Slashdot Mirror
Linux Users Try FreeBSD 5, Windows
uninet writes "Most people know what GNU/Linux is, but fewer know about BSD and fewer still have actually used one of the major BSD variants (other than the highly customized Mac OS X). Ed Hurst, a writer and a long time GNU/Linux user, decided to give FreeBSD a try. Will Ed join the ranks of happy FreeBSD users? Find out at OfB.biz." And our own Roblimo, Windows-free for five years, has spent a week learning Windows XP.
Alternate viewpoint on "switching from Linux to Windows".
.02
Some background: I had been a Windows user for a short time back in the Win 3.1 (and prior days). I had a 386SX-16 with 5mb of RAM so Windows wasn't terribly good. I used a lot of DOS programs and Desqview for task switching. I decided it was time to go to something decent and I switched to OS/2. It was a dream world for me, ran DOS, Windows, and OS/2 (and unix-based applications compiled for it). Then I went to Linux and stayed there from 1996 until 11/2002.
Of course I had used Windows on school/friend's computers and was familiar with most of the applications for it. I was 100% against MS's evil empire and Bill's attempts to takeover the world.
I was out of work for a short period of time and had been searching for a job for probably the nine or so months I was working in a hell hole. I was sending out my resumes as a TXT email or printed from Wordperfect for Linux. I got NO hits. My parents wanted to do video conferencing with me but we couldn't because Linux didn't support my USB camera well enough (and they didn't want to use anything other than Netmeeting). I acquired a 1.8Ghz e-machine in November of 2002. It came w/WindowsXP and I began to use that...
First thing was switching away from the native XP interface to the Win2k look. Nice and comfortable. Second was installing Office (no problem, as a student it was $10). Third was using IRC (Cygwin + irssi). Last was getting used to IE from Mozilla (not a problem, Mozilla is slow, clunky, and doesn't support anything as easily as IE on Windows).
Office was MUCH better than WP for Linux. Interoperability with EVERYONE else I knew. No converting and reformatting, no font problems, no nothing. It was fast, easy, and nice. IE was far superior to Mozilla. I never used tabs as Roblimo did and I never thought Mozilla was fast. I opened the browser and pages loaded faster, nice. I clicked on movies and low and behold codecs were downloaded automatically and the movies started playing (all without having to compile mplayer, get codecs, and fool with Mozilla to get it to play them).
Upgrading Windows was easy. Either do it through the web or through the GUI. I didn't have to worry about dependencies breaking, problems with "stable", "unstable", or "seriously broken and use at your own risk".
While I have complaints about Windows (still evil) I think it is a far superior experience to Linux.
That's just my worthless
Betcha they don't.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It's not a review of Windows XP, but rather a series of old stereotypes and jokes about Windows that we've heard a million times. If you want a serious, objective review of XP in the same manner that you see Linux distributions reviewed, you should look elsewhere.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Google Cache of main page here
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it. This is fast, easy, and takes little hand motion on my laptop keyboard. All this Ctrl key action slows me down. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I need to work quickly if I want to earn a living, and I don't see why Windows wants me to go through all those extra hand motions just to paste a URL into a story.
A week goes by and he couldn't figure out how to use the 2nd mouse button? Is this review a spoof?
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it. This is fast, easy, and takes little hand motion on my laptop keyboard. All this Ctrl key action slows me down. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I need to work quickly if I want to earn a living, and I don't see why Windows wants me to go through all those extra hand motions just to paste a URL into a story. Geh.
You do realize that in Windows you can highlight the text, then right click on it to bring up a menu with Undo, Cut, Copy, Paste, Delete, and Select All, right?
-- Dr. Eldarion --
I don't really care if he's an editor or not, writing a "review" of Windows XP whose basic premise is "It's not like Linux, and all the Linux software I like is different on it" is drivel.
He just went from a manual stickshift to an automatic and is still expecting to control the shifting as usual. I'd call this stupid user behavior, except that I know he's not stupid. He's just trying to make a (redundant) point in a (troll) heavy-handed fashion. Which is fine I suppose, except that it seems a little beneath the editorial bar for the front page of Slashdot.
The smarmy attitude got to me after a few paragraphs. "What's this 'Microsoft Internet Explorer' thing that I keep hearing about? It's profoundly inferior to everything I've ever used. People say it's popular, but they must be lying to me because it doesn't have tabbed browsing, and who can use the web without tabbed browsing?"
Sorry, but that gets old awfully damned fast. I've been using Red Hat at home exclusively for the last 7 months or so (since I got laid off and had time to really learn to use it), and while I much prefer it to Windows--even Win2k, of which I am rather fond--the difference isn't so incredibly huge that I would rather eat a Windows CD than install it.
Also, half of his problems seem to be with Windows APPS, rather than Windows. Nothing is keeping you from using a lot of the same apps in Windows, friend. When I do log in to my wife's Win2k box at home, I use OpenOffice, XChat, Gaim, and Mozilla Firebird--the same apps I use on my RH box.
How about some honest advocacy on the strengths of alternate operating systems? That would do more to show options to people who don't know they've got them. This kind of drek doesn't help anyone.
When I was a freshman I started running servers for me and my friends (and about 30 other users). This was mostly an experimental network, for my, and other's learning purposes. I started out using slackware (which is STILL the only linux I will use) on all of my servers. This did work well, until Netatalk stopped working with the latest version of slack (I think they changed TCPWrappers and NetaTalk hadn't cought up yet). I then was forced to move to FreeBSD. I will never, ever, ever go back. System Admin under BSD is silky smooth and DAMN fast. The way I think about it is that BSD has had 30 years of lazy system admins working on it. Linux has a few years to go.
What is this GNU/Linux you speak of?
The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. (GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix"; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".) Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as "Linux", they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems.
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
The first thing that happened after I fired up Windows XP is that it virtually ordered me to download a series of patches. I did so, but it wasn't like a SuSE update where you see every patch available and can say "yes" or "no" to each one if you like. The Windows update process told me nothing except that it was happening, and that I needed to reboot when it was over. A Windows-using friend said, "Yes, that's the way it works, and if you don't do the updates your computer keeps annoying you, so you have to do them even if they take hours like they sometimes do."
I don't know what he's talking about. By default (a stock Windows XPPro install) Windows will download updates in the background, and let you know when they're ready to install. You then have the option of saying "yes, install them now", "no, install them later", or you can click a button (labeled "Details...", I think) to see exactly which updates have been downloaded, and choose precisely which ones you'd like to install. I don't often give a lot of love to Microsoft, but I actually like the way they've handled the Windows Update thing- it's automatic and painless by default but you can have fine-grained control (or disable it totally) if you like.
So I find his claims really false- it sounds like he missed the "Details..." button. It's possible that the pre-installed copy of XP on his laptop was configured by the OEM (Toshiba) to work differently than a "stock" WinXP install, but if he's gonna write an article (and presumably get paid for it) then it's really his duty to figure that out.
I don't know if that's the case, just saying it's possible. In my opinion, anybody who is going to review an OS should really be reviewing a stock install, not some pre-configured OEM install that might differ from the "standard" experience.
At any rate, I'm only a couple of paragraphs into his review, and already I can't take anything he says seriously because there's such a glaring error right off the bat. Nice job.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
"First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it."
:)
Id blame your mouse driver, you shoudl be able
to remap if you want, otherwise try right click
and select, if your copying that much text a day
that the second click will cost you time then i woudl relay like to know what your doing..
Id like to know how you suvied when ctrl-v/c was
the fastest way.. rembere before mice where had
caught on.
"The first thing that happened after I fired up Windows XP is that it virtually ordered me to download a series of patches. I did so, but it wasn't like a SuSE update where you see every patch available and can say "yes" or "no" to each one if you like."
Ok, so i havent used windows update in a good
year, but i clearly rembere being able to review
and select which updates you wanted.
"Yes, that's the way it works, and if you don't do the updates your computer keeps annoying you, so you have to do them even if they take hours like they sometimes do."
Thats funny, see above point.
"but I think this lack of security for software installation may be one of the causes of the hidden spyware problems I keep reading about Windows users having,"
Acttuly most uses chose to install the programs
that have spyware in them, so having to type
a password will only slow it down, if you chose
to install program X and its got spyware in it,
having to typing your password makes no differnce
"First really rude surprise: mIRC costs $20. It isn't free like XChat. Supposedly you get a free 30 day trial, but my copy started blinking "your evaluation time is up" each time I started it after the 3rd day. Apparently the mIRC developers have a slight math problem."
And this is a problem with windows how??
ID talk to Mirc about that, hevens forbid having
to pay for a computer program.
"It doesn't have the tabbed browser feature that makes work-related research (and pleasure reading) such a pleasure in Mozilla, Opera, and other modern browsers. "
Ok, so ive never used tabed broswers, but how
about the tabed Taskbar that is on by default..
dose that compare?? if it dose, i turn it off anyway
"Why people will pay to have Explorer's popup feature shut off instead of simply downloading free Mozilla and clicking on a couple of little boxes to decide what they will allow Web servers to do to their browser windows escapes me."
probly because you can get free popup blocking software too.
"This experiment lasted less than 1/2 hour. I downloaded 2 'passes' worth of email and had to wade through over 200 spams to read 3 useful emails. I (heart) Mozilla's Bayesian spam filters. I will no longer use an email program that doesn't have fast, automatic, easy-to-use spam filtering."
once agine ive had no expreance with Mozilla,
but in under 5 mins i set up my mail rules and
i lower my daily spam from 200 to about 10,
but then even then i do check, never relay on
spamfiltering, everynow and then something gets
filterd out, and it may be that new higher paying
job interview.
"Please don't argue with me about this. I don't get paid a percentage for each (free) Mozilla download this article generates. I'm telling you to dump Outlook for your own good. Really."
same for me.
"My copy of Windows XP Pro seems to have a program included with it called 'Windows Messenger' that, as far as I can tell, is some sort of ad delivery mechanism. I haven't figured out how to turn it off."
ok, ill give the turning it off to you, took
me a good 10 mins, but as for ad delivery, i get
more on ICQ.
"I haven't figured out how to put app icons on the Windows bottom panel. I don't even know if it can b
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
It's Windows. Millions of AOL users can figure it out. If you say you can't, you're either lazy or lying. It's not rocket science; it's not even model rocket science.
Count the movement:
Drag mouse over text
Right-Click
Select 'Copy'
Move cursor to new location
Right-click
Select 'Paste'
Drag mouse over text
Move cursor to new location
Click both buttons
3 less clicks
Recently my business partner and I moved to an office, we were getting enough business, so I decided that I'd DL the latest FreeBSD ISO's and formatted over my Linux drive with FreeBSD 5-Current. Gee, with KDE 3 and everything, I couldn't notice any whopping difference. The OSS desktop community doesn't cater to FreeBSD as FreeBSD proably still has its place on my Racks as a server, but when we hire a secetary, looks like she will get the FreeBSD tower with Openoffice instead of Linux.
Biggest thing I think, is that FreeBSD still has the old text based installer, but its not as ass backwards as say 2.2 or 3.4. For most noob's the YaST in SuSE and whatever it is on RH is very pleasing and better to use. Plus Linux gets support for the latest and greatest in hardware with drivers, etc.
But if your just looking for a nice, stable, OS, you can't loose with either FreeBSD or Linux. Especially if you use Gnome or KDE. Looks the same, and proably 99.95% of the people would never know.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Aside from the really obvious massive bias that Roblimo has, he's completely anti-Windows even before he starts, lets rebut a few points:
(Note: I'm defending Windows in the interests of fairness. I am in fact a Macintosh user.)
1. mIRC does not blink "Your evaluation time is up", it's just a registration reminder. In fact, you can use it forever without registering, although this is morally and legally questionable, it never stops working.
2. He couldn't work out how to add a new network to mIRC in two weeks? I honestly do not believe him. He's either lying, not trying, or really, really dumb.
3. "I have heard that over 90% of all Web-connected people in the world use this browser, but I find this hard to believe." You do? No, of course you don't. You're just trolling. (Although the point about Mozilla being superior is well taken. It is.)
4. "My copy of Windows XP Pro seems to have a program included with it called 'Windows Messenger' that, as far as I can tell, is some sort of ad delivery mechanism." It was at this point that I realised this was not a genuine attempt to learn Windows, it's mostly a giant Windows flame-fest.
Even the sarcastic comment about Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V at the top is rendered utterly pointless by the end of the story, where he admits that in fact it's simply what you're used to.
What a waste of time that article was.
I've never used Free or NetBSD. In fact, I'd not used the BSDs at all (apart from SunOS 4.x which is BSD-derived) until recently. I've been using Linux since January 1992.
/proc filesystem and 'killall '. Also, the ability to run User Mode Linux (or in this case, it'd be User Mode OpenBSD).
What I felt about OpenBSD? Having heard of OpenBSD's security reputation, and the goodness of 'pf', I wanted to evaluate it to replace a CheckPoint FireWall 1 system (expensive software rental that MS can only dream of). I had already determined that OpenBSD will do all the things we currently do with CheckPoint.
Installation - it felt like installing SLS or Slackware back in 1994. Now that's not all negative - I had OpenBSD installed and ready in minutes and all off a single CD. Deciding to investigate further features of OpenBSD, I started doing a desktop install - put X on first (and got X and fvwm95 - I'd forgotten how fast X is with a simple UI). I then decided to install KDE from ports as I was missing Konqueror too much.
Evaluation: Ports is nice, but apt-get is better.
KDE works pretty much like it does under Linux.
Compiling stuff from source seems to all work the same way. Mostly you can find it in ports, but I've built a few other things too.
Things I miss: Other than Debian's apt, I really miss the
However, for the real eval, I was mostly looking at pf and altq.
I think OpenBSD shines here. The syntax of pf rules in pf.conf is far clearer than Linux iptables. Also, altq (for queuing and traffic control) has much easier syntax than the Linux equivalent. I don't have to go diving for the FAQ - the manual page for pf.conf is clear, concise and understandable and makes constructing the pf.conf rules file a piece of cake.
Generally, I'm impressed with OpenBSD, particularly having a compact default install which is very useful if you want something as a firewall or a server. Although I will stick with Linux (Debian for servers, RedHat for desktops), for firewalling, my future installations will be OpenBSD due to the ease of use and power of pf and altq.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Go install portupgrade (/usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade). Then, cvsup your ports tree, and run "portsdb -Uu". (You need to do this after every time you cvsup the ports tree.) After that, installing ports is as easy as typing in "portinstall foo". You say you like packages? Add the -P switch, as in "portinstall -P foo" to look for a package, and install from source if that fails, or "portinstall -PP foo" to install exclusively from a package.
"Hu, ho, ho-ah-oh-oh-oh. Hu, ho ho-ah-oh-oh-oh. Mario Paint! Whoaaa!"
a)
/usr/ports && make search name=packagename`) or though browsing the online ports collection.
/usr/ports && make search name=packagename`) or though browsing the online ports collection.
1. Find name of package you need
2. Find the package
3. Download package you need
4. Build package you need
5. Find and download any and all dependencies (the real time consumption)
6. make install
The order is more like this.
a) to build from source
1. Find name of package (either via `cd
2. cd to the port dir
3. `make install clean`
b) to get pre-compiled source
1. Find name of package (either via `cd
2. `pkg_add -rv packagename`
For example I can install kde in either 5-10 mins or 2-3 hours. The FreeBSD has many more options and is very powerful. A look at the ports man page and all of the pkg_* tool's man pages would revel alot of extra usage.
Two useful articles from onlamp:
Ports Tricks
Cleaning and Customizing Your Ports
Are in every camp. NBD. Don't let the few color your view of us all.
Quack, quack.
Windows bashings aside (it is getting old) but the new found fashionability of 'Linux' bashing is pretty silly.
Can't think of one thing you can't do on Windows (95/98/NT/2000/XP)? Let me give you a hand: Fire up Mplayer to watch any video you want. Interpolate with a large number of different machines. Secure your network. Remote X Session over ssh.
I'm just throwing out what's on the top of my head, but you get the point. 'Linux' isn't perfect, of course not. But it isn't less then Windows and has strengths that make a highly technical group very fond of it.
Linux bashers and Windows apologists are just as pointless as their Linux/BSD/Mac counterparts.
Quack, quack.
AH.. I am not sure what it is but the arrogance comes AFTER using a BSD for a while... keep working at it and you will get there if you are as smart as me ;)
projects @ http://spectechnologies.net
Rob's article was incredibly biased. His first complaint is about copying and pasting, which is simply a result of the fact he's used to the other method. No method is greater than the other.
Then he says Windows "ordered" him to download patches, and that it didn't tell him what they were or whether or not he could install them. This is COMPLETELY FALSE. Windows Update, whether in IE or in the system tray, allows you to view every patch. If it's the system tray app, it lets you uncheck any patch you don't want. If it's the website, you can click the button to remove it from installation.
Then he complains that Windows doesn't come with office productivity software, which is a little bizarre considering you know he'd be bitching about Microsoft and their monopolistic practice of including an office suite. They're damned either way.
He mentioned installing mIRC didn't require a root password, and goes on to mention spyware problems. Of course, his account is set up with administrator privileges, and if he was set to a limited account, he could prevent installation and so forth. The standard Slashdot argument against this is that installation should ask you to do this by default, but since we're dealing with RobLimo the Suse Linux user, you'd think that'd be the first thing he do anyway due to Linux experience with managing user accounts. But, of course, now it is a "security risk."
Then his complaints are with mIRC and his inability to uncheck the dialog box so it stops popping up. At this point, I stared at the screen with my jaw dropped. Was RobLimo purposely being stupid? I've used xchat and mIRC, and mIRC wins hands-down as an IRC client. Even if you don't like mIRC, it's so customizable you can create your own IRC client using its scripting capabilities. xchat is godawful, interface-wise and customizability-wise.
But, again, that has nothing to do with Windows. In fact, xchat for Windows works just fine (and retains the ugly-ass GTK widgets), so RobLimo should have stuck with it, but he needed something to complain about, right?
He rightfully complains about Internet Explorer, but then waits four hours before bothering to get Mozilla (Opera is the best one anyway, just not free). He just needed to bitch about Internet Explorer for a paragraph, when most Linux users switching to Windows wouldn't bother with IE to begin with. He's purposely dumbing down his using experience to complain about Windows.
He does the same for Outlook Express. Why would he use Outlook Express if he just downloaded Mozilla? Again, he's purposely dumbing down his using experience to have more complaints. His spam comments don't even affect me since I use Outlook 2003 which has great built-in junk mail filtering.
Windows Messenger is easy to disable from starting up. Especially for an advanced Linux user like RobLimo. Another biased complaint.
Apparently, RobLimo's only slowdown problem is CTRL-C and CTRL-V. Of course, for Windows users, those are incredibly fast shortcuts for them. I use them all the time. If this is all he can offer alongside pointless IE/OE bitching, there is no other point for his article than to be Windows flamebait. In fact, I find it amusing he complains about the copy/paste shortcuts and ignores the fact that Linux can barely copy/paste anything between apps. With Windows, it's almost sickening what you can play around with and copy between apps. But that never gets mentioned. In fact, there are no real positives mentioned.
RobLimo vaguely mentions "slowdowns" and "idle time" problems. Huh? Nice specifics, there. I've experienced weird little quirks in all Linux distributions as well. I chalked it up to cache flushes, swap space, whatever. Since RobLimo never, ever mentions what exactly he's talking about, we'll never know what he meant.
Then he goes on to mention "little specialty programs" that he would have to pay for on Windows, which, of course is false. There is tons of freeware for Windows,
"Sufferin' succotash."
FreeBSD 5.x is clearly documented as being still "alpha-quality" and is certainly not for newcomers. 4.8-RELEASE (preferably with patches, since 4.9 is almost done) or 4.9-RELEASE (due in a week) would have been the proper platform for this new user.
First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it. This is fast, easy, and takes little hand motion on my laptop keyboard. All this Ctrl key action slows me down.
Try this with your "quick" Linux way of doing it. Grab a URL into your clip board. Now, in your web browser, replace the URL in the address bar with the one you just copied. Not so quick now, eh?
Most software designers realize that the act of highlighting text may not be indicative of a will to copy that piece of text. I might just want to delete it, or paste something in its place. It is impossible to paste over in the standard X way of doing it. Thankfully, most modern apps keep a separate clipboard so that I can use the keys, too. But if I'm stuck with a lame system that automatically copies my text to the clipboard when I highlight it, I'm screwed.
A lot of what I read in this is, not surprisingly, the same sort of goofy stuff that I read about people trying to come to Linux from Windows. Rather than think about why something works the way it does, they automatically assume it's stupid because it's not exactly the way they've always done it.
Windows users think Macs are lame because they have only one mouse button. Unix users think both are lame because they don't have three buttons. And yet, oddly, people are able to accomplish tasks on all three.
And I hate to say it, but surely there's a free irc client for Windows. Hell, even Microsoft used to have one (comic chat) that passed as a pretty good irc client (you could disable the comic characters).
Do you have ESP?
(emphasis mine)
The problem here is that "almost all" isn't good enough.
At least in the Windows world, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V work on "all" applications - none of this "almost" stuff.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Copied from a post I made at Newsforge:
"You know, I use XP Pro, and the main reason I've never switched to Linux (I've tried) is because people like him would mock me whenever I had a question. The Linux community is both its best asset and its worst enemy.
Some people don't want to have to dig through a bunch of configuration files to make their mouse work. Like I did with both Mandake 8 and 9, and Mandrake's supposed to be easy! He complains that he couldn't figure out how to make toolbars appear in the taskbar. All you have to do is right-click on it! If I made a stupid comment like that about some flavor of Linux, I'd get mauled! In fact, I'll probably get that kind of treatment for making this post. From at least some of you.
I've tried Linux at least a dozen times, and every single time it was people like him that made me go back to Windows. Linux was built by a geek for geeks. I'm a geek and don't like it. Windows was built by an idiot for idiots and he's too much of an idiot to figure it out. He can feel sorry for my Windoze stupidity all he wants. I'll be laughing at his massive superiority complex. The Linux community needs a good psychiatrist."
I can't believe this guy runs Slashdot. Sounds to me like he's the worst thing to ever happen to it.
Gotta agree - and judging by the vehement defense of XP and IE by Slashdotters, it's was very successful, so it's actually pretty funny. I admit it took me a while to get it (little early for April Fools Day), but having read some of Roblimo's other articles, I'm guessing this is a tongue-in-cheek poke at the somewhat-techy PC magazine "when I grow up I wanna be a geek" author (Katz, Dvorak come to mind) writing about their inane, clumsy, clueless attempts at trying to figure out what all the fuss is about this "Linux thing".
Few comments though - this does show how far Linux has come, as it's real strength is server side, not desktop pc. That he can switch to XP and not be too different is impressive. Also the fact that lots of familiar free software is still available. It illustrates that the Linux phenomenon has put the pressure on MSFT to improve Windows greatly (Win2k ain't bad, XP good too).
This is a good thing. Look at IE, MSFT seems to be letting it languish, not even attempting to fix certain bugs, and the no tab pages is a legit gripe. Come on, how hard is it to add a tab page? It seems the only workaround, is to download a Windows only Google thingamajig -huh? - dunno, out of the box with Opera/Mozilla/etc.
Or maybe they are finding the old codebase of IE too hard to make changes to, which was the reasoning behind the Mozilla rewrite, which set them back a little - perhaps that's now paying off with the ability to easily add new features.
Another useful feature for QuickLaunch is that it doesn't *have* to be in the task bar. I dragged mine to the top of my screen and set it to autohide. So now I have immediate access to about 35 icons whenever I move my mouse to the top of the screen. This also frees up more space for the taskbar at the bottom. I also added an adress bar to it, so I can open a web page without having to open IE/Firebird first.
I wonder if some people don't see through the inherent sarcasm? You seem to be one of the few people to get it. On a related note, why did the parent.parent get modded +5; informative? Umm, the article's tone was definitely childish, sarcastic, and taunting. I think the authors intent was to act like veteran Windows users who try Linux for a couple of second and complain about it.
For one, he did use Windows 5 five years ago. Many of the concepts are still the same.There hasn't been any dramatic paradigm shift. The article was definitely a sarcastic ploy.
now supporting:
cmdrTaco for president '04
michael for oval office intern summer '05