<reply who="Dane" date="Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:56:08 +1100">
> Bah you all whinge too much. > > <snip> > On 0, Karl Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Look at the number of idiot computer users windows and mac has given the world? > </snip> > I thank the lord every day for this. Its idiots such as these that, to some extent, >keep us all gainfully employed in often overpaid jobs. (not me of course.. im >underpaid..but i know some of you bastards out there are earning far too much money) I enjoy profiting from it occasionally as well, the fact remains a little more education wouldn't go astray > > 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, and the XF86 is very inefficient. > > > More whinging. Linux is a wholly viable desktop OS. As I type I am writing this from >a linux console, although this box is a p133 which runs the latest version of gnome >with enlightenment on top. Admittedly it runs a tad kludgily but it is well within >the realm of usability. If I tried to run a more bare bones X environment I'm sure it >would fly along. Enlightenment is very pretty but somewhat...as i said >before...kludgy. I didn't say it wasn't a viable desktop os, you read what you want to read, i have written all my emails for the past 2 or so months from sylpheed (thanks who ever recomended that). > My work machine is of a much higher spec but is also running gnome + enlightenment >at an insane resolution and I have yet to encounter any of the resource grabbing or >inefficiency of which you speak. Sure there are the leaky apps but once killed the >systems usually restores itself almost immediately. I haven't used gnome in quite some time, perhaps it has improved since i last used it, in which case forget the comments about it. > As far as the ability to remotely log in and kill apps which have been leaking >memory over night or suddenly segfault and not have to restart my graphical >environment and lose other perhaps unsaved material, this is a useful feature to have >at one's desktop disposal. (Yes im well aware that similar solutions are available on >the windows platform like Ataman for remotely logging in and say ports of 'ps' and >'kill' or whatever but it still isnt native and its not as good ;p) This is a feature i enjoy as well when browser or something just decides to be a bitch > You call XF86 inefficient but what do you proffer as a MORE efficient option? > Surely not a Microsoft option? Are you serious? A Microsoft option? I told you not >to suggest one.[1] >From my experience ms is unfortunately more efficient, faster better etc than X, >again only used it on lower end machines. (I'm not an MS advocate i hate them) > > 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. > > > I dont know what rock you've been hiding under for the past year dude but computers >really dont cost anything any more. You can get half a gig of pc133 ram for less than >$200. A very very decent system will cost you no more than a few grand, the entire >value of which you can probably write off through your tax over 3 years. unfortunately i dont have a couple of grand hence being sstuck on this machine. With the advancement of technology, you really dont have to scrimp and save that last iota of memory when you code. just because you dont have to doesn't mean you shouldn't, more effiecient programs are always good. What would a complete reworking of X to make it more efficient do? it could perhaps improve the speed of x, improve configurability, better config files, improve ease of use etc etc -- 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
