Linux-Advocacy Digest #429, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Anyone going to the LinuxWorld Expo in New York City? ("A V Flinsch")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Lincoln Peters)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("szzzz")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:11:53 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. Yes, they can; all of them, we
> assume, know how to read text, type, and press the appropriate keys to
> save the file. Its not brain surgery. As for there being "human level
> interfaces to perform this task", I can't for the life of me think of
> what you are referring to, as no such facility exists at all in Windows.
Is this your defense to everything? Live with it? Why? There is no reason
Linux has to be just like UNIX WAS, and the movers and shakers are changing
this, whilst you, the typical zealot insist upon not only keeping the "glory
days" of Linux, but revel in it's useless oversophistication.
> So whining about having to learn how to do something is now (still) the
> entirety of the Softhead's argument? What you need, to make you a
> really respectable sock puppet, is some good FUD and a couple "this
> doesn't happen in W2K". You should attend more meetings; they give them
> out in PowerPoint slides.
???
> It is difficult, I know, for many on this group to determine if you are
> another Steve/Clair alias, or just another sock puppet. I think its the
> latter, but it really doesn't make much difference.
That's right, "Steve/Clair/Swango/Flatfish" moves from his home in The
Hamptons, hop's Metro North from Manhattan to Poughkeepsie, moves into his
"summer" home, and takes advantage of the Upstate NY/Capital District Road
runner service, just to confuse you. No, REALLY! Get a life...
> >THESE ARE PROBLEMS WITH LINUX and just because one person
> >decides to bring them up, you call them a liar because they didn't have
the
> >exact same experence you did with Linux.
>
> If they say they had the experience, indeed, they would be a liar.
> Observing that is not quite the same as denying the problem, as you seem
> to suggest.
Your denying the problem exists, by calling him a liar. I'm suggesting you
do this reguardless of the evidence. You do this zeallously, for Linux.
Put it togather.
> >I think I've seen better "documentation" written on the back of a CS
> >student's hand. These people just can't write about their own damn
> >products.
>
> Sounds like a large market opportunity, once the illegal monopoly quits
> bleeding the industry dry.
Yes, the market is called A TECHNICAL WRITER, it's a nice job for people who
can understand technical references and translate that into end user (or ANY
user) readable writing. It's how documentation is made. These people
should HIRE ONE For god sake.
> >He's refering to the sheer numbers of redundant complaints about the same
> >topics on NG's in reguard to SAMBA. Windows gives a USER INTERFACE to
> >configuring this, Linux gives a machine interface. Guess which one is
more
> >logical under the user model. Hmm, possibly the one to provide a HUMAN
> >interface?
>
> I'm sorry, it doesn't matter if it is a point-clicky thing, or a text
> file, they're all human/machine interfaces. Now, there are bright
> humans, and there are humans who expect a general purpose microcomputer
> to perform similarly to a television set. But that's a different
> matter, really.
The point-clicky thing works just fine for Windows, and works just great for
Mac, why can't it work for Linux? Because it's too much work to institute?
Now who'se being lazy? Clearly the wonderful success of the TV is lost upon
you Linux nuts. Elegant simplicty is an artform, and a talent. COPY IT FOR
GOD SAKE.
> >Really? Linux.com is exclaimed as an excelent site with Linux and open
> >source information, and I find propaganda and truely useless
"testomonial"
> >excaliming the "prefection" of Linux.
>
> Could you possibly cite some quotes attesting to Linux's "perfection"?
> Perhaps you merely took something out of context.
http://www.linux.com/news/articles.phtml?sid=93&aid=10678
PROPAGANDA.
Read the "Are you KIDDING" comment at the bottom. I loved this one.
> I would concur with yttrx; with a brain, leaving you "out of luck".
I won't comment on this blatent personal attack.
> No problem; I don't think anyone holds it against you. The thing is,
> you might not be perfect, but you can learn, in theory, anyway. Sure,
> its possible there's something wrong with the system; bugs happen.
> Nobody denies it; not even Microsoft can quite get away with that cheek,
> though they do insist on calling them 'issues' to obfuscate the fact
> that they are clueless where the bugs might be.
And RedHat is just as in tune with they're own bugs, right? So, when RedHat
shits on their customers it's Ok?
> >No, it doesn't. RPMDrake is riddeled with defects. STILL. Even after
that
> >UI changeover (from the KPACKAGE Clone look) it sill doesn't function
> >properly tracking dependencies. Also Mandrake's revision numbering
system
> >doesn't help RedHat native or RPM generic packages.
>
> All potentially worthwhile issues to address. Please feel free to
> contact RedHat or Mandrake, and bring them up.
Your missing the point. But never mind.
> >And you simply can't deal with the fact that Linux is imperfect.
>
> Au contraire; we can, and are, dealing with it perfectly fine. Just
> because every potential bug that some clueless and unidentified droid
> putatively posted somewhere, and was echoed by the intellectually
> challenged Clair/Steve/Flatfish, blows circuits all over your stack
> doesn't mean that *we* have problems dealing with the fact that Linux
> isn't perfect.
Sure you don't...
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:13:59 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Who cares? I would wonder if any of Microsoft's *customers* have
> confirmed this to be a problem; you seem to assume Microsoft works
> perfectly until proven otherwise. Luckily, the market is not required
> to weigh rules of evidence; we will assume the bug remains in W2K until
> we know otherwise, for a fact.
Well, if you got your head out of your ass and tested Windows Me & 2000 with
an ACPI system, you would know, wouldn't you....?
> You may also wish to engage in a game of russian roulette, solo. Or,
> you could replace the monopoly crapware with the emerging de facto
> standard: Linux.
You could also get a clue, but I doubt this will happen, so let's continue
on, shall we?
> >IBM May also have a more ACPI compliant BIOS available for your lappy.
> >
> >Or, you can install Linux on this machine, and bypass your ACPI problems
> >alltogather. No ACPI support, No problem!
>
> Indeed, this would be my preferred solution.
That's because your a moron.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:16:53 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Was that you? I thought it was flatfish that was having this
> discussion. Or was it Claire; I get them confused so easily. Either
> way, its worth noting that your sentence above is internally conflicted
> about whether you "deal with real people" or are "fortunate as [you] are
> to know what [you] know."
You just hate it when someone who assumes multipul aliasas has a good point,
don't you?
> No, REAL people only bought Microchannel systems if they were idiots or
> stuck inside of True Blue shops. I don't see what this has to do with
> Linux. Other than to highlight that open, standards-based technology
> generally beats proprietary crapware, but I think that's the opposite of
> what you were thinking.
??? Who?
The only part of this paragraph I understood was Open Source standards being
superior to, something propriotory. Yet, Open Source software all seem to
have hideous UI's, making them unpleasent to they're closed source
counterparts.
------------------------------
From: "A V Flinsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone going to the LinuxWorld Expo in New York City?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:23:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "jtnews"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone going to the LinuxWorld Expo in New York City?
>
> I was thinking of going this year since I live close to the city. I'm
> wondering what other people think about it.
Went last year, and will be going again this year.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:23:39 GMT
The XFree86 4.0.2 input autoprobe derives much of it's ability to detect
preconfigured devices (ie: GPM already supporting my mouse, and not scanning
the USB subsystem for devices).
Under RH, GPM was not set up, in favor of Xconfigurator probing my USB and
finding my mouse.
Under other platforms, GPM and kernel USB support supported my mouse, and
XFree86 4.0.2 queried GPM's configuration (for /dev/mouse).
Henceforth, XFree86 4.0.*'s autoprobe system sucks.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:47:38 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >XFree86's autoprobe system doesn't seem to find USB devices very well
(LIKE
> >MICE?!)
>
> It works with mine just fine. (xfree 3.3 and 4.0)
>
> [deletia]
>
> USB mice aren't horribly complicated beasts.
>
> They aren't even distinctive really.
>
> --
>
> Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
> and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
> "reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
> to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
>
> Bobby Bryant - COLA
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lincoln Peters)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:30:14 GMT
If you're right, why does Windows crash 182 times as often as Linux on
my computer?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 22:37:03 -0800, Doink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your right
>
>This whole Linux thing was just a joke.
>
>We just wanted to see how long we could keep it up. It was funny for
>a while, but now the prank is over. That Torvaldes guy just cracks me
>up. The penguin thing was genius.
>
>Thanks Its over now. Now we can go home and re-install windows and go
>find girlfriends!
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Doink
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:28:49 GMT
One wonders if you will EVER admit there is a problem.
XFree86 4's probing system SUCKS. It's dumb, period. It doesn't really
"probe", it "queries". And takes NOTHING from other autoprobe schemes that
DO work.
Where I sit, this is called a "Design flaw", and because XFree86 and Linux
are so closely tied hand-in-hand, this doesn't help Linux to stop sucking.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:02:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:47:38 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>XFree86's autoprobe system doesn't seem to find USB devices very well
(LIKE
> >>MICE?!)
> >
> >It can't even identify my PS/2 port Logitech Wheelmouse correctly
> >(Mandrake 7.2).
>
> Thats funny, it does well enough with my Logitech USB wheelmouse.
>
> >
> >>I've only seen XFree86 4.*'s autoprobe on my 3dfx card, which IS one of
the
> >>top 10% of hardware distributed in theUS, I'd love to see what it does
on a
> >>system with an ATI Radeon chip, or an old nVidia Riva 128. Does it
> >>"support" it through the generic svga "driver"?
> >
> >It thinks my Matrox card has anywhere from 4 meg to 16 meg depending
> >on which version of Xfree I use. The card has 8 meg BTW.
>
> That's funny, my Matrox G400 doesn't seem to have this problem.
>
> >
> >
> >>Can it even probe for those devices AND accomidate WITHOUT prompting the
> >>user?
> >
> >A concept totally foreign to Linux users.
>
> One wonders if you have actually run any version of Linux ever.
>
> This goes doubly so for Mandrake 7.2.
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
>
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
> limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> respective writings and discoveries;
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:31:57 GMT
"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93m7le$ol5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >It can't even identify my PS/2 port Logitech Wheelmouse correctly
> >(Mandrake 7.2).
>
> Found mine fine, Red Hat 7. Tip don't use crapy distribs like Mandrake,
> which I'm sure that will start a war. But yes I know Mandrake is based on
> Red Hat, but they fuck the installer.
First, Mandrake 7.2's installer suplments the XFree86 probing system by
pre-configuring the mouse at pre-install time. The mouse settings from
install are transfered to XFree86.
Same with RH7, GPM is configured by Anaconda, XFree86 is configured FROM GPM
(typically by Anaconda).
> again, it identified my Matrox fine... didn't auto detect the 3D labs
> card, but I tossed in a cheap STB got the drivers then installed it. Fine.
This is NOT a soulition.
> >>Can it even probe for those devices AND accomidate WITHOUT prompting
> >>the user?
> >
> >A concept totally foreign to Linux users.
>
> A concept totaly unwelcome.
Because you like your piddling minutia, overcomplication and wasted time.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:33:39 GMT
Mr. Kulkis is a maschorcist, or a moron.
Or both.
"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93m6to$ol5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
> alt.linux.sux on 11 Jan 2001
>
> >Lewis Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Wright was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
> >> alt.linux.sux on 07 Jan 2001
> >>
> >> >When I install Linux its as easy to do as Windows. The only hard
> >> >parts being the X configuration (there ought to be a new tool for
> >> >this by now) and the partitioning - which has to be done for Windows
> >> >as well. Everything else then falls into place for a great desktop
> >> >operating system.
> >>
> >> X configurators I've seen, can usually probe. But hey I also like
> >> being able to just enter the setting for my monitor and that be it,
> >> and it works. Unless I can find a friggin driver for my SGI monitor
> >> windows keeps telling me it can't handle the frequencys it says right
> >> in the specs that it can. Linux I just tell it what it can handle and
> >> it takes it. :) AH control. I like it.
> >>
> >
> >Point & Click means getting stuck with whatever they shove at you....
>
> What? Are all your replies this short and devoid of a point? What are you
> talking about. most distribs with GUI installers, let you pick and choose
> each indidividual package.
>
>
>
> --
> l8r
> -LJM
>
> a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
> a.k.a. MrBobaFett
>
>
> "Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
> they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
> -- Eric Draven, The Crow
>
------------------------------
From: "szzzz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:46:52 GMT
> >up. The penguin thing was genius.
> >
> >Thanks Its over now. Now we can go home and re-install windows and go
> >find girlfriends!
> >
> >Thanks for your help.
> >
> >Doink
> >
Why do you need girlfriends?? You will be so busy getting screwed by bill
gates your backside will be real sore.
Now get lost troll
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:43:42 GMT
On 10 Jan 2001 09:58:08 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93ddau$a5i0p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> What about using whole partitions as virtual memory without a
>> filesystem getting in the way - linux has done this since version 1.x
>> over 6 years >ago (up to 128mb per partition with virtually unlimited
>> number of partitions).
Nigel is mistaken about this. The 128 MB limit went away with 2.2. See
this machine for example:
[bobh@olympus bobh]$ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 62976 59960 3016 57144 23564 12440
-/+ buffers/cache: 23956 39020
Swap: 192740 17968 174772
The swap is a single partition.
> gee, a WHOLE 128 mb in a partition? Whoo pee!! And so what? What's the
> advantage? There is still a file system in use, it's just that you
> can't store user files on it, but there is a system file on it, it's
> the vitual memory file. it's managed by the OS as a file. ugh, no
> advantage at all if you ask me.
There isn't a "file system" on the swap partition, just fixed-size
blocks of data. Much faster to manage than variable-sized files.
I notice that a common recommendation for improving NT performance is to
fix the size of the swap file. If you do that, you've got dedicated
space again, but with more overhead. What's the advantage?
>> When is MS starting development for the 64-bit AMD chip then - linux
>> development started at least a month ago.
> who cares about AMD chips anyway... blah...
AMD? People with AMD chips? They do sell quite a few you know.
>Why would intel wait? Because there is no market for linux itanium users,
Really? How do you know this?
> they ain't got the money but there is an unbelievably huge windows
> market
If it follows the usual pattern, the Unobtainum will start out as a
"server" chip. Where the market for Linux is quite strong, and Windows
does not have the advantage of the "unbelievably huge" consumer market.
>They'll wait because linux is not a driving force by any definition in
>intel's books.
It _is_ a driving force in the server market.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:44:53 GMT
"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93m7ef$ol5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ok here we go, WTF do you need a USB mouse? that's as stupid as a USB
> keyboard. Those devices have no need of a faster port than what they're
> attached to. I hate all these devices they're attaching to a USB port just
> because they can. A camera? That make sense. a camera can take advantage
> of it. A mouse? please the mouse has not changed much in the past 10
> years. What you need a boomslang?
> NT can't use ANY USB devices.
I own a USB mouse. I like my USB mouse. Optical mice only come in USB, and
I don't see a need for the USB-ps/2 converter. The kernel supports USB, GPM
supports it, but XFree86 can't DETECT it...
> umm. it detected an old STB Velocity 128. besides write your own driver.
> :)
Are you trying to be an idiot? Please say yes.
> >Can it even probe for those devices AND accomidate WITHOUT prompting the
> >user?
>
> I would hope not, when my computer stops asking me before it does anything
> I didn't tell it to do directly, I will be upset. Thanks I like to knoe
> what is happening on my machine.
At the general cost of other, critical functionality? No thanks.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:51:12 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:embo39.h4f.ln@gd2zzx...
> In article <53M76.52803$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Alt.Linux.sux.
> >
> > What part of "sux" doesn't make sense to you?
> >
> > Some idiot cross-posted this thread (someone from COLA) and now the two
> > groups are intertwined in schools of thought.
>
> Whatever. You are still a pathetic troll. If Linux is so crap why
> do you spend so much time bothering about it? If it was crap it
> would just die. You are obviously scared of your future job prospects
> in a world not dominated by Microsoft.
I keep watch over Linux, to see if anything changes.
I find so little, it's scary. Same, obvious functionality missing. Same
dumb problems persist.
I see people like you who keep Linux stagnant, then I see people like
Michael Tiemann making headway into a world where Linux doesn't suck donkey
balls.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:52:36 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:08:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:03:04 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Personally, I hate having to add a decent mp3 player, a CD
> >> >> mastering app, or a basic archiving tool to NT5.
> >> >
> >> >Personally I hate not have ANY decent varieties of the programs you
> >> >mention available for Linux.
> >> >
> >> >Oh yea, for NT5 Try MusicMatch Jukebox and Winzip.
> >> > Both free/shareware.
> >>
> >> So then, what are wrong with the Linux variants you seem
> >> to despise so much? Please be precise.
> >
> >Congratulations on completely missing the point.
>
> Actually, you were first.
>
> OTOH, you can get a nice distribution that includes those things
> for you allowing you to avoid extra work. I'll state that last
> bit again so that you might have a chance of comprehending it:
> AVOID EXTRA WORK.
>
> While you're trying to act as white knight for those that have
> meagre computing skills, you demonstrate that you are quite out
> of touch with them. Many end users either don't want to or are
> unable to manually futz with downloading things from the web
> even assuming they have a network connection at all.
Congratulations on finally seeing my point.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 13 Jan 2001 04:02:02 GMT
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:08:10 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 12 Jan 2001 15:40:08
>>No one is paying Roberto to write KDE. You're putting the cart before
>>the horse here -- he works on KDE because he likes it, not the other
>>way around. (It's not as if he couldn't have worked on GNOME instead)
>
>I've got mixed feelings about that, honestly. ;-/
How so ?
>Yes, it is. Sorry for catching you in my blatant trolling. I *really*
>would like to hear a lot more about GNOME.
http://www.gnome.org. This website has a bunch of information varying
from info about apps to news to tutorials on developing GNOME apps.
Also, if you follow www.slashdot.org or www.linuxtoday.com, they always
carry the latest stories on GNOME.
>Yes, but can one benefit from KDE applications without running KDE? How
You need kdelibs installed. It's not necessary to use the Window manager
in oreder to use the other applications. For example, one can use Koffice
while using the GNOME desktop components.
>much of the silent gap between KDE and GNOME (I must presume that the
>noise I hear more or less reflects development [I'm not limiting this to
>newsgroup chatter]) is or is destined to become a function gap?
I don't think there's any less noise on one or the other, maybe you're
just listening in the wrong places. Also, if you're not following it,
you'll here things like "Helixcode", "Nautilus", etc and not realise
that they're actually talking about GNOME. KDE applications and projects
usually start with a 'K' which is a dead giveaway. GNOME projects aren't
identifiable as such from the name alone.
I'd say KDE is functionaly better
overall, but there are also several excellent GNOME based applications.
>>I think you'll find some of the KDE applications pretty convincing.
>
>That's what I'm afraid of; KDE applications will be 'pretty convincing',
>and mostly in comparison to a general malaise from everywhere else.
>Leaving me in scarcely better a position to benefit from competitive
>development of middleware than with Microsoft.
Well I don't think you should even make these kinds of comments until
you've given it a try. Instead of enumerating your fears, why not just
find out ? BTW, several of the GNOME applications are quite good IMO.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 13 Jan 2001 04:03:35 GMT
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:00:38 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:39:42 -0500;
> [...]
>>CC classes in my neck of the woods are running < 45$ a credit hour.
>No, most "beginner students" (new users, they're called) start out with
>shell scripts. There's no reason at all to launch yourself into
>compiled code for years to come. Not with stuff like perl and python
>around.
One point that MH has missed is that Linux gives you more than a C
compiler. It comes with a complete set of development tools.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
