On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 07:10:48AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:40:09PM +0100, Manfred Usselmann wrote: > > I have a lot of reasons for loathing X. A *lot*. I've spent a lot of > time (and even money; anyone remember AccelX back in the 90s? Yep, I > bought it) trying to adapt over the years, and I cannot. I'm not going > to provide details because it'll just induce more parking lot burn-outs > and that's not what I want.
I loathe Firefox. I find it incredibly annoying, bloated, cumbersome, and otherwise sucky. Unfortunately, the disadvantages of every other Web browser I've encountered are *worse* (though Chromium shows promise, if it ever gets ported to BSD Unix systems), so I keep using Firefox as my primary browser. The same applies to the X Window System. It sucks. It is laden with various and sundry big problems; annoyances and poor design decisions litter the X Window System. The drawbacks of Luna, Aqua, and Aero are all even worse than those of the X Window System, though, so I still with X. > > Comparatively: I have co-workers who love X and KDE, and hate Windows -- > and I have co-workers who absolutely love OS X's GUI, and hate X and > Windows. (In fact, the few OS X users I know get quite irate when they > find some OS X program actually relies on X11). I'd be annoyed by that, too. Software that is ported to other systems should not drag along baggage like assumed reliance on other software particular to the source system. I get similarly irate at discovering I've discovered an application that depends on a metric crapload of KDE or GNOME libraries. I don't think getting irate over software relying on software that you otherwise don't have on your system, and that does not provide functionality actually important to the operation of the software you actually want, is really much of an indicator of how individualized GUI taste can be. > > The only time I curse Windows is when CMD.EXE or command-line utilities > come into play. Anyone who's used *IX will know what I mean by this. > PowerShell/Monad is a joke, Cygwin is an atrocity, 4NT/4DOS is too > quirky, and *IX application ports often have too many bugs (either not > handling NTFS filenames correctly (resorting to 8.3 format), or having > filesize limitations due to the porter doing it wrong; 2GB limits are > found in common programs including Win32 wget). I'm curious -- what exactly do you dislike about PowerShell? This is the first time I've really heard such a complaint about it. > > Every operating system/GUI/environment has its share of quirks. It just > depends on which ones you can tolerate. I can tolerate some of Windows' > quirks (sans "focus stealing", although I'm told KDE applicationg are > starting down this road too), but cannot with X or OS X. I suppose it's > because I've a mental stigma; I associate *IX and UNIX with servers, and > I likely always will. *IX/UNIX on the desktop is a crazy idea to me. This is in line with my experience of people who prefer the MS Windows interface over that of the X Window System -- their preference is usually dominated by matters of familiarity. I'm kind of the opposite type of person in that regard: I regularly try something new, because I'm always looking for a better way to do things. > > That's all I have to say on the matter; I won't reply here on out. That's a bummer. I'd like to know your thoughts on some of my above commentary -- particularly on the subject of PowerShell. -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ] A: It reverses the normal flow of conversation. Q: What's wrong with top-posting?
Description: PGP signature