Re: plasma 6 and xrdp
Remind me, do KDE's MLs have ignore/black lists?
Re: plasma 6 and xrdp
On Sun, 2024-03-03 at 05:22 -0600, Draciron Smith wrote: > > > Somehow I doubt that you could take, for example, Xorg and all the > > > programs using it from some variant of BSD and compile it under >>Linux > > > and have it magically work without any regard to or dependency on > > > suitable graphics card drivers. > Thing is you SHOULD be able to do that. That is kind of the idea that > drives OSS in general. Moving apps tween all of the *Nix flavors shouldn't > be the nightmare that it is. Well, I gave up on that idea about 30 years ago because it's wishful thinking. In theory, you should be able to successfully compile and run a program written in C on any platform. In practise, you can not do that. > Especially when it comes to moving between OSX and Linux. When I can > afford to own a Mac I do because of the driver support and the apps > on the OSX platform for working with sound and video. Some of which > should be but are not easily ported to Linux and there are Linux > apps I'd love to port to OSX. When I look at a Mac, I'm looking at something that's stuck 25 years in the past. Not even the keyboard works right, and when you try to pick a file from a directory containing lots of files, the system hangs. The GUI is far worse than Gnome and there's not much software available. Apple manages to sell cheap hardware for high prices, that's all. > I wouldn't even NEED a Mac if I could port over those apps and > drivers from OSX so I could use and program my effects boxes > directly from Linux. Hell I can't even find a Linux driver at all > for most of my gear. It seems you bought the wrong hardware. > The various splits in the *Nix world are forgetting one of the core > principles. That is the ability to leverage great ideas on other > *Nix spits into your particular flavor of *Nix. Well, what do expect from Apple? They want to control everything, including the user. > It's not like performance is even a consideration any more. The > modern KDE and Gnome are as bad or worse than Microsoft windows in > terms of useless bloat. After switching from KDE to Gnome and back to KDE, my impression is that KDE has become a lot faster than it used to be, and it seems now faster than Gnome after Gnome seemed to be faster than KDE. I only switched to Gnome because KDE was too buggy, and so far, that also has improved. Fvwm was faster. Was it better? I wouldn't say it's better than KDE unless maybe you have the need to go great lengths with configurability. KDE is easier to configure. There is no version of fvwm that works with Wayland --- and that is why I switched to KDE to begin with. Is plasma 6 better? I can only hope they didn't dumb it down. Where do you see the useless bloat? Stuff works together and that reduces bloat because not every program needs to reinvent and provide its own wheel. > So why not retain compatibility. When you can control the hardware, software and by that the users, you can make your users pay whatever you want them to pay for more stuff, or for new stuff you force them to buy, that controls them even more. The more incompatible what you sell them is, the more you can control them and keep them locked in your trap. If you made compatible stuff, your users could spend their money with your competition. So why would you want to retain compatibility? Why are there so many open source projects working on more or less the same thing as others instead of everyone working together? > The other great thing about *Nix is the ability to write something that > people like and people can use it decades later. New is often not > better. right The problem is to know in advance what you can still use 20 or 30 years later. > I dearly miss Kedit for example. It was super light weight but had > all the features I needed to write SQL schemas, use for character > sheets when writing fiction, for keeping notes, or code snippits, > pre-writing something I'd later pull up in a word processor, > etc. There's nothing really like it any more. The "kedit" offered > now is just Kwrite with features disabled. Still the same resource > hog and mem leaks. The old Kedit was bullet proof and super > lightweight. Emacs is still around. So is LaTeX. If you had known that you could have used Emacs to begin with and that kedit has changed too much to still use it while Emacs has become more usable, would you have ever messed with kedit? Perhaps gedit is for you? Geanie can be nice. What exactly do you consider 'light weight', and how is 'light weight' relevant? > Text wrangler on the Mac platform would be awesome to run on Linux. I > wouldn't even miss Kedit any more. I made a stab at porting Trelby over to > the Mac once but the dependency hell thwarted that effort. Sad since it's > written in Python but the Python used on OSX was locked at a version back > from what was run on the common Linux distros. If you upgraded Python on > OSX at the time, it'd break OSX. Backporting the
Re: How do I get lost windows back?
On Sunday March 03 2024 12:52:33 hw wrote: > Modernity is totally besides the >point here. Sadly no, in my book. But I'm not going to get into a shouting match about this.
Re: plasma 6 and xrdp
On Sunday March 03 2024 05:22:15 Draciron Smith wrote: >Thing is you SHOULD be able to do that. That is kind of the idea that >drives OSS in general. And AFAIK you can. XOrg has a single codebase for every officially supported platform; Xquartz for instance is built from the upstream sources with just a number of patches that are probably intended to be upstreamed. I'm not really familiar enough with all the hairy details of selecting drivers on Linux or the extent to which you could get decent performance without hardware-specific ones, but I do notice they're part of the XOrg sources. >Some of which should be but are not easily ported to Linux and there are >Linux apps I'd love to port to OSX. Apple have tied their (formerly) main programming language way too much to the OS IMHO (Swift exists for Linux but I have no idea if it's more usable there than ObjC is). That hinders porting to other platforms, but they're also the only Unix (I know of) where it's often impossible to even compile recent software on older OS versions (which is all that older hardware will still run, extra maddening since that hardware is so long-lived). >The various splits in the *Nix world are forgetting one of the core >principles. That is the ability to leverage great ideas on other *Nix spits >into your particular flavor of *Nix. I am in fact not certain that was ever really a thing beyond the software you wrote yourself! >The system calls should be fairly standard even if what goes on when >invoked might be substantially different. To the driver calling them they Well, they are, but for one thing there's the big cleavage between BSD and SysV, and Apple have not made things easier by adapting a Mach kernel on their Unix. But if we ignore Darwin it's quite obvious that Linux is the driving force in the Unix universe, and thus also the source of many incompatibilities which often promptly get used because so much software development is being done on Linux... >It's not like performance is even a consideration any more. The modern KDE >and Gnome are as bad or worse than Microsoft windows in terms of useless >bloat. Gnome definitely, KDE5 is still relatively lean in my more or less up-to-date Devuan test install. But I'm leaning very much to using a DE like XFCE or Cinnamon when I finally move on from my current system that's still based in Kubuntu 14.04 . Though part of the reason for that would be to continue to be able to build the KDE5 libs and applications I want with my own patches as I've been doing for the past years. >Text wrangler on the Mac platform would be awesome to run on Linux. Did you try it with Darwine? >from what was run on the common Linux distros. If you upgraded Python on >OSX at the time, it'd break OSX. Backporting the source to a previous It probably still would, but there's a good chance the same thing would happen on Linux distros (at least those that used or still use Python 2.7 for their crucial scripts). Python is designed around the idea of being able to have every single version installed and pick the one you want or need for a particular task (as long as you don't mind installing all add-ons as many times). >All would benefit. OSX would gain a whole lot of free software, Linux & BSD >access to all those drivers written for the Mac, Realistically, not really. Those drivers must often target aspects of the OS that simply aren't Unix despite the fact that the OS is (still?) certified as a Unix variant. Many of the standard Unix APIs on Darwin are in fact wrappers around Mac-specific (usually meaning Mach) APIs, so software that's more concerned about efficiency has more reason to target those APIs directly. That includes development efficiency of your main product is actually the MSWin version (and/or if you intend to provide your products via the platform's official store). It's true that it's sad; back in 2004/5 when I got re-acquainted with the first Macs under what was still called Mac OS X I quickly abandoned the other Unix versions I'd been using (Irix and a bit of Linux) because I thought I'd finally found the perfect "Unix for the desktop". It only took a bit more than 6 years to realise that Apple had other plans with their platform and was more interested in selling expensive serious toys to Starbucks yuppies. R.
Re: How do I get lost windows back?
On Sat, 2024-03-02 at 22:43 +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Saturday March 02 2024 17:11:48 hw wrote: > > > This is bad interface design. I guess whoever designed it knew what > > they wanted and it escaped them that someone who doesn't know what > > they were trying to accomplish is only being confused by this. > > Oh, you mean *modern* interface design? I wish that were a joke btw... No, I mean bad interface design. Modernity is totally besides the point here. Why is it that people always try to make it so as if I had said something I didn't say or as if I meant something I didn't mean? Even signing my messages doesn't help. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: plasma 6 and xrdp
>>Somehow I doubt that you could take, for example, Xorg and all the >>programs using it from some variant of BSD and compile it under >>Linux >>and have it magically work without any regard to or dependency on >>suitable graphics card drivers. Thing is you SHOULD be able to do that. That is kind of the idea that drives OSS in general. Moving apps tween all of the *Nix flavors shouldn't be the nightmare that it is. Especially when it comes to moving between OSX and Linux. When I can afford to own a Mac I do because of the driver support and the apps on the OSX platform for working with sound and video. Some of which should be but are not easily ported to Linux and there are Linux apps I'd love to port to OSX. I wouldn't even NEED a Mac if I could port over those apps and drivers from OSX so I could use and program my effects boxes directly from Linux. Hell I can't even find a Linux driver at all for most of my gear. The various splits in the *Nix world are forgetting one of the core principles. That is the ability to leverage great ideas on other *Nix spits into your particular flavor of *Nix. It's not like performance is even a consideration any more. The modern KDE and Gnome are as bad or worse than Microsoft windows in terms of useless bloat. So why not retain compatibility. The other great thing about *Nix is the ability to write something that people like and people can use it decades later. New is often not better. I dearly miss Kedit for example. It was super light weight but had all the features I needed to write SQL schemas, use for character sheets when writing fiction, for keeping notes, or code snippits, pre-writing something I'd later pull up in a word processor, etc. There's nothing really like it any more. The "kedit" offered now is just Kwrite with features disabled. Still the same resource hog and mem leaks. The old Kedit was bullet proof and super lightweight. Text wrangler on the Mac platform would be awesome to run on Linux. I wouldn't even miss Kedit any more. I made a stab at porting Trelby over to the Mac once but the dependency hell thwarted that effort. Sad since it's written in Python but the Python used on OSX was locked at a version back from what was run on the common Linux distros. If you upgraded Python on OSX at the time, it'd break OSX. Backporting the source to a previous Python version didn't go very well, and the Trelby folks were not keen on the idea of forking just to support a Mac port, and I can't blame them. That's exactly what *Nix should not be doing. It should have been trivial to port Trelby over to the Mac. If it was easier to port, then Linux users would have access to the wealth of drivers written for OSX. The system calls should be fairly standard even if what goes on when invoked might be substantially different. To the driver calling them they should be a black box with standard parms between *Nix variants. The underlying graphics engines like QT, GTK, etc should and pretty much are supported on almost all *Nix variants. So the problem is just nobody is talking to each other between the *Nix variants to help make that happen. All would benefit. OSX would gain a whole lot of free software, Linux & BSD access to all those drivers written for the Mac, and ports of some OSS Mac software that has no good Linux equiv. It'd make support easier for folks that maintain versions on different *Nix variants.
