Hi, I'm trying to perform a installation of FF8 with wine, but the installation is very slow. About 2h to perform 10% of the install. Is there any reason about that ? I've a good configuration so it's not the fault of my pc. Second, no network connexion is available. Can I make it works ? Thx for your help. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/attachments/20060427/2bedcbcb/attachment.htm
ARMAND Morgan <Morgan.ARMAND@supinfo.com> wrote:> > I'm trying to perform a installation of FF8 with wine, but the installation is very slow.Wine version?> About 2h to perform 10% of the install. Is there any reason about that ? I've a good configuration so it's not the fault of my pc.Please elaborate on what "a good configuration" means?> Second, no network connexion is available. Can I make it works ?If you mean DirectPlay isn't working, AFAIK this is not very far developed at the moment. Daniel
ARMAND Morgan wrote:> > Hi, > > I'm trying to perform a installation of FF8 with wine, but the > installation is very slow. > About 2h to perform 10% of the install. Is there any reason about that ? > I've a good configuration so it's not the fault of my pc.First of all, if you have a Celeron, no matter how fast of a celeron it is, your PC sucks. Celeron is, as stated by an ex-employee of Intel, "a bunch of spare transistors thrown together to make a cheap Pentium for the worthless bastards in India." (sic) It should be noted that the quoted comment above was referring to Pentium 4-compatable Celerons, and benchmarks can back it up.> > Second, no network connexion is available. Can I make it works ?Please learn better English. If you can't take the time to produce decent English, then we can't be bothered to read your postings.> > Thx for your help. >
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:35:49 +0200, ARMAND Morgan wrote:> I'm trying to perform a installation of FF8 with wine, but the installation is very slow.If this is an InstallShield it may be that our DCOM is not well optimised. Try using native DCOM and see if that speeds it up. thanks -mike
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:11:11 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:54:11 +0000, Segin wrote: >> Please learn better English. If you can't take the time to produce >> decent English, then we can't be bothered to read your postings. > > Segin, your attitude towards others is unacceptable. You have already > annoyed several Wine developers - either cut the insults or leave. Your > choice. > > -mikeIf you don't like attitude why post in usenet? It's not like this is a mailing list.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:27:28 -0400, Vincent Povirk wrote:>> If you don't like attitude why post in usenet? It's not like > this is a mailing list.>I don't know about you, but I'm posting to a mailing list.Perhaps you are but your mailing list post is being sent to a usenet group and around the world. Since you saw my post (sent to the usenet group) it means your mailing list is now open to the world. Good Luck>Come to think of it, wasn't someone linking the wine-users list with a >usenet group..or something like that?-- Vincent Povirk aka MadEwokHerd Primary email: madewokherd@gmail.com Secondary email: madewokherd@comcast.net Tertiary email: vrp5000@psu.edu Jabber: madewokherd@jabber.org
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:31:43 +0100, David Shaw wrote:> If you'd care to look at the 'signature' that's been appended to your > message, you'll see that - for many of us, at least - this *is* a > mailing list :-)If you would care to look at the headers of the post you will see it came from a usenet group. Why does the mailing list feel they can post their messages to the world in usenet?> Besides, why should it matter where we post?Perhaps because the conventions of a mailing list and a usenet group are not the same.>Such 'attitude' as you > call it is totally uncalled for in *any* situation - personally, I call > it bad manners. The kind of totally unprovoked abuse which we were > commenting on does not demonstrate either moral, technical or > evolutionary superiority over the rest of us mere mortals - rather, it > simply demonstrates superior ignorance (indeed, where I was brought up > in the English Midlands, such behaviour would have been described as > 'pig ignorant'). It is unhelpful, unproductive and totally unneccesary > and there is no logical reason why it should be tolerated.Since the "unprovoked abuse" did not show up in usenet but your whine did it tends to give a bad impression not of the abuser but of you.> David Shaw > >>If you don't like attitude why post in usenet? It's not like >>this is a mailing list. >>_______________________________________________ >>wine-users mailing list >>wine-users@winehq.org >>http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users >> >> >>
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:41:36 +0200, Molle Bestefich wrote:> Exeter wrote: >> If you don't like attitude why post in usenet? >> It's not like this is a mailing list. > > Rating: +4, funny :)No not really. Why does winehq feel that they can take over a usenet group to propigate their posts? If they want a forum let them set up their own. If they want to tell usenet users of the forum let them post a weekly message. If they want to send their responders posts out to the world at least let them know they are now posting in usenet.> David Shaw wrote: >> The kind of totally unprovoked abuse which we were >> commenting on does not demonstrate either moral, technical or >> evolutionary superiority over the rest of us mere mortals - rather, it >> simply demonstrates superior ignorance > > OTOH, unprovoked abuse and superior ignorance CAN be funny. > It's fun to watch and it's fun to do (for fun, not if you ARE > ignorant), and as long as the other party agrees to it, it's no harm > either, except for the spam factor for those that do not think it's > fun to watch. > > I'm not defending Segin here - his comments were totally uncalled for. > > I'm saying that I did like the old FidoNet way of doing things. > You would have discussion forums for this and that, and then you'd > have a special "flames" subcategory where heated discussions and > unprovoked attacks were deferred. > > An argument starts getting heated? Everyone else just said "take it > to flames" and off they go. Either ends up with them agreeing, or a > major flamefest. In cases where it ends in flamefest, it's rather fun > to watch (or even join) if you're in that mood. The end result is > that nobody has to deal with emotional buildup - you can let > everything out in .flames. > > (There was of course also those that didn't subscribe to .flames - in > those cases, when people said "take it to flames", the argument would > per definition just end there with an "ok, nuff said" or something. > Nobody actually carried it on, since everyone understood that personal > attacks belonged there.)So this is what usenet needs. A group that did not have flames having flames brought to them by a "private subscription" mailing list.
Exeter <Exeter@abz.invalid> wrote:> So this is what usenet needs. A group that did not have flames > having flames brought to them by a "private subscription" mailing > list.Usenet always had flames. As for bringing them to this NG: All your posts to this group that Google Groups can find are bordering on being such themselves. Daniel
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:14:41 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Skorka wrote:> Exeter <Exeter@abz.invalid> wrote: >> So this is what usenet needs. A group that did not have flames >> having flames brought to them by a "private subscription" mailing >> list. > > Usenet always had flames.And this group has had a low flame rate.> As for bringing them to this NG: All your posts to this group that > Google Groups can find are bordering on being such themselves.Since I seldom post to this group from this account you would be talking about the three posts in this thread is that correct? Just which parts of those posts do you consider to be flames, or is any complaint a falme?> > Daniel
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:16:57 +0200, "Molle Bestefich" <molle.bestefich@gmail.com> wrote:>> That said, the days of hiding your email address to avoid spam is long >> gone. Use a proper spam filter and you'll never see any of it.If only that were true. :-( :-( Today has been a VERY slow spam day here. I'm only up to 184 pieces of spam today. Usually it's around 400 on average, each and every day. The vast majority of it gets caught by my spam filter, sure enough, but a few pieces of "real" (and important) email gets caught by the spam filter too, so I still have to review every Subject: line, every day, before deleting it for goot. I know that I, for one, would have been Very Pissed Off if my real email address got exposed here without my consent, and I suspect that I'm in the majority, here, so it's probably a Really Bad Idea to crosspost mailing lists to newsgroups without the knowledge and consent of the people who think they're posting only to the mailing list.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:41:26 -0500, "James Hawkins" <truiken@gmail.com> wrote:>> The users and developers requested this feature. Many in the wine >> community felt the need for an online forum, in addition to a mailing >> list, and no one wanted to maintain said forum, so we relinked the >> usenet group, the online forum access being google groups. I don't >> see any problem in opening up the wine community by including this >> group. Previously, the two were separate entities that (most of the >> time) didn't intermingle. Now we have an even larger community to >> foster ideas and help users.Good evening, James. That would be fine, but you really should hide the email addresses of the people who post on the mailing lists, otherwise they're sure to see a huge upswell of spam in their mailboxes (spam filters notwithstanding) and they'll be mighty pissed off once they find out how it happened.
Walt Ogburn <reuben@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, C. J. Clegg wrote: > > I know that I, for one, would have been Very Pissed Off if my real > > email address got exposed here without my consent, and I suspect that > > I'm in the majority, here, so it's probably a Really Bad Idea to > > crosspost mailing lists to newsgroups without the knowledge and > > consent of the people who think they're posting only to the mailing > > list. > > The mailing list has always been archived online, so anyone can pull your > e-mail address off of the archive even without the newsgroup. This > shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, since the archives are linked from the > same web page where you find about the mailing list. Linking to the > newsgroup makes no difference as far as exposing e-mail addresses goes, > because the mailing list is as publically visible as the newsgroup is. > > http://www.winehq.org/site/forums > http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/2006-April/thread.htmlwine-users is also archived on gmane. That is available as newsgroups gmane.comp.emulators.wine.user or http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.wine.user (Now my newsreader shows same articlers on two newsgroup comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine and gmane.comp.emulators.wine.user :-) ) Google founds many Web-based archives for wine-users mailing lists. There is some: http://www.forbiddenweb.org/viewlist.php?id=17 http://www.archivesat.com/Wine_Users_Mailing_List/ http://archives.free.net.ph/list/wine-users.en.html / Kari Hurtta
xyzzy1@hotpop.com wrote:> No, this is NOT true. If you look closely at the postings, you see any "@" > characters substituted with "at" and perhaps the "." by "dot". That makes an > automatic harvester's job much much harder since there are no special > characters to find that signify an email address. > > Unless the harvester knows the exact format of each archive posting and where > exactly the email address was, it would be pointless to try to harvest fromHow many commonly used mailing list programs do you think there are? I bet only a few, each of which has it's own standard format for archives. Also, you may have noticed that Pipermail puts your email address into a 'mailto'. Yes, the @ gets replaced by ' at ', but if I were a spammer, this would be exactly the kind of obfuscation I would look for.> the archives that I have seen because the spammer's list would be peppered > with bogus addresses.Do you really think a spammer cares how much bogus adresses he has to try as long as he knows there are some valid ones among them? Daniel
On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:49:56 -0500, Jeremy White <jwhite@winehq.org> wrote:>> We rely on Mailman to do this cross post; I have no idea >> if they make an attempt to obfuscate the emails at >> all prior to sending them on to the newsgroups. I do >> know that most responsible web sites that display newsgroups >> to perform this obfuscaition (notably Google, who is >> our primary link point).Good morning, Jeremy. No serious spammer uses Google or anything like that to harvest email addresses. All of them have their own NTP servers and maintain their own newsgroup archives, with email addresses stored in the clear, or else they are associated with other organizations that maintain their own NTP servers and archive storage.