Linux-Advocacy Digest #187, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is awesome! (aflinsch)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (James Lee)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (JEDIDIAH)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(James Lee)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(James Lee)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (aflinsch)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Drestin Black")
Re: Software (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Jeff Szarka)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:03:10 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Normal person in need of exchanging data with the rest of the free
> world that isn't *.txt, good luck.
>
"free world" -- never thought I would hear that from a Windows user.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:19:21 GMT
On 19 Jun 2000 06:01:22 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2000 07:18:42 GMT, Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM.
>>
>>True. It doesn't matter what it can run on DIRECTLY, but the indirect effect
>>of this is important. Something small enough to run on a 2M system won't take
>>up too much overhead on a 160M system in all likelihood, and I'd rather run
>>apps in my RAM than operating systems.
>>
>>>Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user
>>
>>One computer for a family. Life is simplified by giving each family member his
>>own directory to organize files, and his own user configuration. Even Win9x
>>offers primitive multiuser support for that reason.
>
>But moast peopel don't USE it, and it can be turned off.
You can also make passwords in Unix blank if you like, if you
or your family members are unable to remember a simple password.
[deletia]
>>That doesn't follow. How is Windows, which provides no over-network feature,
>>winning?
>
>Nobody neads an over-network feeture. Windows wins without it.
Then how come you keep bringing up the equivalent windows hacks?
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 19 Jun 2000 11:10:21 -0500
In article <8il771$odtc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
S Car <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> well that depends on how far you look ...
>> >> NT had a 70% market share in 1997, that droped to 35% in 1999.
>> >
>> >i don't think this 70% number is correct. where did you get this from?
>>
>> From a magazine ... I don't really remeber which one ... either PC World
>> or Linux Journal
>> basicaly the quote was about how people were buying NT boxes
>> by the mass because back then due to unstablity {I think
>> SP3 wasn't out yet} and clusstering
>>
>
>I think the 70% you're referring to is on sales $$$ not on actual installed
>base.
For NT you might be able to come approximately close mapping
sales to installations. With Linux, a single download (not even
one sale) can result in dozens or hundreds of installations.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:18:12 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Fuzzy streaks says it all.
>
> Crappy jagged fonts is par for the Linux course.
>
> Don't believe it?
>
> Check out Petreley's review of Wordperfect Office for Linux.
>
> www.infoworld.com should get you going.
>
> And HE is a Linux supporter.
>
Yeah, OK, there's some problems with a lack of anti-aliasing. What
about the ten thousand good things people say about Linux. You come in
here, jump up a down waving your hands when someone says something
negative about Linux saying "lookey here, someone else that hates Linux,
it must really suck." Then when someone says something positive, if you
notice it you will come up with some line of bullshit that basically
says, "That can't be because I don't like Linux, and if I don't like
Linux, than it can't have any redeeming qualities, therefore, you are
wrong." Of course, your reasoning doesn't usually take that much
space. It's usually more like "Linux sux because Billy said so." and
that's about it.
Now, I'll admit that Windows has some redeeming qualities, but why does
it hurt you so very very much to hear anything positive about Linux?
Linux and Windows at the moment are two different beasts serving two
different markets. If you don't like it, then don't use it. If you
offered any real proof of problems, maybe people would listen. All you
do is act like a jackass and piss people off, getting yourself killfiled
in the end. Very clever.
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:45:43 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I love it when this dumbass jumps up and down on one offhand comment
> >that is negative, completely ignoring all the positive things said
> >previously. Goddamned idiot.
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Sounds like par for the course.
> >>
> >> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:35:09 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Cihl wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Try the CLI at the highest resolution your monitor can handle. It
> >> >> looks really cool.
> >> >
> >> >Unfortunately, I can't get SVGATextMode to give me anything better than
> >> >80x50, all I get are fuzzy streaky unsynced lines all over the place.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, well
> >> >
> >> >-Ed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:24:05 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:59:23 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:03:19 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. The lie here is that if you run KDE and Netscape on that 386
>>> and you're not gonna have much fun.
>>
>>It's only a lie if someone actually says it. I've never heard anyone pushing 386s
>for KDE and
>>Netscape, have you?
>
>Well, when you say Linux can run on a 386 most people expect it to be
>just like it would be on a P3-550. After all, Windows 98 will run on a
>386 too. Boot to dos mode and you can actually do something useful.
...like access all of your hardware, and your network, and
your print services and your other servers?
No, DOS is just a program loader. It doesn't even have it's
own device access, or a decent default shell.
Linux will run "just like" a Sun E450 on a 386. It won't have
the same horsepower, but it will run just the same. That is
quite unlike what DOS does relative to it's graphical extension.
>
>>> Linux is more flexibbal than Windows but most people hardly ever learn
>>> how to use all of Windows so they're never going to care about
>>> removing parts they don't use or adding other things.
>>
>>That's true. But is it a reason to cripple the power users?
>
>I don't think Microsoft has. Lets assume a power user wants access to
>decent command line tools... cmd.exe plus a ton off freeware tools
>works very well. Lets assume a power user wants a customized UI, there
cmd.exe is actually very weak. Making NT a reasonable CLI
system is essentially going to be a process of turning it
into a Unix clone.
>are many free shell replacements for Windows... some are quite good.
>There are countless tweaks for the basic UI as well.
>
>Lets assume a power user wants control over very obsurce parts of his
>sytem. Regedit will let you change almost anything. Lets assume a
...all pretty much undocumented, just the thing to play
havoc with a system.
>power user wants to write scripts to save time. You could use batch
>files, WSH, perl, etc.
>
>I consider myself a power user and there are very few things I can't
>do with NT.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:25:49 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:47:02 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:23:11 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Oh, yeah. You still haven't pointed out the lie.
>
>I think I have. Linux runs about as well on a 386 as DOS does. The lie
>is that Linux is going to somehow bring your old machines back to
>life.
ANY Unix on a 386 is considerably more useful than DOS on a 386.
It will likely be useful for something. You lie if you claim
that people such as my self are claiming that it would be useful as
a conventional desktop machine.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:27:24 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:14:56 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:23:11 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, yeah. You still haven't pointed out the lie.
>>
>> I think I have. Linux runs about as well on a 386 as DOS does. The lie
>> is that Linux is going to somehow bring your old machines back to
>> life.
>
>So, is the guy that said he uses his for a file server lying? Do you use
>DOS as a file server?
Even if all you want to do is turn an old 386 into a simple terminal
(about what DOS would be good for on such a machine), Linux is going
to be considerably more convenient.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 19 Jun 2000 11:26:18 -0500
In article <8il5q4$g3d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I disagree. Centralized processing is a waste. You need to get a
>monstrously powerful central server if you're going to be splitting up
>the CPU horsepower between many people. It's easier and cheaper to just
>let people have computers on the desktop. This is why mainframes failed
>for the mostpart. They were big, hard to administer, ridiculously
>expensive, and still too underpowered to do what was being asked. Now
>we've got PC's that are steadily creeping toward 4-digit Mhz ratings,
>there's no need for centralized processing anymore.
Nor is there any reason to avoid it. The point is that installation
and adminstration of the software became much more expensive than
the hardware some time ago - and doing this badly, allowing downtime,
data loss and system failures is even more expensive than doing it
well. Thus the place to economize is in central management whether
the software is distributed or not. This is just inherent in
mainframe operation and so far requires expensive and trouble-prone
add-ons for most desktop systems.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:30:49 GMT
On 19 Jun 2000 06:03:24 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:22:45 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>>> 1. It scails down
>>>
>>> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on todays
>>> computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on some obsoleat piece-of-shit
>computer from 1991
>>> doessn't mean shit.
>>
>>Think Palm Pilot.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. It's multi-user
>>>
>>> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that
>I have to
>>> remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to get
>their work
>>> done, not waist time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords
>that can't
>>> even be disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time
>somethign goes
>>> wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to support through VT100
>terminals can get
>>> the're own computer, and the "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail,
>news, bin,
>>> sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
>>>
>>
>>Should a family of four have four different computers? Hmm. Would they
>>all need separate printers? Separate phone lines?
>
>
>One computer. No accounts. No 'administrative idneities".
Ooops... there go the tax records for last year.
Ooops... johnny found dad's collection of net porn.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 19 Jun 2000 16:31:45 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>>Haven't you heard of automount and autofs?
>>It automatically mounts it when accessed
>>and unmount it when not in used for some time.
> Instead of solving the problem, all that does is spread it across two
> machines--you have exactly the same problem of non-stable filesystem
> object references on the server machine as you did previously on the
> client machine.
two machines? What were we talking about?
I thought we were talking 2 filesystemts.
And what non-stable fs?
> This is why MacOS-style volume-based filesystem references are better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:32:20 GMT
On 18 Jun 2000 16:43:48 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>VC++ will compile to UNIX?
>>>
>>>Colin Day
>>
>>No, I built the UNIX version of POVray. By that I mean I started with the
>>basic sources, took config.h from UNIX, ripped out pratically everything
>>and built my custom version.
>>
>>Incidentally, if I increase the Bounding Threshold to 25, so that POVray is
>>now running the same on Windows as Linux, I see the following results:
>>
>>Windows 98 SE 28 minutes 30 seconds
>>Linux 32 minutes 42 seconds
>>
>>Windows 98 SE is _still_ running faster than Linux.
I thought it was established the the Windows version
was running with a different configuration...
>
>Did you ever run that 'ps ax' and count the other stuff you
>have running under Linux?
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:33:57 GMT
On 19 Jun 2000 06:01:42 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2000 01:55:36 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 17 Jun 2000 17:37:24 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>>>There are GUI utilities such as InstallShield that run circals around any
>>>slow-as-hell Linux GNOME substituit.
>>
>>Sorry, install shield doesn't come close to RPM in terms of its functionality.
>>
>>Nice try.
>
>Its' easy to use, unnlike RMP.
It's nothing but an overhyped shell script.
Of course it should be easy to deal with, it doesn't even
do more than the barest sanity checking.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 16:44:38 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> No, they should design for the future more than the have
>> been (in the case of Microsoft). Software doesn't wear
>> out and OS vendors shouldn't be essentially sabotaging the
>> capital investments of both companies and home users.
> So Linux should have a standard binary driver API, or do different
> rules apply to different systems?
The same rules. There's a big project called the LSB that defines things
that are going to be the same across the different distros.
------------------------------
From: James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 16:47:28 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Secondly, how does a kernel module for X lock Linux into X any more
> than it is at the moment? Linux isn't locked into IDE drives and yet
> they are in the kernel.
Many things, especially device drivers, can be built as modules. And you
install them only when you want it to.
You don't have to build IDE drivers into the kernel if you don't want
to.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:41:21 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> 2. It's multi-user
>
> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that I
>have to
> remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to get
>their work
It also means that your wife and kids can't accidentally delete your
files.
> even be disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time somethign
>goes
disaballed = eunuchs, not Unix (sorry couldn't pass that one up).
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 19 Jun 2000 11:50:26 -0500
reminds me of the current MS vs Oracle ads.
97% of Fortune 500 use Oracle.
97% of those also us MS.
Amusing - but it's possible ...
"John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:A8I25.230$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ievie$1j9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >As I remember NT had 70% and Unix went from 31% to 33% which was not
> > >expected for Unix.
> >
> > For a total of 101 to 103% of the market being served by NT and UNIX
alone
> ;-)
> >
> > Bernie
>
>
> Companies are using Unix and NT.
>
> 100 companies. All use NT and Unix. NT has 100 percent share and Unix has
> 100 percent share. Hey, thats 200 percent in total they shout. How can
that
> be correct? ;)
>
>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:51:17 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yea sure.....You go on and believe that one.
>
> Problem is the public is ignoring Linux.
>
> .3 percent of market share.
>
> How is that explained?
>
That doesn't change the fact that Linux is developed by the public (i.e.
the people that use it). Even if it only had 3 users it would still be
developed by the public. So shut the hell up. What you have said
doesn't say anything at all about what was being talked about.
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:44:53 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Linux follows the trends of the public directly, because it is made by
> >the public.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:55:06 -0400
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:25:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>>I think I have. Linux runs about as well on a 386 as DOS does. The lie
>>is that Linux is going to somehow bring your old machines back to
>>life.
>
> ANY Unix on a 386 is considerably more useful than DOS on a 386.
> It will likely be useful for something. You lie if you claim
> that people such as my self are claiming that it would be useful as
> a conventional desktop machine.
You know as well as I do that if you say Linux runs on a 386 users
expect it to run just like the pretty (minus the uglyness of KDE)
little picture on the back of the box looks like.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:58:28 GMT
On 19 Jun 2000 06:02:23 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:02:25 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>If you can't do this with Linux after reading "Linux for Dummies" then
>>you aimed too high. ;-)
>>
>>There is nothing that you have asked that can't be done in Linux.
>
>Netscape in 16MB on a 486? Yeah rite. On that kind of system the best you can do with
>Linux is
>a coupal of virtual consouls and LYNX.
You're just as ignorant in this instance as you are in any
other that relates to something not Microsoft.
32M is more than enough for an entire desktop including Netscape.
[deletia]
...that and the CPU is not the constraining factor.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:56:55 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:40:31 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
>> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
>> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
>
>Personally, I find Windows to be extremely ugly. And the lack of multiple
>desktops is just pathetic. Quite often I will be deeply involved with
>development work with many windows open and someone walks into my office
>with a question or problem. I just switch to an unused desktop and they
>can then show me what the problem is without upsetting my whole
>development desktop.
I would honestly guess there are over 300 virtual / multiple desktop
programs for Windows. Maybe even more.
www.winfiles.com
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:57:23 -0400
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:07 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
>> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
>> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
>
>Simple. If you don't like KDE use something else. The chioce is yours,
>no on is forcing KDE on to you...
The sad part is... KDE is the best window manger for Linux.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
