On Thursday 31 July 2003 12:23, Zoup wrote: > guys ? take a look at : > http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=251
Heh! I just read it :-) And I have to say I don't necessarily agree with all that is written there. You see, Open for Business is one of the sites which I really enjoy reading, and I have even had contacts with it's editor in chief Timothy Buttler. But I don't underestand why he so much emphesizes on customized deskotp experience. I actually hate this customized desktop experience. All major distros (RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake et all) spend a great deal of their time configuring and customizing the desktop enviroments. Things like changing the KDE splash screen, putting their Logo instead of 'K', and in case of RedHat, deleting "About KDE" from the help menu and all these kind of things. Which in my opinion are all just useless. What is the wrong with you guys? Read Ian Murduck's article (the one I mentioned yesterday) and see why all these distros are getting it wrong. And I really don't see how changing the KDE splash screen makes KDE more user friendly. Libranet on the other hand (like Debian and Gentoo) just ships the default KDE (same with other window managers). Instead of wasting their time designing a splash screen, they have put their time and effort in doing something usefull. Yes it's true, Libranet doesn't give you a customized window manager. However that's a pro in my opinion, not a con. Libranet ships all major free software packages, and they make sure that they all work fine together. That is what a distro should do, not designing icons and splash screens. And unlike SuSE or RedHat, they have no problem crediting others for what they have done. For example they remind you everywhere in their menu, that they are using Debian. And they even have Debian's repositry's in apt's sources.list, and it just works as if you are using a debian (without all the hassle of configuring debian for desktopp, like changing permissions and etc) Next thing, about the installer: Yes guys, Libranet's installer is text based. However I really can't see why it is a disadvantage. Libranet's installer is clean, and simple, although text based. Why is it that everyone thinks that graphical installers are super cool, and everything text based is hard to use? Haven't you ever faced a graphical installer, in which you just don't know where to click? Because everything is messed up, and all those icons and buttons are undistinguishable? Let me tell you, a installer can be good, and it can be bad. It doesn't have anything to do with being text based or graphical based. We can have a bad graphical installer, and a good graphical installer, same goes for text based. In case of Libranet, again instead of wasting their times on developing something eye-candy but useless, they have made something simple but something that also easily works. I am confident that any windows user can install Libranet with no problem at all. (well those that can install windows at least). Libranet's installer is clean, polished, well documented, and simple. With great hardware auto detection. The fact that it is not graphical is no disadvantage. Sometimes it can even be a advantage for you. Only if these reviewers put more emphesize on the overall experience, as opposed to how eye-candy something is. There is an old proverb, saying "Don't judge a book but it's cover". Cheers -- /* This time I will try to put something nice here !!! */ Aryan Ameri _______________________________________________ bna-linuxiran mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bna-linuxiran
