "not". My comments were all directed towards the fact that xml is (and > enforces) a hierarchical approach to writing, and that (outside of tech manuals > and web pages) most written things aren't hierarchical in nature. Your first mail attacked the use of XML for the FreeBSD Handbook, and that is the point to which I replied. You then backed off completely from that statement and have acknowledged that it has advantages for technical documentation and the Handbook. There is very little disagreement after you made those concessions. I feel like I'm in the Monty Python skit and you are so dead set about getting into an argument that you are misquoting and finding conspiracies of Microsoft and XML vendors to rail against. > top, dropping (once) the word "non". Outside of your distortion, that's your > whole argument? There is little to argue since you backed away from the points of your first mail that I disagreed with. Your second mail seems to agree with the position of my first mail : xml provides a lot of advantages for the handbook. I have argued nothing more and nothing less -- your general attack on XML went too far and ignored the obvious advantages and I called you on that. Sure there are specific cases when XML is lacking, and I know plenty of them, but nobody has taken the position that XML is always the best tool for the job. >> You have moved the >> discussion from a hierarchy of chapters, sections, and paragraphs into >> one involving "hierarchical database approaches". > >Wow, that bothers me, it's a direct distortion. I have posted on this twice. >In the first one, I never even mentioned the terms Chapters, sections, or >paragraphs, and in the second, I only mentioned chapters in passing, to show >that their use in most printed matter was merely to allow easier topic access, We both talked past each other on this point. You didn't define your hierarchical database approache complaint very well, so I provided the simplified case of chapters, sections, and paragarphs and talked about that. It doesn't matter. I don't think I disagree with what you are saying, I'm just not sure because you didn't define your objections to the database nature very well, and then you changed your argument to only be about non-technical manuals, when I was only arguing about its benefits for technical manuals. So no obvious disagreement here. > Could we move this BACK to the topic of groff versus xml? Why not emacs vs vi while we are at it? What is the point of that? They are different tools for different jobs. You have been involved in the freebsd community for over a decade. What is the point of a holy war argument like this? Why not pick up groff and go fix some freebsd man pages? - Murray From des at des.no Tue Jan 27 19:25:18 2009 From: des at des.no (=?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?=) Date: Tue Jan 27 19:25:25 2009 Subject: text formatting tools. In-Reply-To: <497E216D.1060903@telenix.org> (Chuck Robey's message of "Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:47:41 -0500") References: <497B77C7.90001@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901241353l56be13b4s9860b9e949bc9ec2@mail.gmail.com> <20090124224237.GA96097@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <2a7894eb0901241449y49391f6aj6414875e8781ea4@mail.gmail.com> <497CE231.5000202@telenix.org> <2a7894eb0901251821i6e25bfd3i4c235f946d2e581b@mail.gmail.com> <497E216D.1060903@telenix.org> Message-ID: <86ocxs9liv.fsf@ds4.des.no> Chuck Robey writes: > My comments were all directed towards the fact that xml is (and > enforces) a hierarchical approach to writing [...] No, it doesn't. Nor is it "gigantic", or in any way comparable to Cobol. There are so many factual errors, misconceptions, and plain ignorance in this thread (mostly from you), I don't even know where to begin. XML is nothing more or less than a very lightweight, easy-to-parse hierarchical markup language. The complete specification is about 50 pages long, and you can skip the last 30 or so and still get a good understanding of the language. There are a number of related technologies (DOM, XSL, XPath, XLink, XInclude, XML Schemas, Relax-NG etc), but you don't need to know any of them unless you plan to develop your own XML-based document preparation system - except for XInclude, which is useful for splitting up a document into multiple files; the spec is 30 pages long, but the only thing you need to know is that will cause chapter01.xml to be included at that point in the document. XML is a streamlined successor to SGML. They look very much alike, and they share a common subset, but there are constructs in each that don't exist in the other; for instance, SGML has several shortcut notations (tag minimization) which are not allowed from XML, and XML has one (empty element) that isn't in SGML. Removing tag minimization makes XML more verbose, but it increases the chance of detecting errors or corruption early. It also simplifies canonicalization, a concept which SGML lacks entirely. SGML, by the way, goes back a long time; the current specification was adopted in 1986. The first draft of the XML specification was published ten years later, in 1996. XML is not in itself a document format, but there are a number of document formats based on XML. The most widely known is XHTML, which is plain old HTML (which is SGML-based) with minor modifications to make it acceptable to an XML parser. Two other XML-based document formats you may have heard of are ODF and OOXML. Look them up on Wikipedia if you're interested in the details. DocBook was created by O'Reilly in 1991 as a markup language for books, primarily technical manuals. For many years, O'Reilly would only accept manuscripts in DocBook format. Because of this, DocBook has a number of quirks, including markup for man pages, for command line examples, and for various user interface elements, including keystroke combinations (often rendered as line drawings of key caps). DocBook was originally an SGML application; an XML version was introduced in 2001, and as of DocBook 5.0, the SGML version has been abandoned. However, most of the FreeBSD documentation (FAQ, handbook and various articles) is still in DocBook SGML; converting the source into DocBook XML should not be too hard, but converting the toolchain, templates and stylesheets is another matter entirely. XML is hierarchical, but that does not mean DocBook is, or has to be. You can write highly structured documents in DocBook, but you can also write a completely flat document, using only and so-called bridge heads (free-standing headings similar to HTML's

,

etc.) within a top-level element (
, or whatever). However, if you ever write anything longer than about ten pages, you'll find that a hierarchically structured document is much easier to maintain than a flat one, for a number of reasons, including automatic section numbering and cross-referencing, and the ability to easily move sections around. DocBook also supports many features that *roff doesn't, such as indexes, glossaries and bibliographies. Also, while *roff may require less typing, you have to admit that DocBook is a lot easier to *read*. The main drawback to DocBook is that most of the available tools aren't very good. There are a number of free and commercial editors of varying quality (some very basic, some quite good). There are also a number of free and commercial processing tools, but the free ones (including the official DocBook-XSL stylesheets) suck. There is at least one very good commercial toolchain (Prince XML) with a free-as-in-beer "personal edition". There also seems to be a new free (BSD-licensed, actually) toolchain called xmlroff, but I haven't tried it, so I don't know how good it is. I have my own DocBook-to-XHTML stylesheets, but they only cover the subset of DocBook that I use myself, and as they make heavy use of CSS, they are at the mercy of browser bugs. They are, however, very fast. Note that there are parts of DocBook (for instance, the CALS table model) that can't be implemented correctly using only stylesheets. Finally, a word about LaTeX. Yes, it takes a lot of space, and it has its (numerous) quirks. Ironically (in the context of this discussion), it is often criticized for *not* being hierarchical. However, no other document preparation system can beat the quality of its output - not even close. DES -- Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav - des@des.no From lawrence.auster at att.net Thu Jan 29 14:15:11 2009 From: lawrence.auster at att.net (Lawrence Auster) Date: Thu Jan 29 14:15:26 2009 Subject: The =?iso-8859-1?q?=93Military=2C?= Industrial =?iso-8859-1?q?Complex=94?= is no more -- The Hidden Massive Racial Discrimination in America against Whites Message-ID: <20090129220441.YPBD8485.fed1rmmtao105.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> The “Military, Industrial Complex” is no more. Today it is the Political, Financial and Media — Zionist Complex! 1/28/2009 An short essay by Dr. David Duke The “Military-Industrial complex” really has no relevance to the real holders of global power today. America is the most powerful military and economic nation on earth. The powers that control the levers of political power in America possess the greatest power the world has ever seen. Who really has power over the government today? Is it the fabled “Military, Industrial Complex”? An effective gauge of direct political power in America is “to discover who provided the pivotal amounts of the billion-dollar recent campaigns for U.S. President. You can look directly at campaign contributions for every candidate from the Federal Election Commission in order to find out who holds the real power in politics. So, who holds the real power over the American political establishment? Let’s first look at who does not hold much power over the establishment. 1) It is not the military. There is not any organized military monetary influence or even significant political influence of the military over the politicians. In fact, no one in military positions of authority are allowed to openly get involved in politics. No active sergeant, lieutenant, or General can send out a directive to the men under him to support or oppose a particular candidate (the one exception I know to that was when the Louisiana commanding general of the National Guard, under Jewish influence, sent a letter to all national guardsmen telling them that it was their “patriotic duty” to vote against David Duke and for the Liberal corrupt former Governor, Edwin Edwards. Even that caused a scandal in military circles, as it should have. 2) It is NOT major manufacturing or even the huge oil companies. There was not one oil company and only a couple of legitimate manufacturing or industrial concerns on Obama and McCain’s top twenty contributor list. The list was completely dominated by Zionist international banking firms. If one combines every defense contractor’s contributions the money they give in politics is minuscule compared to Zionist international banks. They don’t even come close to the power in lobbying that AIPAC and a couple of dozen more Jewish extremist organizations have. Jewish lobbyists literally get almost unanimous support in Congress for outrageous giveaways to Israel, a nation that has committed terrorism against us and killed or maimed scores of Americans. I am not talking about contracts here, I am speaking about giving away billions of dollars to a foreign nation. So, so much for the media-popularized term, the military-industrial complex In direct political money and lobbying then, Zionists are the undisputed masters of the American political establishment. In addition to their control through the use of money as an inducement or a threat, they have tens of thousands of Jewish extremists scattered throughout the entire bureaucracy who are very conscious of supporting their brethren and supporting the organized Jewish agenda. They also are ready to act against any Gentile who dares to go against Israel or the Jewish agenda. How will a Jewish federal judge rule in a huge litigation issue between Jewish and non-Jewish parties? Why was the biggest robber in the history of the world, Bernie Madoff who stole over 50 billion dollars and who ruined tens of thousands of families, only charged with one criminal count, and allowed to stay in his luxury apartment to await trial? Is there an organized Jewish agenda? Absolutely. In fact, the leading and most powerful Jewish groups have a supra-organization called the Council of Presidents (composed of the most powerful 5 dozen Jewish organizations in America). They issue detailed positions not just on Mideast policy but on many other issues that have nothing to do with Israel, aspects of domestic policy including issues such as opening America’s borders. They even assume positions on issues that you wouldn’t even think would have unanimity among Jews, such as abortion rights. Their job is to make sure that Jewish power is absolutely united on what they decide are their common agendas. Next, we must talk about one of the most influential parts of the American political process, the mass media. The media, such as the NY Times and the Washington Post (the newspaper read by every member of America’s government and bureaucracy in Washington). The Washington Post can determine even what issues Congress will discuss and it greatly affects the publicity for or against those issues. Broadcast and cable television also have an enormous impact, and we can include movies, books, magazines and the newspaper chains that reach down into almost every American community. As my chapters in Jewish Supremacism on “Jewish Media Supremacy” document, the ownership, depth and breadth of Jewish influence in the media is simply breathtaking. In media, whether you speak of owners, administrators, managers, editors, producers, writers, correspondents, pundits and reporters, there is an army of Jews who are animated by the Holocaust and the issues of the organized Jewish community. If you haven’t yet read them, you simply must see the evidence on the Jewish supremacy in media I have compiled in my books Jewish Supremacism and My Awakening. The other great seat of establishment power is simply money, huge sums of money and the willingness to use those funds on behalf of an agenda. The biggest concentrations of wealth in the world today are in the Zionist international banks, and in financial groups that the Jews completely control such as the Federal Reserve Corporation, the same forces that have led us to the doorstep of a great depression. It is no accident that Alan Greenspan and Ben Shalom Bernanke are the last two of the Federal Reserve czars. Even in days of World War I, an immensely rich, Jewish international banker, Jacob Schiff, voiced pride in the fact that he was instrumental in weakening Czarist Russia (the government that Jews universally hated), and that he supported Russia’s enemies so as to make Russia ripe for communist overthrow (Jewish groups brag of his help to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War so as to hurt the Russian government). Schiff also gave millions of dollars to directly finance the Jews who led and organized the Russian revolution and the Bolshevik terror in Russia. There is no disputing of these facts. Plenty of Jewish history books detail all of it. So, frankly, financial power in the control of people who will use it for an agenda is also a key ingredient of real power. Again, the financial power in the hands of modern day Jacob Schiff’s, is an incredibly powerful weapon. So forget about the “Military-Industrial Complex.” That is passe. In today’s world it makes more sense to speak about the “Political, Financial and Media Zionist complex.” That is the real core of power that bends everything whether it be local laws, or giant corporations, to its will. Even if one of the world’s richest firms, such as Microsoft (which is now by the way run by a Jewish extremist), would buck the political, financial, and media Zionist complex, it would be broken by government fiat, the Jewish-influenced courts (such as anti-trust actions), and by vicious attacks by the Jewish-influenced media. Microsoft would either be dismembered or destroyed. Such are the realities of the modern world. There is no longer a “military industrial complex,” but there is a Political and media and financial Zionist complex that rules us and aims to control the whole world. No single part of this behemoth can be defeated, because it can use its other assets to defend the section under attack. It can only be brought down by concentrating all our political and ideological fire right on the core the problem, International Zionism and its driving impetus: Jewish Supremacism. —Dr. David Duke Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/forget-the-military-industrial-complex-today-its-the-political-financial-and-media-zionist-complex_7394.html ---- The Hidden Massive Racial Discrimination in America against Whites 1/29/2009 The main argument for affirmative action is that institutions should reflect racial percentages of population, if not there must be de facto racial discrimination. Here is the breakdown of students by race at America’s premier university, Obama’s alma mater, Harvard. Even though non-Jewish White Americans are almost 70 percent of the population and on average score much higher on entrance exams, they are only about 22 percent of the Harvard student body. So what race is really the victim of racial discrimination? For those who are truly dedicated to stopping racial discrimination, what are you going to do about this massive discrimination, or does it not matter to you because White people happen to be the victims? The hidden, massive racial discrimination that goes on in America against White people! A U.S. Government study offers proof that European Americans face massive institutional racial discrimination that affects millions of the most talented and educated of our people Introduction by Dr. David Duke – As most of you know, the term “white supremacist” has become literally a prefix of my name when I am in the news. It is the media’s way to condition readers not to pay attention to what I say because I am a “white supremacist.” The truth is I am not a White supremacist, and I seek no supremacy or control over any people, but I do demand that the rights of people of European descent to be respected as much as any other people’s rights. The fact is that in the United States of America, Canada, the UK in many areas of Europe Whites face a powerful state-sanctioned, and often mandated, racial discrimination against White people who are better-qualified than their non-White counterparts. It may be surprising to some reading this, but millions of discriminated against Whites are often poorer and who face more difficult social situations than many of their non-White counterparts who are being given preference over them. It also affects the most talented of our people. Many Whites are under the mistaken impression that the White victims of racial discrimination are mostly from the low income and low IQ sectors of the population. Nothing could be further from the truth. In actuality, the percentages of Whites who are victims of racial discrimination are much higher in the sectors of the White population with the highest intelligence and greatest abilities. The facts are shocking, but true. Most people know that most universities have programs of admittance that give less-qualified minorities preference over better-qualified Whites. Almost all of the Fortune 500 largest corporations have affirmative action and diversity programs that discriminate against White people, both male and female, in hiring. They also have programs of discrimination that favor non-Whites in promotions and advancement. This is true in the academic area as well. You can look at almost any academic department of any American university and you will see in place a strong racial bias for “minorities” in preface over Whites in hiring and advancement. Whether you are talking about a university History, English or Math department in almost any university these policies are in place and powerful. These racial discriminatory policies are real, and they can be easily proven to exist. But, now we thanks to a government study, there is even a more powerful way to show their real impact on tens of mi llions of White Americans. The brilliant economist and author whose pen name is Yggdrasil has compiled the data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) 1979, which was a massive study conducted by the Department of Labor to track the lives of 155,000 Americans by race, IQ, income, education and other factors to see how remedial efforts for minorities were doing. It was done after the installation of so called “affirmative action” programs which gave preference to non-White groups over whites. The NLSY study is meant to follow this huge sampling for their entire lives to see how diversity is working out for America. The data is from this ongoing study is tangible proof of the horrendous level of racial discrimination going on against White people. I will link you to Yggdrasil’s fine paper in a moment, but let me first give you a couple of snippets from his work that proves the existence of massive racial discrimination going on against our people. Here is a chart showing the ethnic breakdown of the most prestigious university in the United States of America: Harvard. America’s premier university is extremely expensive (unless you receive special grants and scholarships) and a degree from it just about guarantees its graduates the best paid and prestigious jobs America has to offer. Affirmative action advocates have long said the companies or institutions that don’t reflect the actual racial population percentages are de facto racist and discriminatory. So what is the situation at Harvard, non-Jewish Whites who are about 70 pecent of the American population are only about 22 percent of the Harvard student body. One should first consider the fact that Whites are represented in the top two percentile level on college admission tests on an average that is a 5 times higher rate than non-White groups. If one then factors in the fact that Whites are also 70 percent of the population, there should be at least 25 times more Whites who would be better qualified than the non-White students currently at Harvard. But even though these Whites are the best and brightest America has to offer they are limited to only 20 percent of Harvard students! Such is nothing more than blatant, racial discrimination. Another interesting fact one can gleam from this chart and many in the NLSY studies that Jewish over-representation is not based simply on the fact that Jews have a high intelligence, they often do twice as well as their intelligence bracket would indicate. Such would suggest the intra-tribal support system for group cohesion and advancements aids their success rate. The NLSY data also shows how incomes today in the USA correlate with race and intelligence. Let’s take a look NLSY tracking studies of intelligent White women, these are White women in the 90 to 97 percent IQ bracket as compared to Black women in that same high 90 to 97 percent IQ bracket. The average Black females of that IQ level earned an average of approximately $54,000 per year through 1996, whereas White females on the same IQ level earned only half of that amount, about $28,000 per year through 1996. When White women in the same intelligent bracket of Black women earn half of the average amount that the Black women do, that’s real racial discrimination. I am not referring here to a few White women who are at least equally qualified but getting half the salary that Black women do, I am talking about the average White women in America! The NLSY is a big enough sample that reflects the whole nation. In fact it is meant to. The average White woman of high intelligence earns one-half of what Black women do of the same intelligence! I obviously don’t like this racial discrimination against our people. Neither does the economist Yggdrasil. We advocate that the best person regardless of race gets whatever college admission or job or promotion their abilities dictate. We have no fear of how well our people will do on a fair playing field. Because we stand for true civil rights, human rights in the matter, we are called racists, and the real capper: “white supremacists.” There are many people in America and around the world who are ignorant of the facts of anti-White racial discrimination. The media acts like it doesn’t exist. Even after the election of an affirmative action African-American President, America is still painted as an anti-Black racist country. The truth is that European Americans are facing racial discrimination in the very institutions and nation that our forefathers created. Our movement is truly a liberation movement like any other in the world that strives for a people to free and live in society of our own values rather than oppressive society imposed upon us. We are not racists or supremacists trying to deny the rights of others. We are human rights activists defending our people’s rights and heritage. –Dr. David Duke Source & Charts : http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-real-racial-discrimination-that-goes-on-in-america_7407.html ----- Obama’s Mideast Jewish Wet Dream Team George Mitchell is the new American envoy now in the Mideast. Who is Mitchell and who are the key players in Obama’s Mideast policy team? First, let’s examine the major players on the Obama foreign policy team. Roger Cohen writing in The New York Times on January 11, 2009 wrote some things that if he were a Gentile would have earned him some attacks as an “anti-Semite.” He pointed out the incredible top-heavy pro-Zionist content of the team which is supposed to broker a fair and just peace in the Mideast. In discussing the team he identified them with these words: They include Dennis Ross (the veteran Clinton administration Mideast peace envoy who may now extend his brief to Iran) [a long-time Jewish Zionist]; James Steinberg [Jewish Zionist] (as deputy secretary of state) ; Dan Kurtzer [Jewish Zionist] (the former U.S. ambassador to Israel); Dan Shapiro [Jewish Zionist] (a longtime aide to Obama); and Martin Indyk [Jewish Zionist] another former ambassador to Israel who is close to the incoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.) Now, I have nothing against smart, driven, liberal, Jewish (or half-Jewish) males; I’ve looked in the mirror. I know or have talked to all these guys, except Shapiro. They’re knowledgeable, broad-minded and determined. Still, on the diversity front they fall short. On the change-you-can-believe-in front, they also leave something to be desired. Cohen did not even mention that the two closest advisers to Obama, the guys that filter almost everything that Obama see and hears and makes the day to day decisions of running the oval office. They are David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel, two long time dedicated Jewish extremists. Emmanuel, son of an Irgun terrorist and named after another Irgun terrorist, even fought in the Israeli Army. Now we come to the new envoy to the Mideast, George Mitchell of Maine, the man who is supposed to be a broadminded and just arbitrator between Israel and the Palestinians. The Jewish-influenced has made a big point of Mitchell’s Lebanese ancestry. What the Zionist media doesn’t tell you is that he has been completely under the control of AIPAC and radical Zionists for years. As Senate Majority Leader he rammed through everything Israel wanted. He even supported the Senate resolution that gave Israel unconditional support during the Zionist massacre of thousands of Gaza civilians. In fact, originally an appointee to the Senate, Mitchell owes his entire Senate career on the massive support given him in 1982 and since by AIPAC and 27 other Jewish extremist controlled political action committees that AIPAC arranged. AIPAC’s Tom Dine summarized AIPAC’s success in Mitchell’s election by saying that “American Jews are thus able to form our own foreign policy agenda.” Of course, Dine spoke the complete and unvarnished truth. American and Israeli extremist Jews do indeed control the foreign policy of the United States. Such control has long gone on in concert with past U.S. Presidents and it goes on today with Obama. Only difference is that today there is a greater danger because many in America and around the world falsely believe that Obama represents change. With the incredible respect and adulation given to Obama, he is in a much better position to support the Zionist war agenda and ultimately do far more harm than a discredited George Bush. Hold on to your hats, America. I predict Obama will usher in war and conflagration that will make George Bush’s presidency seem mild in comparison. He has already announced a doubling of American troops in Afghanistan. Can a catastrophic war with Iran be far behind? Jewish extremists want this war and Obama is completely under their control! – Dr. David Duke Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/who-is-on-obamas-dream-team-for-mideast-peace_7380.html ------------------------------------- You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling "to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster@att.net ------------------------------------- From info at videobrokers.com Fri Jan 30 07:41:03 2009 From: info at videobrokers.com (Video Brokers) Date: Fri Jan 30 07:41:11 2009 Subject: Second hand video equipment for sale. Message-ID: [1]WWW.VIDEOBROKERS.COM WE BUY & SALE USED VIDEO/BROADCAST EQUIPMENTS! Hello, Please find bellow some details regarding the equipment we have for sale at the moment. Do not hesitate to get in touch with us if what you are looking for is not listed here, let us know as well what you have for sale. VISION MIXER's : Sony DVS2000, 10 SDI inputs @ 5.000 Euros Sony DVS2000, 16 SDI inputs @ 7.000 Euros Abekas A8150, SDI @ 3.000 Euros BTS DD20, specs on request @ 8.000 Euros BTS DD30, specs on request @ 10.000 Euros BTS DD35, specs on request @ 14.000 Euros GVG 1200, SDI @ 5.000 Euros GVG 4000, specs on request @ 4.000 Euros GVG Kayak DD1, full options @21.000 Euros GVG Kayak HD200 & HD300, specs on request @ contact us for a quote Sony DVS7250 & 7350, specs on request @ contact us for a quote VTR's : Panasonic AJ-D230H, 200 original drum hours @ 1.100 Euros Panasonic AJ-D650E, 2400 original drum hours @ 1.000 Euros Panasonic AJ-D650E, with SDI, new drum "0hrs" @ 2.500 Euros Panasonic AJ-D950E, 2500 original drum hours @ 6.000 Euros Panasonic AJ-D960E, 1000 drum hours @ 7.000 Euros Panasonic AJLT-75E, 1500 original drum hours @5.500 Euros Panasonic AJLT95, new drum "0hrs" @ 9.000 Euros Panasonic AJHD1200E, 1200 original drum hours @ 9.000 Euros Panasonic AJHD1400E, 280 original drum hours @ 16.500 Euros Sony UVW1200P, details on request @ from 400 Euros Sony UVW1600P, details on request @ from 700 Euros Sony UVW1800P, details on request @ from 1.000 Euros Sony PVW2600P, details on request @ from 800 Euros Sony PVW2650P, new drum "0hrs" @ 1.500 Euros Sony PVW2800P, serviced @ 2.000 Euros Sony BVW60P, details on request @ from 400 Euros Sony BVW65P, details on request @ from 400 Euros Sony BVW70P, details on request @ from 2.000 Euros Sony BVW70P with SDI, 800 drum hours @ 2.800 Euros Sony BVW75P, details on request @ from 2.000 Euros Sony BVWD75P, 310 drum hours @ 2.800 Euros Sony DSR1P, 59 original drum hours @ 1.900 Euros Sony DSR40P, 680 original drum hours @ 1.900 Euros Sony DSR45P, 800 original drum hours @ 2.500 Euros Sony DSR60P, 900 drum hours @ 600 Euros Sony DSR80P, with SDI, 2600 original drum hours @ 2.200 Euros Sony DSR85P, with SDI, new drum "0hrs" @ 3.500 Euros Sony DSR1500AP, with fire wire and YUV, 680 original drum hours @ 3.500 Euros Sony DSR1500AP, with SDI& fire wire, 400 original drum hours @ 4.000 Euros Sony DSR2000P, 2600 original drum hours @ 5.500 Euros Sony DSR2000P, new drum "hrs" @ 7.000 Euros Sony DNWA30P, 2000 original drum hours @ 1.500 Euros Sony DNWA65P, 3000 drum hours @ 1.800 Euros Sony DNWA75P, 3500 original drum hours @ 4.500 Euros Sony DNWA220P, 2500 drum hours @ 4.000 Euros Sony DNWA225P, 2200 drum hours @ 7.000 Euros Sony J1, betacam SP and SX player, low hours @ 1.200 Euros Sony J3A, 1200 original drum hours @ 3.900 Euros Sony DVW522P, low original drum hours @ 2.500 Euros Sony DVW510P S/N 11198, 3278 drum hours @ 4.500 Euros Sony DVWA510P, 2500 drum hours @ 6.000 Euros Sony DVW500P S/N 16243, 3587 drum hours @ 15.000 Euros Sony DVWA500P S/N 10520, fully serviced, new drum "0hrs" @ 19.000 Euros Sony DVWM2000P, 300 original drum hours @ 23.000 Euros Sony JH3, 150 original drum hours, with fire wire @ 13.000 Euros Sony HDWM2000P S/N 49298, EX-DEMO, 390 original drum hours @ 33.000 Euros Sony HDWM2000P, NEW IN THE BOX @ 36.000 Euros CAMERA's & CAMCORDER's : Sony HDC1500, complete camera chain, specs on request, 16 units available @ 50.000 Euros/ unit Thomson LDK8000, complete camera chain, specs on request, 6 units available @ make an offer Sony DXCD30P, camera head @ 1.600 Euros Sony DXCD35P, camera head @ 2.000 Euros Thomson TTV1657D (4/3-16:9) complete triax chain @ 16.000 Euros Thomson LDK23HS MKII complete chain @ 38.000 Euros Panasonic AJD800P, 1400 drum hours @ 1.600 Euros Panasonic AJD610WAE, 700 drum hours @ 3.600 Euros Panasonic AJ-SDC615E, 1300 original drum hours @ 4.500 Euros Panasonic AJD910WAE, low hours @ 5.000 Euros Panasonic AGHVX200, ex-demo, 0hrs @ 3.300 Euros Panasonic AJSDX900, with AJ-VF20WE, 2550 original drum hours @ 7.000 Euros Panasonic AJHDX900, with AJ-HVF21, 1150 original drum hours @13.000 Euros Panasonic HPX-2100E, ex-demo, 4 years warranty, with view finder and microphone @ 18.700 Euros Panasonic AJ-HDC27 (varicam), 800 original drum hours @ 15.000 Euros Sony BVWD600P S/N 40358, 233 drum hours @ 2.000 Euros Sony HVR-Z1E, around 700 original drum hours @ 2.000 Euros Sony HVR-Z5E, NEW @ 3.740 Euros Sony HVR-Z7E, NEW @ 4.680 Euros Sony PMW-EX3, NEW @ 6.870 Euros Sony PMW-700, NEW @ 21.840 Euros Sony DSRPD150P, battery charger @ 1.200 Euros Sony DSRPD170P, battery charger, wide angle converter @ 1.600 Euros Sony DSR370P S/N 42129, 383 original drum hours, including Canon YH19x6.7KRS @ 3.500 Euros Sony DSR400P S/N 43512, 50 original drum hours @ 4.000 Euros Sony DSR500WSP S/N 42925, 800 original drum hours @ 3.000 Euros Sony DSR570WSP S/N 46925, 1200 original drum hours @ 4.500 Euros Sony DSR450WSP S/N 42790, 550 original drum hours @ 7.500 Euros Sony DVW700P, details on request @ from 2.000 Euros Sony DVW707P, details on request @ from 2.500 Euros Sony DNW7P, details on request @ from 2.000 Euros Sony DNW9WSP, details on request @ from 4.000 Euros Sony DNW90WSP, details on request @ from 6.000 Euros Sony DVW709WSP S/N 40090, 1317 original drum hours @ 9.000 Euros Sony DVW709WSP S/N 40011, 399 original drum hours @ 10.000 Euros Sony DVW790WS S/N 40330, 55 drum hours @ 13.500 Euros Sony DVW790WSP S/N 41929, 516 drum hours @ 15.000 Euros Sony DVW790WSP S/N 42199, 601 original drum hours @ 17.000 Euros Sony PDW530P S/N 40538, 40 original lazer hours @ 14.000 Euros Sony PDW530P S/N 60394, 18 original lazer hours @ 15.000 Euros Sony HDW730S S/N 10192, 551 original drum hours, like new ! @ 16.000 Euros Sony HDW750P S/N 40113, 1513 original drum hours, with down converter @ 17.000 Euros Sony HDW750P S/N 40112, 1521 original drum hours, with down converter @ 17.000 Euros Sony HDW790P, 70 original drum hours @ 23.000 Euros Sony HDWF900/3 S/N 12474, 1519 original drum hours @ 20.000 Euros LENSES : Canon ZSD300 & FPD400, ex-demo @ 1.500 Euros Fujinon A16x9BERM @ 800 Euros Canon J15x8BIRS @ 1.500 Euros Fujinon A15x8BEVM @ 1.500 Euros Fujinon A8.5x5.5BEVM @ 3.000 Euros Canon YJ19x9KRS @ 1.000 Euros Canon YJ12x6.5IRS @ 3.000 Euros Canon J16x8BIRS @ 2.500 Euros Canon J8x6BKRS @ 1.800 Euros Canon J8x6BIRS @ 2.500 Euros Canon J9x5.2BIRS @ 5.000 Euros Canon J11x4.5BIRS @ 7.000 Euros Canon J22x7.6IAS @ 6.000 Euros Canon J33x15IRS with lens support + remotes @ 17.000 Euros Fujinon A10x4.8BEVM @ 6.000 Euros Fujinon A13x4.5BERD @ 8.000 Euros Fujinon HA13x4.5BERM, @ 12.000 Euros Fujinon HA13x4.5BERM, EX-DEMO @ 13.000 Euros Fujinon HA20x7.8BM10 @ 13.000 Euros Fujinon HA10x5BM10 @ 13.000 Euros Canon HJ11x4.7BIRSE, NEW @ 13.000 Euros Canon HJ21x7.8BIRSD @ 11.000 Euros Canon HJ22x7.6BIRSE, EX-DEMO @ 13.000 Euros Canon HJ22x7.6BIASE, NEW @ 14.000 Euros Fujinon HA42x , perfect condition @ contact us Canon J55super, with zoom and focus + lens support @ 19.000 Euros Canon PJ70 MK1 with zoom and focus + lens support @ 24.000 Euros Canon PJ70 MKII with zoom and focus + lens support @ 34.000 Euros Canon DIGI SUPER 86 XS with zoom and focus @ 78.000 Euros Fujinon HAe 10x10 M T1.8 @ 45.000 Euros Fujinon Super prime set @ 14.000 Euros, including : HAe F5-M10 T1.5 and HAe F8-M10 T1.5 and HAe F20-M10 T1.5 VARIOUS : Sony DME3000 @ 3.000 Euros Sony DME7000 @ 6.000 Euros Sony CA701 @ 2.000 Euros Sony RMM7G @ 700 Euros Sony CCUM5P @ 900 Euros Sony CCUM7P @ 1.000 Euros Sony CA537P @ 700 Euros Snell & Wilcox TBS24D @ 2.000 Euros Pinnacle DEKO 500 @ 3.000 Euros Pinnacle DEKO 2000 @ 9.000 Euros Sony DSC1024 @ 1.000 Euros Panasonic BTLH900E @ 2.350 Euros Panasonic BTLH1700E @ 1.480 Euros Sony BVF-VC10W @ 1.700 Euros Sony LMD 1420 @ 500 Euros Sony LMD 2020 @ 600 Euros Sony PVM9L2 @ 500 Euros Sony PVM20M2, ex-demo @ 600 Euros Sony PVM20M4 SDI @ 1.600 Euros Sony BVM2016P with SDI @ 1.500 Euros Sony BVM20G1E with SDI & BKM10R @ 4.000 Euros Sony BVMD20F1E with BKM11RR & BKM21D & BKM14L @ 6.000 Euros Sony BVM-F24E, HD/SDI, 4000 operation hours @ 19.000 Euros Sony RM450 @ 600 Euros Sony PVE500 @ 900 Euros Sony BVE9100 @ 1.500 Euros Sony BVE2000 @ 1.500 Euros Tektronix 1721/1731 @ 600 Euros Tektronix SPG110 @ 400 Euros Tektronix SPG271 @ 1.000 Euros Tektronix TSG111 @ 500 Euros Fora FA320, TBC @ 500 Euros Fora FA330, TBC @ 600 Euros Vinten Vision 10 @ 1.300 Euros Vinten Vision 11, carbon fiber @ 2.000 Euros Sachtler S18+ SBMLCF @ 3.900 Euros Tektronix WFM300 @ 800 Euros Tektronix WFM601A @ 2.500 Euros Tektronix WFM5000, ex-demo @ 4.250 Euros Sony DMXE2000 @ 1.500 Euros Sony DMXE3000 @ 2.500 Euros Sony PCM7030 @ 600 Euros Sony PCM7040 @ 1.200 Euros Yamaha 03D @ 800 Euros DK AUDIO PT5210, Vari Time Digital Sync Generator @ 2.000 Euros IDX video wireless system SDI, Model: WIVI @ 2.700 Euros AccuScene VF 1280S HD view finder with zebra Black & White, compatible for F23/F35/Genesis/RED @ 9.000 Euros FOUCUS FS-100, fire store HD multiformat DVCPRO HD, 100Go @ 400 Euros Snell & Wilcox IQ MODULAR with IQADBBG and 2x IQAVDA @ 2.000 Euros EVS XT2 6 channels SD, 5x 73GO, audio analo, AES, 2x PSU cool swap, open code, multicam LSM, super motion, FX split screen, network SDTI 1.5, protocol VDCP/DD35/ODETICS/LOUTH, protocol AVSP @ 72.000 Euros Video Brokers [2]www.videobrokers.com Alexandre Villegoureix Tel : +33 (0)6.09.84.13.86 Email : [3]alex@videobrokers.fr [4]If you wish not to receive anyfirther offer from us please follow this link References 1. http://url.videobrokers.com/id.asp?l=51090-4030682-735726-966-0 2. http://url.videobrokers.com/id.asp?l=51090-4030682-735726-966-0 3. mailto:alex@videobrokers.fr 4. http://url.videobrokers.com/id.asp?l=51089-4030682-735726-966-0&id=735726-966-4030682-3a3430f0&res=fr From jcw at highperformance.net Sat Jan 31 14:00:43 2009 From: jcw at highperformance.net (Jason C. Wells) Date: Sat Jan 31 14:00:50 2009 Subject: UTF as Filename Extension Message-ID: <4984C5E5.1070505@highperformance.net> Here is a simple discussion that is probably more complex than I'd like it to be. Is there any way to enforce a UTF-8 encoding of a file, perhaps by filename extension? Could such an encoding solve cross platform line break incompatibility? A wiki article states that such capability exists, but the tools aren't there yet. I suppose the easiest question to answer is, should users like me worry about it much? I use unformatted text more and more for documents, saving the formatting step for late in the writing process. I like my text to be variable width and to reflow along paragraph demarcations. New line compatibility issues are annoying. Fixing them is not what I want to spend time doing. Regards, Jason From keramida at ceid.upatras.gr Sat Jan 31 23:06:37 2009 From: keramida at ceid.upatras.gr (Giorgos Keramidas) Date: Sat Jan 31 23:06:45 2009 Subject: UTF as Filename Extension In-Reply-To: <4984C5E5.1070505@highperformance.net> (Jason C. Wells's message of "Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:43:01 -0800") References: <4984C5E5.1070505@highperformance.net> Message-ID: <873aeyd55v.fsf@kobe.laptop> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:43:01 -0800, "Jason C. Wells" wrote: > Here is a simple discussion that is probably more complex than I'd like > it to be. Is there any way to enforce a UTF-8 encoding of a file, > perhaps by filename extension? Could such an encoding solve cross > platform line break incompatibility? I find that Emacs makes a very good job of 'hiding' these annoying details from me. In both X11 and `no window' sessions of the editor, the coding-system auto-detection of new buffers works 99% of the time and I can specify it manually when it doesn't. Using the filename for automated guesses of what the content may be is probably not going to work so well. Windows has tried doing it, and see all the ATTACHMENT.JPG.EXE trojans they got as a result :)