On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 21:59 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

From the customer's POV there's another reason, and that is choice.  
Modularity means that you can move modules around. For example, in 
Windows there is only one graphical interface. In Linux there is 
Gnome, KDE, Afterstep, Sawfish, Englihtenment, Icewm, Blackfox, fvwm 
and a dozen others.

That's not true.  Windows has many GUIs.  There is LiteStep, 3DNA, 
Window Blinds, just to name a few...

There is plenty of choice in MS Windows.

In fact, there is a **** load *MORE* choice in Windows than there is 
Linux.  A billion times as many programs and much more functionality.


Here we go again...

He said choice of Window managers, not GUI cosmetics or general
applications programs. Given the different timescales of availability
its very unsuprising that there are more applications programs for
Windows. At the fundamental programming levels Linux is much more
diverse in the possibilites of using alternative code for different
aspects. The kernel itself is pretty big and some people eg Hurd kernel
project believe that too would be better to be more modularised. However
that would run into the same compatibility problems of anything new, so
even if better it might not catch on.

I don't care *why* there is more choice in Windows. I was simply stating a fact. There are a ton more choices in Windows than there are in Linux. So if changing the look and functionality of a Windowing Manager (which is what Daniel said the programs I suggested do) is not the same thing as using a different windowing manager (which I would imagine would look and behave differently than the other one.... hmmm, just like changing the look and functionality.....) how is there a difference to the end user? I mean I could potentially skin AbiWord to look and feel just like OOo Writer. And I added some hooks into OOo, where they could switch to OOo programs from AbiWord, and basically made AbiWord work and look *exactly* like OOo - to the end user, who would care which one they used?

If changing the "windowing manager" makes windows look and behave differently - *AND* - adding these cosmetics or general applications makes windows look and behave differently - who the * cares which way you got there? If the end user has a different experience either way, it really doesn't matter, does it? Didn't think so.

*NEXT!*

-Chad

Re: [social] Document creation vs. communication

Reply via email to