<reply who="Jeff Waugh" date="Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:15:06 +1100">
> <quote who="Karl Clements"> > > > Look at the number of idiot computer users windows and mac has given the > > world? > > "People who don't give a shit". They're not idiots, they just don't care. > > > Linux is not intended as a desktop os, sure the desktop has come a long > > way, but its not there yet. Most of the user friendly gui's (kde, gnome > > come to mind) are too resource hungry to to be any good > > KDE and GNOME are *incredible* achievements, and I'd say, good. If you're > not happy with the entire desktop environments they provide, you're still > getting the benefit of the applications provided by these projects. I agree with you, i said that the linux desktop has come along way, but compared to windows desktop they are slow, but on the flip side ms have been working on this shit for about 10 years and kde only a few. > > and the XF86 is very inefficient. > > Hardly true, and many of the "oh so cool" features of other environments are > being hacked on as we speak. If you have a serious issue with it, help out; > profile what you see as 'inefficient', find the areas that need help, submit > bugs. The XFree86 project is far more open now than it ever was, thanks to > people like Jim Gettys and Keith Packard. you dont think its bloated? dont think it coudld be better in any way? > > For linux to gain a larger market share X needs to be reworked so its more > > efficient and someone needs to put together a user friendly wm that > > doesn't chew up all your resources. > > Dude, there are hundreds of "user friendly window managers that don't chew > up all your resources". *Hundreds*. Varying degrees of usability, sure. But > they're out there. You don't *have* to use the desktop environments, many > people prefer not to. How many of these 100's of user friendly wm's could you set a complete computer newbie or a windows user down to and have them using it in under 10mins > > until that happens linux belongs as a server, or as a desktop for someone > > with half a clue. > > Please join the queue of pundits itching to prophesize the future of "Linux > on the desktop". Hot air and lack of research combined will never get us > there. Linux on the desktop is a highly feasable option, i didn't say at any stage that it wasnt't, i just said that it needs to be more effiecient so that it can be fairly compared to windows. Ofcourse i haven't used linux on higher end machines so i have been able to compare kde to 2k on a 1ghz athlon, but from what i have seen on the machines here (celeron 333 & k6-2 300) it has proved to be slower than what 98 or 2k were. -- Karl Clements "Everyone is stupid, its just the degree that varies" -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
