Everett M. Greene wrote: > David Harper <devnull@obliquity.u-net.com> writes: [SNIP] >> This idea is, unsurprisingly, deeply unpopular among the manufacturers >> of diaries and calendars, who have waged a vigorous and -- to date -- >> very successful campaign to prevent the World Calendar from being adopted. >> >> David Harper ;-) >> Cambridge, England > > I can't imagine calendar manufacturers being that upset by > a different calendar. Most people use their calendars for > appointments and other notes every year and will still > need a new one each year. Day planners will still need > new inserts every year. I'll still want new choo-choo > train pitchers on my Union Pacific RR calendar each year. > > It's been rumored that other corporations are quite in > favor of a change, so I doubt the calendar manufacturers > can outpoint them if the desire for change is really > there. Inertia, tradition, etc. is a more likely > explanation for failure to adopt a better calendar. Of > course, conversion is not a trivial matter. Sorry, that was an attempt at humour :-) David Harper Cambridge, England

On Mar 10, 5:49 pm, David Harper <devn...@obliquity.u-net.com> wrote: > > This means that you never need to remember what day of the week March > 10th is going to fall on, because it will always be a Friday. I can think of one disadvantage, which could make it personally not a good choice of calendar. Imagine if your birthday were on a Monday...it would *always* be on a Monday, and you'd never have the benefit of having it on a Saturday, etc... bb

David Harper <devnull@obliquity.u-net.com> writes: > Everett M. Greene wrote: > > Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > > > >> Why not a calendar of 12, 30 day months with 5 world days and a sixth > >> every 4 years? That would certainly save our knuckles and between from > >> being counting boards for the months. > > > > Such a calendar has been proposed but with 30-31-30 days > > repeated four times with an extra day at the end of the > > year. Another extra day can be added at the end of the > > second quarter for leap years. > > That's one version of what is called the World Calendar. > > Each quarter has 91 days, which is exactly 13 weeks, and each quarter > begins on a Sunday. > > Neither Year End Day nor Leap Year Day are assigned a day of the week, > so apart from those extra days, each day in the year always falls on the > same day of the week. > > This means that you never need to remember what day of the week March > 10th is going to fall on, because it will always be a Friday. > > This idea is, unsurprisingly, deeply unpopular among the manufacturers > of diaries and calendars, who have waged a vigorous and -- to date -- > very successful campaign to prevent the World Calendar from being adopted. > > David Harper ;-) > Cambridge, England I can't imagine calendar manufacturers being that upset by a different calendar. Most people use their calendars for appointments and other notes every year and will still need a new one each year. Day planners will still need new inserts every year. I'll still want new choo-choo train pitchers on my Union Pacific RR calendar each year. It's been rumored that other corporations are quite in favor of a change, so I doubt the calendar manufacturers can outpoint them if the desire for change is really there. Inertia, tradition, etc. is a more likely explanation for failure to adopt a better calendar. Of course, conversion is not a trivial matter.

Everett M. Greene wrote: > Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > >> Why not a calendar of 12, 30 day months with 5 world days and a sixth >> every 4 years? That would certainly save our knuckles and between from >> being counting boards for the months. > > Such a calendar has been proposed but with 30-31-30 days > repeated four times with an extra day at the end of the > year. Another extra day can be added at the end of the > second quarter for leap years. That's one version of what is called the World Calendar. Each quarter has 91 days, which is exactly 13 weeks, and each quarter begins on a Sunday. Neither Year End Day nor Leap Year Day are assigned a day of the week, so apart from those extra days, each day in the year always falls on the same day of the week. This means that you never need to remember what day of the week March 10th is going to fall on, because it will always be a Friday. This idea is, unsurprisingly, deeply unpopular among the manufacturers of diaries and calendars, who have waged a vigorous and -- to date -- very successful campaign to prevent the World Calendar from being adopted. David Harper ;-) Cambridge, England

singhals wrote: > Peter J Seymour wrote: > >> Peter J Seymour wrote: >> >>> Just a thought, stemming from research into calendar differences >>> though history - has anyone knowledge of a person recorded as being >>> born/dying on the 30th February? (and did this cause any problems) >>> Peter >> >> >> On the basis of the responses, "no" seems to be the answer to the >> original question. Interesting that the French Revolutionary calendar >> gets mentioned. I've never come across it in practice myself, but it >> seems to be the most likely alternative to the Julian/Gregorian axis. >> Is this simply a result of cultural bias within the group? >> Peter > > > A friend researching the State Archives of either Maryland or Delaware > found a recorded date of 30 Feb ... but since I can't recall whether it > was a birth/death or a deed or a probate, or which state, it didn't seem > useful to mention it. However, yes, it occurred OUTSIDE the French > Revolutionary Period and was in a British Colony. > > If you're deeply interested in calendars, years back there was an _in > depth_ discussion of them in soc.genealogy.computing and you might find > at google.groups > > FWIW > > Cheryl I had a look where you suggested and found various discussions I hadn't remembered. I'm coming to the conclusion that software should not assume anything about a gedcom date other than perhaps by testing whether it will parse according to an interpretation of the gedcom specification. Gedcom seems implicitly to assume a context of Britain and colonies with a bit of French thrown in. Peter

Peter J Seymour wrote: > Just a thought, stemming from research into calendar differences though > history - has anyone knowledge of a person recorded as being born/dying > on the 30th February? (and did this cause any problems) > Peter On the basis of the responses, "no" seems to be the answer to the original question. Interesting that the French Revolutionary calendar gets mentioned. I've never come across it in practice myself, but it seems to be the most likely alternative to the Julian/Gregorian axis. Is this simply a result of cultural bias within the group? Peter

Peter J Seymour wrote: > Peter J Seymour wrote: > >> Just a thought, stemming from research into calendar differences >> though history - has anyone knowledge of a person recorded as being >> born/dying on the 30th February? (and did this cause any problems) >> Peter > > On the basis of the responses, "no" seems to be the answer to the > original question. Interesting that the French Revolutionary calendar > gets mentioned. I've never come across it in practice myself, but it > seems to be the most likely alternative to the Julian/Gregorian axis. Is > this simply a result of cultural bias within the group? > Peter A friend researching the State Archives of either Maryland or Delaware found a recorded date of 30 Feb ... but since I can't recall whether it was a birth/death or a deed or a probate, or which state, it didn't seem useful to mention it. However, yes, it occurred OUTSIDE the French Revolutionary Period and was in a British Colony. If you're deeply interested in calendars, years back there was an _in depth_ discussion of them in soc.genealogy.computing and you might find at google.groups FWIW Cheryl

Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > Why not a calendar of 12, 30 day months with 5 world days and a sixth > every 4 years? That would certainly save our knuckles and between from > being counting boards for the months. Such a calendar has been proposed but with 30-31-30 days repeated four times with an extra day at the end of the year. Another extra day can be added at the end of the second quarter for leap years.

Oedipe bibbled of : > Hi, > > Is it possible to make "Legacy" working on Linux with "Wine"? > Any feedback of good or bad experiences welcomed :-) > > I'm just keeping Windows XP to run Legacy, but i've switched to Linux > for every other tasks. And i found "Gramps" absolutely awfull and bugged > compared to "Legacy". > > Regards, Had to try it and find out :) Works fine on my system, I have never used legacy before and am stating it from scratch so can't tell you if it will import your windows legacy database. It worked fine for a gedcom created from gramps though. David

Oedipe wrote: > Hi, > > Is it possible to make "Legacy" working on Linux with "Wine"? > Any feedback of good or bad experiences welcomed :-) > > I'm just keeping Windows XP to run Legacy, but i've switched to Linux > for every other tasks. And i found "Gramps" absolutely awfull and bugged > compared to "Legacy". > look at Parallels for Linux I have a WIn XP sp2 in a parallesl 3 sand box on my mac OS 10.4.11 so I can run FTM 16 snf 2008 and MS IE 7 is handy too Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:12:40 GMT, David Harper <devnull@obliquity.u-net.com> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:50:23 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Peter J Seymour wrote: >>> >>>> Just a thought, stemming from research into calendar differences though >>>> history - has anyone knowledge of a person recorded as being born/dying >>>> on the 30th February? (and did this cause any problems) >>>> Peter >>> Would whether it was a problem sort of depend on _when_? >>> Under the really really old calendars, there was a 30 Feb, >>> and it wouldn't have been a problem for anyone. In 1752, >>> things were confused enough that anything is possible, and >>> after that, drunken clerks we will have always with us. (g) >>> >>> Cheryl >> >> Why not a calendar of 12, 30 day months with 5 world days and a sixth >> every 4 years? That would certainly save our knuckles and between from >> being counting boards for the months. > >The French tried such a calendar early in their Revolutionary period. > >It lasted less than thirteen years. > >There's probably a moral in there somewhere for anyone who fancies >themselves as calendar reformers in the mould of Julius Caesar and Pope >Gregory XIII :-) > >David Harper I wa not interested in leading the movement. 8-) I don't even have to use my knuckles to keep track of the days in a month. Hugh

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:50:23 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> > wrote: > >> Peter J Seymour wrote: >> >>> Just a thought, stemming from research into calendar differences though >>> history - has anyone knowledge of a person recorded as being born/dying >>> on the 30th February? (and did this cause any problems) >>> Peter >> Would whether it was a problem sort of depend on _when_? >> Under the really really old calendars, there was a 30 Feb, >> and it wouldn't have been a problem for anyone. In 1752, >> things were confused enough that anything is possible, and >> after that, drunken clerks we will have always with us. (g) >> >> Cheryl > > Why not a calendar of 12, 30 day months with 5 world days and a sixth > every 4 years? That would certainly save our knuckles and between from > being counting boards for the months. The French tried such a calendar early in their Revolutionary period. It lasted less than thirteen years. There's probably a moral in there somewhere for anyone who fancies themselves as calendar reformers in the mould of Julius Caesar and Pope Gregory XIII :-) David Harper Cambridge, England

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:50:23 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >Peter J Seymour wrote: > >> Just a thought, stemming from research into calendar differences though >> history - has anyone knowledge of a person recorded as being born/dying >> on the 30th February? (and did this cause any problems) >> Peter > >Would whether it was a problem sort of depend on _when_? >Under the really really old calendars, there was a 30 Feb, >and it wouldn't have been a problem for anyone. In 1752, >things were confused enough that anything is possible, and >after that, drunken clerks we will have always with us. (g) > >Cheryl Why not a calendar of 12, 30 day months with 5 world days and a sixth every 4 years? That would certainly save our knuckles and between from being counting boards for the months. Hugh

On 2008-03-09, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: >> thor wrote: >>> Oedipe bibbled of : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Is it possible to make "Legacy" working on Linux with "Wine"? >>>> Any feedback of good or bad experiences welcomed :-) >>>> >>>> I'm just keeping Windows XP to run Legacy, but i've switched to Linux >>>> for every other tasks. And i found "Gramps" absolutely awfull and bugged >>>> compared to "Legacy". >>>> >>>> Regards, >>> >>> Had to try it and find out :) >>> Works fine on my system, I have never used legacy before and am >>> stating it >>> from scratch so can't tell you if it will import your windows legacy >>> database. It worked fine for a gedcom created from gramps though. >>> >>> David >> >> I just tried it and it barfed trying to open the sample. Error 429, >> Activx component can't create object. >> >> An alternative approach might be to get Virtualbox and install XP under >> that. I have W2K running that way for stuff that just won't work under >> Wine. >> > > If, like me, you can't get it to run under Wine you could download an > eval of crossover office and try it under that - it's not listed but may > run. > > Also regarding Wine an app. might run under some releases and not > others. For instance I run Enterprise Architect under 0.9.51 but it > won't run on my hardware under later versions. (Not that I'm trying to compare genealogy applications, but ...) PAF 5 has also had problems with Wine versions 0.9.51 through present. Regressions happen every once in a while. Fortunately, bug fixes and other improvements outnumber the regressions. (... usually ...) In case anyone interested in Wine isn't already aware of the Application DataBase (AppDB), it's here: http://appdb.winehq.org/ You can find what others have discovered about using specific applications. HTH -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@verizon.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Ian Goddard wrote in article <RtmdnW4JucW3tU7anZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net>: >Don Kirkman wrote: >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Wes Groleau wrote in article >> <mdlAj.221$Ls6.127@trnddc01>: >>> IF you could get them both in GEDCOM, I would suggest >>> trying out the compare functions of GIM >>> http://www.gimsoft.com >> >> All the download links on that page ask me for a password [Opera 9.5]. >I just tried the >ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/genealgy/gim_320.zip >link and that worked OK although it needed two attempts as it was busy. Thanks, Ian, although I had to burn up almost 15 seconds finding and downloading it. :-) -- Don Kirkman

Ian Goddard wrote: > thor wrote: >> Oedipe bibbled of : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is it possible to make "Legacy" working on Linux with "Wine"? >>> Any feedback of good or bad experiences welcomed :-) >>> >>> I'm just keeping Windows XP to run Legacy, but i've switched to Linux >>> for every other tasks. And i found "Gramps" absolutely awfull and bugged >>> compared to "Legacy". >>> >>> Regards, >> >> Had to try it and find out :) >> Works fine on my system, I have never used legacy before and am >> stating it >> from scratch so can't tell you if it will import your windows legacy >> database. It worked fine for a gedcom created from gramps though. >> >> David > > I just tried it and it barfed trying to open the sample. Error 429, > Activx component can't create object. > > An alternative approach might be to get Virtualbox and install XP under > that. I have W2K running that way for stuff that just won't work under > Wine. > If, like me, you can't get it to run under Wine you could download an eval of crossover office and try it under that - it's not listed but may run. Also regarding Wine an app. might run under some releases and not others. For instance I run Enterprise Architect under 0.9.51 but it won't run on my hardware under later versions. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

thor wrote: > Oedipe bibbled of : > >> Hi, >> >> Is it possible to make "Legacy" working on Linux with "Wine"? >> Any feedback of good or bad experiences welcomed :-) >> >> I'm just keeping Windows XP to run Legacy, but i've switched to Linux >> for every other tasks. And i found "Gramps" absolutely awfull and bugged >> compared to "Legacy". >> >> Regards, > > Had to try it and find out :) > Works fine on my system, I have never used legacy before and am stating it > from scratch so can't tell you if it will import your windows legacy > database. It worked fine for a gedcom created from gramps though. > > David I just tried it and it barfed trying to open the sample. Error 429, Activx component can't create object. An alternative approach might be to get Virtualbox and install XP under that. I have W2K running that way for stuff that just won't work under Wine. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Mike Williams wrote: > Wasn't it David Harper who wrote: >> >> According to histories of the calendar, February has never had more >> than 29 days, even in the time of the Roman Republic before Julius >> Caesar's overhaul. >> >> Thus any appearance of 30 February in historical records is certainly >> the result of clerical ineptitude or inebriation :-) > > In Sweden and (what is now) Finland, they started to use a weird system > for slowly changing from Julian to Gregorian calendar systems. A few > years later they changed their minds and reverted back to the Julian > Calendar by having two leap days in 1712, the 29th and 30th of February. > > http://www.naturalistsalmanac.com/0230.html How bizarre. I stand duly corrected, and I learnt something new. Thank you for sharing that fascinating piece of information. > In the Soviet Revolutionary Calendar, all months had 30 working days, > and the year was padded out with 5 or 6 "monthless" holidays. The Soviet > Revolutionary Calendar doesn't appear to have actually been used. > > In the French Republican Calendar, all months had 30 days and the year > was padded out with 5 or 6 "monthless" holidays, called sansculottides . > However, the French Republican months don't correspond with the months > of the Gregorian calendar, since its year starts at the autumnal equinox > (September 23 plus or minus 1 day). The French Republican Calendar was deliberately modelled on the ancient Egyptian solar calendar, which also has 12 months of 30 days plus 5 days at the end of the year. The Egyptians didn't bother with leap years and were content to let their calendar slip through the seasons every 1461 years. I imagine that the Soviet Revolutionary Calendar was modelled on the French version. David Harper Cambridge, England

Wasn't it David Harper who wrote: > >According to histories of the calendar, February has never had more >than 29 days, even in the time of the Roman Republic before Julius >Caesar's overhaul. > >Thus any appearance of 30 February in historical records is certainly >the result of clerical ineptitude or inebriation :-) In Sweden and (what is now) Finland, they started to use a weird system for slowly changing from Julian to Gregorian calendar systems. A few years later they changed their minds and reverted back to the Julian Calendar by having two leap days in 1712, the 29th and 30th of February. http://www.naturalistsalmanac.com/0230.html In the Soviet Revolutionary Calendar, all months had 30 working days, and the year was padded out with 5 or 6 "monthless" holidays. The Soviet Revolutionary Calendar doesn't appear to have actually been used. In the French Republican Calendar, all months had 30 days and the year was padded out with 5 or 6 "monthless" holidays, called sansculottides . However, the French Republican months don't correspond with the months of the Gregorian calendar, since its year starts at the autumnal equinox (September 23 plus or minus 1 day). -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure

singhals wrote: > Peter J Seymour wrote: > >> Just a thought, stemming from research into calendar differences >> though history - has anyone knowledge of a person recorded as being >> born/dying on the 30th February? (and did this cause any problems) >> Peter > > Would whether it was a problem sort of depend on _when_? Under the > really really old calendars, there was a 30 Feb, and it wouldn't have > been a problem for anyone. In 1752, things were confused enough that > anything is possible, and after that, drunken clerks we will have always > with us. (g) According to histories of the calendar, February has never had more than 29 days, even in the time of the Roman Republic before Julius Caesar's overhaul. Thus any appearance of 30 February in historical records is certainly the result of clerical ineptitude or inebriation :-) David Harper Cambridge, England