Slashdot Mirror
KDE 3.2: A User's Perspective
Karma Sucks writes "In KDE 3.2 - A User's Perspective (mirror), W. Kendrick gives an incredible visual overview of some of the lesser known features of KDE. Together with a recent article on GNOME, it's become clear that the Linux desktop has all but surpassed proprietary alternatives."
Pardon ? You are repeating the ancient FUD about X. When did you check the facts last time ?
ad 1) - dumb trolling on a stupid typo by the article poster
ad 2) cut&paste works fine, even with images and spreadsheets. Did you try OpenOffice or Koffice ? Probably not. If your Gnome has problems with it, that does not mean that *all* X-based UIs have problems with it. I guess that it works right even inside Gnome (although I do not use it myself), the standards for drag&drop are in place for very long time already. Interoperability between different applications could be better, but that holds for Windows and Mac as well. If you paste something from Excell into Photoshop, you are going to get less-than-stellar result too, because the application just does not expect that kind of data.
The bull about unix sockets is so ancient FUD, that I am not sure, whether it is even worth commenting on. Yes, even local clients use unix sockets, because you know what ? It is equaly fast or faster than anything else available (even shared memory). That something runs over socket does not inherently mean that it is inefficient. Not to mention the advantage, when you really need to run something over a network. Windows nor Mac are unable to do that without a costly 3rd-party add-ons (OK, XP has RDP now, but that is hardly the same thing).
Current X UIs are plenty fast, in many cases a lot faster than the Apple or Windows UIs, even though the latter run localy, direct on the hardware. How could that be true ? Could an application design be the issue ? No, let's just bash X instead, because it can do many things I do not use, so it has to be bloated and slow ...
Actually, if you feel that the application is slow, in 99% it has nothing to do with X, it is a bug or sloppy coding in the application.
And the remark about rendering images off-screen in order to display them - are you sure, you know what are you talking about ? Any graphic engine has to unpack the image into a buffer somewhere. And most (if not all) UIs have nice libraries, which do this for you without having to bother with X pixmaps. Windows and Mac just hide this one step from you, but it happens anyway.
How the parent could have been moderated insightful is really beyond meJan
For the hard disk stuff: your distro should have used LABEL=/ instead of /dev/hda in your fstab, and avoided this problem.
Of course if you do that, and you add another disk with the same label, things get dicey.
As for the DVD: if you want a data DVD, why are you formatting it as a CD? DVDs are supposed to be UDF, not ISO9660.
In fact, it's a miracle Linux mounted that disk. And a minor one that some app bothered creating it!
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Free minix-like kernel sources for 386-AT
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Oct 91 05:41:06 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?
Look at that date, October 1991. That's incredible. It was ready for the desktop since 1991, according to you.
Not according to this site, http://ragib.hypermart.net/linux/
And I quote: "By December came version 0.10. Still Linux was little more than in skeletal form. It had only support for AT hard disks, had no login ( booted directly to bash). version 0.11 was much better with support for multilingual keyboards, floppy disk drivers, support for VGA,EGA, Hercules etc."
So basically, in 1991, LINUX DID NOT EVEN HAVE A FULLY FUNCTIONING FLOPPY DRIVER OR EVEN EGA SUPPORT, and it was "ready" for the desktop? You have taken mindless Linux evangelism to a brand new level of insanity.