Yes, that surprised me as well. I'm no friend of Emacs, and those key-bindings look weird, but I my productivity improved after only a few hours. I had written most of my dissertation in vim (FreeBSD) then TeXShop and iTexMac (OS X) before I switched to Emacs because the latter two were so bug-ridden and inconsistently quirky. Emacs's quirks are at least consistent.
BTW, I'm not recommending you switch. You obviously know vi better than I do; I used macros instead of:abbr, and that didn't work that well. So thank you very much. I'll have to write this down somewhere.
It's just the collection of macros. C-c C-f C-e gives you \emph{} with your cursor in the right position. C-RET gives you any macro, just type it in, usually it works with TAB-completion. C-s gives you section, chapter and so on. The indentation is nice as well, paragraphs between \begin{} and \end{} are indented, colour coded...
And you can run pdflatex or whatever you use from within the editor, with the output in a frame. The best part was that it's quite easy to learn. But this is with Auctex, not the default Emacs Tex-mode.
Don't be ridiculous. This has nothing to do with obscurity. The secretary will not have root on her computer, so whether installation of software is 'obscure' or not is irrelevant.
You're going on my friends list. (No, you're not, but you would if you were.)
No, wait. They're the stereotypical non-tech-savvy user. Remember a lot of mothers work as secretaries, accounts clerks & jobs like that. These people do matter if linux (or anything else) wants to break the corporate world.
That may be true, but a secretary or accounts clerk or other non-technical user won't need to install applications on her computer. In fact, it's a big bonus if she can't do that in the corporate world: No viruses, no spy- ad- or nag-ware. That's why her computer will be properly locked down anyway, even if the computer runs Windows 2000.
So any computer administrator tasks like installing software or configuring networking are non-issues in the corporate world.
Although Emacs certainly can do almost everything you need it to do, so among all the 15000 packages in Debian's repository, it's most likely the one you need. I'm normally a vim fan, but after I started using Emacs and Auctex for LaTeX editing, I'm not looking back. It beats all the free/OSS software for LaTeX editing on OS X and Linux. Vim just isn't that good for LaTeX, and IDEs like Kile are just obnoxious. Texmacs is broken, and LyX is what I started with and grew out of. But apart from Auctex, I consider Emacs something for specialists -- not for me. But now I need to cleanse myself: All hail vim! All hail vim!
Yes, but how does an application get in the apt repository to the first place??? When Adobe ports Photoshop to Linux how are they going to distribute it to anyone that wants to download it from their site? There is no simple, standard way to distribute an application for each version of Linux that will install. Windows DOES IT. Linux DOES NOT.
I think OOo's and Loki's graphical installers work well in those cases. There's nothing wrong with creating a folder under/usr/local/ and symlink the application executable to/usr/local/bin/. That's probably how Adobe would do it too (but the debianized package of Acrobat Reader places the app in/usr/lib/Acrobat5/bin/ and a shellscript in/usr/bin/).
And get this: This has nothing to do with Linux, and nothing to do with distributions. It's application specific. Just like it is for Windows and Mac. Although there are some installers that are more common than others, you have plenty of choice for all OSes. Windows is by far the one that has most problems with cruft from programs you cannot easily remove.
Furthermore, it shouldn't be necessary to use a CLI, ever. It's fine if you want to use it for more control, but people should be able to start out in pure GUI. I've been using the CLI for many many years, but my mother's never going to do it, ever.
Why this obsession with mothers? Do mothers create mindshare or develop software? Does Linux need mothers?
Oh, and of course: It's not necessary to use a CLI to install software in most Linux distributions. It's just the simplest way to do it. Why complicate things with a GUI when text is the best medium? Most people who need to use a computer are able to read and write. I bet your mother is too. Don't underestimate her. If you do, how will she learn how to use a computer efficiently?
I have no problem admitting that Linux has its problems on the desktop, but those you mentioned (assuming you are the same AC as the one starting this thread) just don't apply. The One True Hideous Problem for Linux is XFree86 and its lack of auto-configuration. It gets even worse if you need a non-US keyboard mapping, not to mention on a Mac! I think if we ever get a decent X11 implementation, Linux will be close to ready for mainstream desktop use. Most of the other problems are just minor quirks.
Software installation is Linux is a breeze. It's so simple that a Windows or Mac user will have difficulties adapting to it. Instead of Googling for a utility, download it from Fileplanet or worse (alright, not worse, but maybe from Fileplanet), double-clicking on the.exe and clicking yes and next a couple of times, unchecking all the obnoxious 'default to this application for whatever you don't want it to do' and finally pressing OK, you just simply type 'apt-cache search $whatever' to find what you need, and 'apt-get install emacs21' to install it.
Of course, you need to know that you should do that, but I've already told you now, haven't I?
As for the graphics, I'm sure Linux can handle 1600x1200 and 16M colours, just like Windows. I'm also sure that KDE looks much better than all default XP themes (but not better than Aqua).
Terrible. One of the reasons I enjoyed GTA: VC so much was because of the soundtrack. And I enjoyed the soundtrack not because I actually want to listen to that kind of music, but because it fits the style of gameplay, and because I'm no longer fed up with it. Hey, I can actually enjoy listening to A Flock of Seagulls or Duran Duran because it reminds me of GTA now. The nostalgia of the music fits the gameplay.
90's music is just too close. The music turns real -- it's no longer just music that is played in the game, it's music that you actually could be listening to yourself. And much of that music (Vanilla Ice?!) just sucks too much. Fugees make me sick. The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony was a perhaps a catchy song, but most people should be tired of it now. Only Jane's Addiction and Guns 'n' Roses fit the gameplay (alright, I'm not really into hip hop, so I don't recall the NWA songs).
I still think they should have gone with the 70's.
Alright. With gaps between polygons, the difference can't be explained by RAMDACs. But any difference that is caused by inferior RAMDACs won't show up in screenshots, so if the screenshots were identical, the cards could be quite different in real life anyway.
The two cards probably render the pictures identical, but their RAMDACs can have different quality. I don't doubt that the image quality is inferior on one card, but it's not likely to show up on a screenshot.
It shouldn't be too hard. Just filter out all posts containing the acronym BSD, give them an automatic -1 and ban the poster's subnet for a couple of days.
Then the BSD section would be left for us to discuss what we were meant to discuss here: Beowulf clusters of hot grits.
Why is it that an editor of BusinessWeek has no clue about business? If Microsoft embraced Linux by selling a low cost version of Office for it, migrating to Linux would be even easier --> no money for Windows, less money for Office.
With no MS Office for Linux, migrating is a lot harder. OOo works fine for most people (better in my experience, but my experience probably differs), but in some cases you just simply need the original, which means you also need Windows (or Crossover Office).
It really is as simple as that. Office isn't just MS's biggest cash cow, it's also their most important selection of proprietary file formats.
I don't think it is really a matter of winning or losing. For example, if I prefer the design philosophy of NetBSD over that of Red Hat (and I do), I can run NetBSD, even if Red Hat is 1000 times more popular. The popularity of Red Hat does not diminish NetBSD, and indeed to the extent that both are POSIX-compatible, can actually help it!
Right. But consider the situation for even less popular (or less mature) OSes like OpenBeOS/Haiku and the Amiga. Most of the good developers have left the scene for *NIX. DragonflyBSD's Matt Dillon started out as an Amiga developer, for instance. BeOS has never really had that much of an OS developer community. The problems arise when it gets to the point where there are no active good developers left. The OS will die like the "science" of phrenology. A few good people still have to believe.
No, he's saying the middle class shouldn't get too smug in their middle-class comfort, because in today's equal-opportunity world, the lower classes will not stay down there forever.
Oh, come on. That wasn't what he said. Interpreted as the best possible intended meaning, he could say that the lower classes has value first and foremost because they scare the middle classes into working harder: The member of the middle class doesn't want to fall down.
This is problematic for several reasons:
The lower classes' terrible wages keep prices low, and the comparable wealth of the middle class higher because a) they can afford more with the low prices b) they are much richer than the poor. That's the "value" of the lower classes for the higher classes: They are "funding" their wealth through poor wages.
Who cares if there are more reasons, the economic one triumphs every time in capitalist society, as in most (or all) other societies as well.
The idea that competition magically makes everything and everyone work better is contradicted by points 1 and 2. Competition under capitalism is like a game of poker where the owner of the deck of cards gets to decide which cards you can loan before you get to play. The game is rigged, and if the middle players are scared by the lower players, the only way he can compete 'better' is to play the game the way the dealer wants it to be played: The lower classes is valuable to the upper classes because it scares the middle classes.
What you're saying is even more stupid: Do you really think that today's lower classes are going to rise, within this so-called equal opportunity world? That the person that asks "Do you want fries with that?" will be more wealthy than the person that decides which time of night said burger-pusher has to work?
Of course, the McWorker could get a better job, but that makes no difference whatsoever for the rest of his class: The fact that some people can climb classes doesn't mean shit for the lower classes. I'm not saying all this because I want to advocate some some other ideology, I'm just pointing out that the current one is broken and shouldn't be defended.
Additionally, the analogy between class and software sucks: The competition between Linux and FreeBSD is not like class struggle in any known model. It's not even like competition between to companies: Both parts get to know exactly what the other part does. The competition between Linux and *BSD is more like competition between scientists: The one with most followers (developers) "wins"
That must be a different Diogenes. I don't think Diogenes of Sinope left any written accounts, but he clearly was funny. Just google for him, or look him up in the Wikipedia.
Yes, I know how a mouse works in OS X, thank you very much.:-) It works as expected, which is a bit unexpected for a system that normally relies on a one button mouse: Why have only one button when three just works better? I also know how to use my one button trackpad like a three button mouse, and how to use it in X11 (I actually started learning Emacs in X11 on OS X -- the native LaTeX editors I tried were lacking quite a bit. This means I've used X11 in OS X a lot).
I didn't mean to sound negative -- I like OS X a lot, at least Panther. It's just that the Mac zealotry on/. has become more dominant than the Linux zealotry, and it's often even more stupid (Gentoo fans excepted). Apple fans can be a bit like football fans: They follow their team no matter what, and think they're somehow better because they support just the right team. It's the "One True Way" attitude that annoys me so much.
Exposé is a nice feature, but I much prefer not having clutter at all, i.e. virtual desktops. It looks much better, though. And it was one of the things that made Panther a whole lot better than Jaguar.
Ask your question again the next time you try to visit an IE only site using a different browser. Is market share important? Well, no, not really. But if the market is dominated by a single player that has otherwise non-standard technology (activex for web, direct3d for games), the rest of the market suffers. If Linux's market share grows, it will be more likely that sites are built to support web standards, and that games are written in OpenGL. This is good for other alternative OSs as well.
But all this also counters the claim that MacOS is so immediately intuitive -- many of the useful features of the GUI are a bit too well hidden for my taste (but hey, I said I like KDE, so that's kind of obvious, isn't it?). The command-clicking stuff is also just a crutch because the Mac lacks the right mouse button -- and that makes it less likely for a noob to command-click. You're not 'supposed' to do that.
There are lots of thing I really like with MacOS -- the separation of window and app (close the window, but keep the app running in the dock), which annoyed me at first, because command-tab would only browse between apps, but later I noticed command- for browsing between the app's windows made this seem logical again (and a better way to do it).
It's logical, but it's hardly any more intuitive than, say, Windows. But then Windows is just illogical at times, so MacOS clearly wins there.
But OK, maybe the Finder is better than I thought it was. I didn't like it at all.
Exactly. It's even the other way around: If someone has something they want to say to you, you have the right to hear it, if you want. Freedom of speech isn't there to protect people's right to chatter, it's protecting the other's right to hear what they have to say. It's just that suppression of the right to be informed always happens through stifling the voice that informs.
The other theme that runs throughout the book is that of cynicism. Here Siva contrasts the civically engaged cynicism of the Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, with the narcissistic cynicism of Seinfeld's George Costanza.
It should be noted that the philosophical cynicism of the old Greeks has very little in common with the ironical and misanthropical sort of cynicism we think of these days. It's the same word, but a very different concept.
Philosophical cynicism was based on a doctrine of self control and asceticism. George Costanza's sort of cynisism is completely unrelated, and not philosophical at all -- it's just an attitude. Contrasting these seem pointless to me, but I haven't read the book. Diogenes was a funny guy, though.
It's interesting how every comment praising OS X gets modded up these days. Even insightful for spewing nonsense like 'I really don't believe an OSS project could have the focus or resources to take on the task of keeping up with Apple's design.' As if proprietary software has 'focus' and 'resources' as some magical property that is impossible to attain with other licensing models. I've got karma to burn, so I'll burn it while posting this from my Powerbook.
KDE might look like a shoddy copy of Windows to the novice, because it's only vaguely like this "original'. It's not a copy, and has loads of features making it far more usable to the experienced user, while being not so different that it alienates the beginner.
The same goes for OS X. Finding an app with the Finder isn't more effective than finding an app with a start menu, at least not for the beginner. I know, because I've been one, and a quite advanced beginner at that. My first task was to find Terminal.app so I could use 'file' to find out why Word couldn't open some.rtf file. Then I had to find the.rtf file I wanted to run 'file' on, but Terminal.app and Finder had quite different opinions on where the file could be found (yes, drag & drop works, but I'd closed the Finder window by then, since all the windows cluttered the desktop). The Finder has become a bit better with Panther, but before that, it wasn't any easier to navigate with than with Explorer or Konqueror (and it could be argued that it still isn't). After all, it just does the same thing as any other file browser, but without an 'up' button -- a great idea for browsing a hierarchy! Not that Finder really uses the directory structure, most of it is hidden from view. If you want to use OS X as a Unix workstation, your best option is to ignore Finder, because Finder hides all the Unix stuff in OS X.
(OK, this was just a bunch of incoherent drivel, but the point is that OS X isn't perfect. I've used it extensively the last months, but I still prefer KDE.)
I know how to get Gentoo to boot on the G3 -- it's basically the same for Yellowdog, just that YD boots you into Anaconda (Red Hat's installer). My problem was that the CD image I downloaded didn't have any working kernel/ramdisk image combination (I'm not sure, but I think it lacked G3 support at all). Downloading and burning a useless CD image is a bit annoying.
Do you remember which CD image you used (or when -- I can probably guess which one I can use from its date)?
I've got a Powerbook G3 (Wallstreet) running Yellowdog. While Yellowdog was easy to install and get up and running, it's not my favourite distro -- it's based on Red Hat, and I'm a Debianite. I like Gentoo a bit as well. Unfortunately, both these distros seem to be fairly difficult to install on OldWorld Macs. Gentoo's Live CD has no support for OldWorld at all, and Debian's new D-I is currently broken for OldWorld. Any suggestions for installing Linux on OldWorld?
Apart from it not being Debian, I have nothing much against YD. It's well put together and mostly Just Works®. There are lots of extra packages available from third party apt-sources, so most apps not available in the default install, or those that are obsolete (Gaim!) are just a few Google searches and commands away.
Duh, because you don't run OpenBSD! People that run OpenBSD need security, and people that need secutity run OpenBSD. If you needed security, you'd run OpenBSD, and if you needed security, it'd be because you had naughty photos from the New Years Eve party.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, I'm not recommending you switch. You obviously know vi better than I do; I used macros instead of
It's just the collection of macros. C-c C-f C-e gives you \emph{} with your cursor in the right position. C-RET gives you any macro, just type it in, usually it works with TAB-completion. C-s gives you section, chapter and so on. The indentation is nice as well, paragraphs between \begin{} and \end{} are indented, colour coded...
And you can run pdflatex or whatever you use from within the editor, with the output in a frame. The best part was that it's quite easy to learn. But this is with Auctex, not the default Emacs Tex-mode.
Don't be ridiculous. This has nothing to do with obscurity. The secretary will not have root on her computer, so whether installation of software is 'obscure' or not is irrelevant.
That may be true, but a secretary or accounts clerk or other non-technical user won't need to install applications on her computer. In fact, it's a big bonus if she can't do that in the corporate world: No viruses, no spy- ad- or nag-ware. That's why her computer will be properly locked down anyway, even if the computer runs Windows 2000.
So any computer administrator tasks like installing software or configuring networking are non-issues in the corporate world.
It's a joke.
Although Emacs certainly can do almost everything you need it to do, so among all the 15000 packages in Debian's repository, it's most likely the one you need. I'm normally a vim fan, but after I started using Emacs and Auctex for LaTeX editing, I'm not looking back. It beats all the free/OSS software for LaTeX editing on OS X and Linux. Vim just isn't that good for LaTeX, and IDEs like Kile are just obnoxious. Texmacs is broken, and LyX is what I started with and grew out of. But apart from Auctex, I consider Emacs something for specialists -- not for me. But now I need to cleanse myself: All hail vim! All hail vim!
And get this: This has nothing to do with Linux, and nothing to do with distributions. It's application specific. Just like it is for Windows and Mac. Although there are some installers that are more common than others, you have plenty of choice for all OSes. Windows is by far the one that has most problems with cruft from programs you cannot easily remove.
Why this obsession with mothers? Do mothers create mindshare or develop software? Does Linux need mothers?
Oh, and of course: It's not necessary to use a CLI to install software in most Linux distributions. It's just the simplest way to do it. Why complicate things with a GUI when text is the best medium? Most people who need to use a computer are able to read and write. I bet your mother is too. Don't underestimate her. If you do, how will she learn how to use a computer efficiently?
I have no problem admitting that Linux has its problems on the desktop, but those you mentioned (assuming you are the same AC as the one starting this thread) just don't apply. The One True Hideous Problem for Linux is XFree86 and its lack of auto-configuration. It gets even worse if you need a non-US keyboard mapping, not to mention on a Mac! I think if we ever get a decent X11 implementation, Linux will be close to ready for mainstream desktop use. Most of the other problems are just minor quirks.
Software installation is Linux is a breeze. It's so simple that a Windows or Mac user will have difficulties adapting to it. Instead of Googling for a utility, download it from Fileplanet or worse (alright, not worse, but maybe from Fileplanet), double-clicking on the .exe and clicking yes and next a couple of times, unchecking all the obnoxious 'default to this application for whatever you don't want it to do' and finally pressing OK, you just simply type 'apt-cache search $whatever' to find what you need, and 'apt-get install emacs21' to install it.
Of course, you need to know that you should do that, but I've already told you now, haven't I?
As for the graphics, I'm sure Linux can handle 1600x1200 and 16M colours, just like Windows. I'm also sure that KDE looks much better than all default XP themes (but not better than Aqua).
Terrible. One of the reasons I enjoyed GTA: VC so much was because of the soundtrack. And I enjoyed the soundtrack not because I actually want to listen to that kind of music, but because it fits the style of gameplay, and because I'm no longer fed up with it. Hey, I can actually enjoy listening to A Flock of Seagulls or Duran Duran because it reminds me of GTA now. The nostalgia of the music fits the gameplay.
90's music is just too close. The music turns real -- it's no longer just music that is played in the game, it's music that you actually could be listening to yourself. And much of that music (Vanilla Ice?!) just sucks too much. Fugees make me sick. The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony was a perhaps a catchy song, but most people should be tired of it now. Only Jane's Addiction and Guns 'n' Roses fit the gameplay (alright, I'm not really into hip hop, so I don't recall the NWA songs).
I still think they should have gone with the 70's.
Alright. With gaps between polygons, the difference can't be explained by RAMDACs. But any difference that is caused by inferior RAMDACs won't show up in screenshots, so if the screenshots were identical, the cards could be quite different in real life anyway.
The two cards probably render the pictures identical, but their RAMDACs can have different quality. I don't doubt that the image quality is inferior on one card, but it's not likely to show up on a screenshot.
It shouldn't be too hard. Just filter out all posts containing the acronym BSD, give them an automatic -1 and ban the poster's subnet for a couple of days.
Then the BSD section would be left for us to discuss what we were meant to discuss here: Beowulf clusters of hot grits.
To summarize:
1) Ban BSD
2) ???
3) Hot grits!
Why is it that an editor of BusinessWeek has no clue about business? If Microsoft embraced Linux by selling a low cost version of Office for it, migrating to Linux would be even easier --> no money for Windows, less money for Office.
With no MS Office for Linux, migrating is a lot harder. OOo works fine for most people (better in my experience, but my experience probably differs), but in some cases you just simply need the original, which means you also need Windows (or Crossover Office).
It really is as simple as that. Office isn't just MS's biggest cash cow, it's also their most important selection of proprietary file formats.
Agree 100% about the monoculture, though.
Oh, come on. That wasn't what he said. Interpreted as the best possible intended meaning, he could say that the lower classes has value first and foremost because they scare the middle classes into working harder: The member of the middle class doesn't want to fall down.
This is problematic for several reasons:
What you're saying is even more stupid: Do you really think that today's lower classes are going to rise, within this so-called equal opportunity world? That the person that asks "Do you want fries with that?" will be more wealthy than the person that decides which time of night said burger-pusher has to work?
Of course, the McWorker could get a better job, but that makes no difference whatsoever for the rest of his class: The fact that some people can climb classes doesn't mean shit for the lower classes. I'm not saying all this because I want to advocate some some other ideology, I'm just pointing out that the current one is broken and shouldn't be defended.
Additionally, the analogy between class and software sucks: The competition between Linux and FreeBSD is not like class struggle in any known model. It's not even like competition between to companies: Both parts get to know exactly what the other part does. The competition between Linux and *BSD is more like competition between scientists: The one with most followers (developers) "wins"
That must be a different Diogenes. I don't think Diogenes of Sinope left any written accounts, but he clearly was funny. Just google for him, or look him up in the Wikipedia.
Yes, I know how a mouse works in OS X, thank you very much. :-) It works as expected, which is a bit unexpected for a system that normally relies on a one button mouse: Why have only one button when three just works better? I also know how to use my one button trackpad like a three button mouse, and how to use it in X11 (I actually started learning Emacs in X11 on OS X -- the native LaTeX editors I tried were lacking quite a bit. This means I've used X11 in OS X a lot).
/. has become more dominant than the Linux zealotry, and it's often even more stupid (Gentoo fans excepted). Apple fans can be a bit like football fans: They follow their team no matter what, and think they're somehow better because they support just the right team. It's the "One True Way" attitude that annoys me so much.
I didn't mean to sound negative -- I like OS X a lot, at least Panther. It's just that the Mac zealotry on
Exposé is a nice feature, but I much prefer not having clutter at all, i.e. virtual desktops. It looks much better, though. And it was one of the things that made Panther a whole lot better than Jaguar.
Ask your question again the next time you try to visit an IE only site using a different browser. Is market share important? Well, no, not really. But if the market is dominated by a single player that has otherwise non-standard technology (activex for web, direct3d for games), the rest of the market suffers. If Linux's market share grows, it will be more likely that sites are built to support web standards, and that games are written in OpenGL. This is good for other alternative OSs as well.
It certainly does. Thanks!
But all this also counters the claim that MacOS is so immediately intuitive -- many of the useful features of the GUI are a bit too well hidden for my taste (but hey, I said I like KDE, so that's kind of obvious, isn't it?). The command-clicking stuff is also just a crutch because the Mac lacks the right mouse button -- and that makes it less likely for a noob to command-click. You're not 'supposed' to do that.
There are lots of thing I really like with MacOS -- the separation of window and app (close the window, but keep the app running in the dock), which annoyed me at first, because command-tab would only browse between apps, but later I noticed command- for browsing between the app's windows made this seem logical again (and a better way to do it).
It's logical, but it's hardly any more intuitive than, say, Windows. But then Windows is just illogical at times, so MacOS clearly wins there.
But OK, maybe the Finder is better than I thought it was. I didn't like it at all.
Exactly. It's even the other way around: If someone has something they want to say to you, you have the right to hear it, if you want. Freedom of speech isn't there to protect people's right to chatter, it's protecting the other's right to hear what they have to say. It's just that suppression of the right to be informed always happens through stifling the voice that informs.
It should be noted that the philosophical cynicism of the old Greeks has very little in common with the ironical and misanthropical sort of cynicism we think of these days. It's the same word, but a very different concept.
Philosophical cynicism was based on a doctrine of self control and asceticism. George Costanza's sort of cynisism is completely unrelated, and not philosophical at all -- it's just an attitude. Contrasting these seem pointless to me, but I haven't read the book. Diogenes was a funny guy, though.
It's interesting how every comment praising OS X gets modded up these days. Even insightful for spewing nonsense like 'I really don't believe an OSS project could have the focus or resources to take on the task of keeping up with Apple's design.' As if proprietary software has 'focus' and 'resources' as some magical property that is impossible to attain with other licensing models. I've got karma to burn, so I'll burn it while posting this from my Powerbook.
.rtf file. Then I had to find the .rtf file I wanted to run 'file' on, but Terminal.app and Finder had quite different opinions on where the file could be found (yes, drag & drop works, but I'd closed the Finder window by then, since all the windows cluttered the desktop). The Finder has become a bit better with Panther, but before that, it wasn't any easier to navigate with than with Explorer or Konqueror (and it could be argued that it still isn't). After all, it just does the same thing as any other file browser, but without an 'up' button -- a great idea for browsing a hierarchy! Not that Finder really uses the directory structure, most of it is hidden from view. If you want to use OS X as a Unix workstation, your best option is to ignore Finder, because Finder hides all the Unix stuff in OS X.
KDE might look like a shoddy copy of Windows to the novice, because it's only vaguely like this "original'. It's not a copy, and has loads of features making it far more usable to the experienced user, while being not so different that it alienates the beginner.
The same goes for OS X. Finding an app with the Finder isn't more effective than finding an app with a start menu, at least not for the beginner. I know, because I've been one, and a quite advanced beginner at that. My first task was to find Terminal.app so I could use 'file' to find out why Word couldn't open some
(OK, this was just a bunch of incoherent drivel, but the point is that OS X isn't perfect. I've used it extensively the last months, but I still prefer KDE.)
That was a quick answer! Thanks...
I know how to get Gentoo to boot on the G3 -- it's basically the same for Yellowdog, just that YD boots you into Anaconda (Red Hat's installer). My problem was that the CD image I downloaded didn't have any working kernel/ramdisk image combination (I'm not sure, but I think it lacked G3 support at all). Downloading and burning a useless CD image is a bit annoying.
Do you remember which CD image you used (or when -- I can probably guess which one I can use from its date)?
I've got a Powerbook G3 (Wallstreet) running Yellowdog. While Yellowdog was easy to install and get up and running, it's not my favourite distro -- it's based on Red Hat, and I'm a Debianite. I like Gentoo a bit as well. Unfortunately, both these distros seem to be fairly difficult to install on OldWorld Macs. Gentoo's Live CD has no support for OldWorld at all, and Debian's new D-I is currently broken for OldWorld. Any suggestions for installing Linux on OldWorld?
Apart from it not being Debian, I have nothing much against YD. It's well put together and mostly Just Works®. There are lots of extra packages available from third party apt-sources, so most apps not available in the default install, or those that are obsolete (Gaim!) are just a few Google searches and commands away.
Duh, because you don't run OpenBSD! People that run OpenBSD need security, and people that need secutity run OpenBSD. If you needed security, you'd run OpenBSD, and if you needed security, it'd be because you had naughty photos from the New Years Eve party.