Send 64studio-users mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of 64studio-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [Fwd: Re: Version 3 and lightweight window managers]
(Ralf Mardorf)
2. Re: Version 3 and lightweight window managers (Ralf Mardorf)
3. Re: Version 3 and lightweight window managers (Ralf Mardorf)
4. Re: Version 3 and lightweight window managers (Gustin Johnson)
5. Re: Version 3 and lightweight window managers (Quentin Harley)
6. Re: Version 3 and lightweight window managers (Rua Haszard Morris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:27:37 +0100
From: Ralf Mardorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [64studio-users] [Fwd: Re: Version 3 and lightweight
window managers]
To: Gustin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 64 Studio users list <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Ion isn't a WM
Okay, it's called WM too, but I guess we should make a difference
between frame based and windows based managers. Also KDE isn't a WM.
KWin can be the WM for KDE and KDE the DE.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.64studio.com/pipermail/64studio-users/attachments/20081127/d1b49e6b/attachment-0001.pgp>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:51:31 +0100
From: Ralf Mardorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [64studio-users] Version 3 and lightweight window
managers
To: Quentin Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 64studio-users mailing list <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Dave is right. I have no idea how Vista behaves as a DAW because I
don't use it. As a matter of fact, the last windows product I bought
was a mouse, and before that, a web cam ;-)
Currently I do not believe I will ever buy another operating system,
of any manufacturer.
Hi Quentin :)
I think this words of you are really the reasons for GNOME:
Subject: Re: [64studio-users] Version 3 and lightweight window managers
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:29:10 +0200
From: Quentin Harley
"The reason Daniel and Free chose Gnome as the default, it that they
needed a stable desktop that will cause the least user re-education for
folks coming from windows backgrounds.
[snip]"
This surely isn't the only reason. When using Linux, we shouldn't get blind for
what is useful by other operating systems and especially the DEs they use by
default.
Vista is new. KDE4 uses a menu like XP does, by default, while it was a special feature
for KDE3. Soon or later the Linux community often "snitches" ideas that were
realised for Software running on Windows, years before.
Take a look at pro-audio apps, pretended it's bad the way it is for Windows, anyhow
applications become more and more like the "paragons" for Windows.
The Linux community (and I'm part of this community and not part of any Windows
community) fools itself.
To do things better than they are for Windows, will be more easy if Windows
wouldn't pseudo-ignored the way it is by us.
Cheers,
Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.64studio.com/pipermail/64studio-users/attachments/20081127/379c3995/attachment-0001.pgp>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:57:00 +0100
From: Ralf Mardorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [64studio-users] Version 3 and lightweight window
managers
To: Quentin Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 64studio-users mailing list <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
PS because of my broken English
Windows applications very often are "paragons" for Linux and that isn't bad.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.64studio.com/pipermail/64studio-users/attachments/20081127/d5d1d0c5/attachment-0001.pgp>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:12:02 -0700
From: Gustin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [64studio-users] Version 3 and lightweight window
managers
To: Ralf Mardorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 64studio-users mailing list <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
<snip>
it's a question because of the thoughts about what people nowadays
expect from a studio in the box, something what 64 Studio is also for.
If many people will use Vista for Windows, than many people will have
computers, that comply with the requirements for a Linux running
KWin/KDE, while using Linux audio applications.
This is the wrong question IMO. FLOSS is where it is because people
wrote software that *they* themselves wanted. The question of mass
appeal is IMO irrelevant. If FLOSS does not do what you want it to,
either make the changes yourself or hire someone to do it.
I guess that GNOME was a good choice for 64 Studio 2.1, because it's a
DE that won't force people to read manuals or just to radically change
their habits, if they know Fluxbox, KDE, Win 98se or Win XP, they easyly
can work with GNOME.
While companies for proprietary stuff do market research, because they
will make money, they not only will manipulate the customers, they also
will satisfy real needs for professional audio studios and homerecording
people.
That is their prerogative to do so and I have no problem with that.
Apple and Microsoft should be enemies, but it would be clever not to
ignore the needs of non-computer-freaks, that are just users. The users
aren't enemies, even if many from the Linux community treat "stupid
users" like enemies.
This is where there is confusion. What most FLOSS people are hostile to
are ignorant users who take no personal responsibility. I paid no one
for the first Linux distro that I installed. I was pleasantly surprised
that there was a community that supported this software, for no cost.
All that was expected is that I took the time to do basic research, use
my own brain, and then ask questions. The fact that some people take
offence when it is suggested that they RTFM, well I suspect we are
better off without them.
You misunderstood my question and you are right, if I would know for
myself what Windows I should run, I should and I would ask this where
people might be, that have more experiences with Windows.
I'm thinking about, what would be the best way, that Linux audio should
go. Maybe it should be for people with the interest to know a lot about
the OS they use, for people with unusual habits and needs for audio work
and perhaps it should be for people having classical habits, when
working with audio and some of them might not be interested in how the
OS they use, will work.
Linux audio should go where Linux audio will go. Apart from being
cryptic, this means that the developers will take it where they see fit.
If I have a strong desire for it to progress in a certain fashion, I can
contribute code or dollars, the amount of which would likely be
proportionate to the strength of my desires. Otherwise I do not
*expect* my desires to be satisfied.
Having said that, I am continuously impressed with the quality and
usefulness of FLOSS to me, in nearly all of my computational endeavours.
What should be the WM/DE for 64 Studio > version 3.0?
Does it really matter? For those of us who have a strong preference, we
can install the WM/DE of our choice. For everyone else, I doubt that
they would know the difference or even care.
The better question is, what MacOS and what Windows do producers for
audio use and what are the reasons for that? Followed by the question,
are there some points that should Linux also do the way a MacOS or
Windows does?
I don't care. I care what this FLOSS stuff does/can do for me.
I think that the FLOSS community spends way too much time worrying about
what Apple or Microsoft is doing. The KDE4 project is not trying to
implement features because some other project or company is, they are
basing their work on plan based on usability studies and their own
experience. So, in this limited example, what the other OSs are doing
would limit the KDE4 people's ability to truly innovate.
This is not to say that there are no lessons to be learned from these
other projects, I just mean to say that we should not obsess with them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFJLw0iwRXgH3rKGfMRAuOBAJsGaxipDbg5JLj7es/X1YNx0AO2/ACgiJTX
umQOi79D6RjjDPusAmiC3T0=
=K1LP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:16:27 +0200
From: Quentin Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [64studio-users] Version 3 and lightweight window
managers
To: Ralf Mardorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 64studio-users mailing list <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
The Linux community (and I'm part of this community and not part of any Windows
community) fools itself.
To do things better than they are for Windows, will be more easy if Windows
wouldn't pseudo-ignored the way it is by us.
This is not true, as many of the developers of applications do use
windows at their day jobs. Gnome and KDE has some of the good ideas
behind windows. Incidently, windows borrows ideas from os-x and linux
as well...
I just don't see the point in buying something that may not work, if I
have something that works great for what I want to do already.
I am not fooling myself, because I have exactly what I need. Not many
people can say that, even if they have expensive PC's with Windows or
OS-X running the show.
Cheers,
Quentin
PS:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Some people seems to think if it ain't
broke, it hasn't go enough features yet!
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:21:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Rua Haszard Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [64studio-users] Version 3 and lightweight window
managers
To: Gustin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ralf Mardorf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 64studio-users mailing list <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hear hear. 100% agree. Well put.
--
http://myspace.com/haszari
http://haszaristwocents.blogspot.com
http://last.fm/music/Haszari
----- Original Message ----
From: Gustin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ralf Mardorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 64studio-users mailing list <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 28 November, 2008 10:12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [64studio-users] Version 3 and lightweight window managers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
<snip>
it's a question because of the thoughts about what people nowadays
expect from a studio in the box, something what 64 Studio is also for.
If many people will use Vista for Windows, than many people will have
computers, that comply with the requirements for a Linux running
KWin/KDE, while using Linux audio applications.
This is the wrong question IMO. FLOSS is where it is because people
wrote software that *they* themselves wanted. The question of mass
appeal is IMO irrelevant. If FLOSS does not do what you want it to,
either make the changes yourself or hire someone to do it.
I guess that GNOME was a good choice for 64 Studio 2.1, because it's a
DE that won't force people to read manuals or just to radically change
their habits, if they know Fluxbox, KDE, Win 98se or Win XP, they easyly
can work with GNOME.
While companies for proprietary stuff do market research, because they
will make money, they not only will manipulate the customers, they also
will satisfy real needs for professional audio studios and homerecording
people.
That is their prerogative to do so and I have no problem with that.
Apple and Microsoft should be enemies, but it would be clever not to
ignore the needs of non-computer-freaks, that are just users. The users
aren't enemies, even if many from the Linux community treat "stupid
users" like enemies.
This is where there is confusion. What most FLOSS people are hostile to
are ignorant users who take no personal responsibility. I paid no one
for the first Linux distro that I installed. I was pleasantly surprised
that there was a community that supported this software, for no cost.
All that was expected is that I took the time to do basic research, use
my own brain, and then ask questions. The fact that some people take
offence when it is suggested that they RTFM, well I suspect we are
better off without them.
You misunderstood my question and you are right, if I would know for
myself what Windows I should run, I should and I would ask this where
people might be, that have more experiences with Windows.
I'm thinking about, what would be the best way, that Linux audio should
go. Maybe it should be for people with the interest to know a lot about
the OS they use, for people with unusual habits and needs for audio work
and perhaps it should be for people having classical habits, when
working with audio and some of them might not be interested in how the
OS they use, will work.
Linux audio should go where Linux audio will go. Apart from being
cryptic, this means that the developers will take it where they see fit.
If I have a strong desire for it to progress in a certain fashion, I can
contribute code or dollars, the amount of which would likely be
proportionate to the strength of my desires. Otherwise I do not
*expect* my desires to be satisfied.
Having said that, I am continuously impressed with the quality and
usefulness of FLOSS to me, in nearly all of my computational endeavours.
What should be the WM/DE for 64 Studio > version 3.0?
Does it really matter? For those of us who have a strong preference, we
can install the WM/DE of our choice. For everyone else, I doubt that
they would know the difference or even care.
The better question is, what MacOS and what Windows do producers for
audio use and what are the reasons for that? Followed by the question,
are there some points that should Linux also do the way a MacOS or
Windows does?
I don't care. I care what this FLOSS stuff does/can do for me.
I think that the FLOSS community spends way too much time worrying about
what Apple or Microsoft is doing. The KDE4 project is not trying to
implement features because some other project or company is, they are
basing their work on plan based on usability studies and their own
experience. So, in this limited example, what the other OSs are doing
would limit the KDE4 people's ability to truly innovate.
This is not to say that there are no lessons to be learned from these
other projects, I just mean to say that we should not obsess with them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFJLw0iwRXgH3rKGfMRAuOBAJsGaxipDbg5JLj7es/X1YNx0AO2/ACgiJTX
umQOi79D6RjjDPusAmiC3T0=
=K1LP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
Get the world's best email - http://nz.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
End of 64studio-users Digest, Vol 18, Issue 26
**********************************************
