SOTL >> LT only does DXF. That is one of the features they add when you give
them more money.
<Sigh...>
>From http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=2498418
"AutoCAD LTR software simplifies daily tasks with full DWG native file
format compatibility..."
You are flat out wrong and can't accept it. I won't bother with the rest.
I'm done with you. Good luck with your fight against the world.
Ken Elliott
=====================
-----Original Message-----
From: slug@nks.net [mailto:slug@nks.net] On Behalf Of SOTL
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:10 PM
To: slug@nks.net
Subject: Re: [SLUG] IBM
Date: Wednesday 26 September 2007 20:57
From: "Ken Elliott" <kelliott11@cfl.rr.com>
To: slug@nks.net
SOTL wrote:
>> LT is an abbreviation for light as in not heavy.
> Nope. LT does not stand for anything. LT was meant to be a "limited"
> version, and was never referred to as light by insiders. I know
> several of the Autodesk founders and programmers. I'm also an AutoCAD
> Certified Expert. I assure you my information is quite accurate.
Why do you not try looking LP up?
http://www.abbreviations.com/LT
I believe it is line 3/
>> The AutoCAD Light drawings we get are in DWG format.
>> The AutoCAD drawings we get are in DFX.
No such "DFX" file format exists.
Right it is DXF
Both AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT create DWG and DXF files.
Wrong
LT only does DXF. That is one of the features they add when you give them
more money.
But what I do not understand is what this nit picking on the lowest level of
the operational plane has to do with the central theme of the posts?
Is your comprehension really so low that you do not see the strategic level
of the posts and that all you are capable of comprehending is the lowest
common denominator of the operation level?
If you had bothered to read the original post it was by another who central
theme is that Linux is desktop ready without application programs that force
users to use XP.
Do you not grasp that 90% of the world disagrees with you because they do
not find the applications they need in Linux and that is why they use XP?
Or is it that you fail to believe that the examples are applicable simple
because they do not equal your requirements for correct detail?
The one thing that is for sure is that this nit picking is not going to make
Linux desk top ready today or in the next 5 years.
But what I really suspect is that this proves another central part of the
thesis in that shrills do not bother to read the original posting so have no
idea of the subject being discussed, only reading one set of comments in one
posting and then immediately twisting the topic due to their completely
missunderstanding of the subject matter. Examples then become something to
be
picked apart on the lowest plane because of a total lack of comprehension to
the subject being discussed. As I told you before GO BACK AND REREAD THE 3
POSTINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:25:59 EDT