Re:DVORAK for real world, SysAdmin/Programming use
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 1
But you can double your productivity with Dvorak, and then double it again changing to Emacs. Because real programmers use emacs, you know. (Well, that's not so true, now I ditched emacs for Eclipse, most of the time. Well, now I code in java, so maybe I am not a real programmer any more.) Yes, real programmers _do_ use emacs:)
I don't know about Linux itself, but most of GNU was written with user in mind, who happens to be a particular user.
That should not lead to the mistake of thinking that corners are cut in order to make an easier job for the programmer of the tool. Of course, the tools are made to be useful to users that might be programmers, but that's a completely different thing.
For example, a house builder would be happier if he didn't have to paint the house he is building, and not doing it would be good for his needs as a builder. The same guy, as a house user, would like his walls to be painted, and a nice house, with a big garage to put his tools. That's a house made for house builders, by house builders. Of course, the needs of such house builder, as a user, are very similar to the needs of everybody, because he is a user before being a builder. The same thing happens with GNU, it ends up being very comfortable, because the people who built it happen to like nice stuff, too. The notion that they would make a harsh, unfinished system, I believe is just not true.
Compared to propretary software, where the needs to be fulfilled are not the needs of the users, but of some company that might have completely interests that are orthogonal to the users', a better product should arise. Well, it has.
Capitalism is fueled by Greed. Socialism is fueled by Envy. Which is your sin?
Capitalism is fueled by greed, and it works, at least it works if people are greedy. Socialism doesn't work if people are envious. Socialism wasn't created by people who were envious. Usually socialists (not just people who call themselves that) are people who might like their place in society, but would rather be a piece of a better society. In general the "sin" of socialists is to not understand that human nature makes socialism a much harder task than it was though, it might even be impossible.
You don't seem to have the right idea about non-windows systems. What you described is exactly the notion we have of Windows, and a reason why I don't use it. In windows, and many Microsoft programs, you need to do unrelated tasks, to perform a simple task. even if they are, as usually, easy tasks, it's too much trouble to deal with that kind of an interface. The idea with, for example, GNU/Linux, is that tasks might be difficult, but they make sense.
In a GNU/House or a GNU/Linux House, you would need to solder and install yourself an automatic light switch that senses your presence, and turns the light accordingly. It would take lots of work, but once installed, you wouldn't have to worry again. For recent distros, the analogy would go like: your constructor asks you what kind of lightswitch you want, if you refuse to pick one, you could even end without a lightswitch.
There's a reason why you post AC. You are a jackass.
I was answering to some guy who was discussing cutting electricity to the printer. If you can disconnect the electricity of the printer (the context of the great parent), you have two cases, 1- it is attached to a print server, a real machine, and uses LPT, or USB, and my procedure works in both cases; 2- it is a network printer. Just erase the jobs, it will stop.
Maybe you don't understand the nature of a tree structure. There are parent nodes, and then there are nodes under them that lead to more specific aspects or contexts for the original discussion. This was one of them.
Then, turn off printer. Then, remove parallel port connector.
Re-attach parallel port connector. Turn computer on. Print again.
It's a slow method, but it has the added value that it works 100% of the time, and there's no trial and error.
I would like to find a command that would lprm all my jobs, and another that flushes the parallel port buffers, so I could reduce the process to only removing jobs and flushing buffers, without reaching behind my printer.
Alright, now I'm feeling more like I am being trolled.
You are trying to establish a cause-effect correlation.
With your way of thinking, I could prove anything. You can prove for example that without Microsoft, every major computer improvement wouldn't have become a success.
Then I could say... well, they didn't improve anything, they just took already succesful products, and either bought them out, or just used their strength to gain market share.
Then, using your line of argumentation, you could say: nonsense! name one major computer bussiness that is a success, where microsoft has nothing to do! Without microsoft intervention, no technology can be invented. Searching was invented by MSN, consoles wouldn't be powerful if it weren't because of the compatition by XBOX, the Internet wouldn't exist, and person computers wouldn't be widely used.
I hope you understand why I refuse to argue with you if you refuse to drop that kind of creative reverse logic.
Then you are just now a nerd. Nerds value knowledge, mostly any kind of knowledge. A nerds enjoys understanding stuff, respects those who value knowledge, and despises people who don't.
I am a nerd. You seem to be too selective about aquiring knowledge. You are not a nerd. I despiiiise you.
that was my point. Open source applications usually stop being developed after a certain point, mainly because the original creator lost interest or doesn't have the time to work on it anymore. I was just trying to point out that there aren't any popular/large open source projects that have no commerical support.
I knew that was your point, but it still isn't true.
It's true that most important free software products do have commercial support, but they do have commeercial support, _because_ they are succesful, not the other way around, like you say it is.
It's true that one developer might lose interest in his software project, but that's when the community kicks in. Commercial entities don't support projects in risk of dissapearance, they fund already succesful projects that are actively developed, only to have the power to help the project advance fast enoughfor them.
someone who uses the tools of a system that they don't agree with is called a hypocrite.
Or a dissident.
software that is truly free has no restrictions.
The GPL, or the FSF, are not about the freedom of the software. The thing is the freedom of the _user_ to use the software. Take into account that they don't care about the freedom of the distributor, only the user. If you really think about the consequences of e.g. public domain software, compared tot he consequences of the GPL, you will surely understand that the GPL ensures more freedom _to_the_user_ than public domain, or BSD. Of course, the distributor, or middle man, loses some freedom in the meantime, but it's a non-issue for people who use the GPL. The users are the ones that matter, if only because there are a lot more of them than distributors.
About the GPl not being bussiness-friendly, well, to paraphrease an old saying it is bussiness friendly, but picks its friends very carefully.
If copyright was abolished, the GPL would have no value. But the FSF would be happy. GPL uses copyleft in order to counteract copyright. The idea is to use copyright in order to keep distributors for taking freedom away from _users_. You, as a user, can do whatever you want with GPL programs. As a distributor, as long as there is a copyright law, your freedom to distribute is intact, as long as you don't try to take freedom away from further users.
So, while there is a coyright law, the gpl forces you to keep intact the freedom of the next user. In fact the only thing it does if keeping you from using copyright against the next user.
If there wasn't a copyright law in the first place, the GPL wouldn't be valid, but you wouldn't be allowed to hurt the freedom of the next user with copyrights, either.
For the record. The FSF doen't say information is property. It says that as long as there is a copyright law, it shouldn't be used against users of free software. If you "close" GPLed software, you are taking freedom away from the users. The guys are using copyrights to fight copyrights, not in order to get some rent on their made up "property". In some cases, you need to use the tools of a system that you don't like, but that doesn't mean you agree.
mysql - gained commercial support years after is was extremely popular. The project was successful, and then commercial interest started, not the other way around.
php - Rasmus was unemployed for a long time when making php4. That didn't make php any less succesful. After the success, maybe some bussinesses might be contributing, but they didn't contribute to success.
linux - Well, I wouldn't know where to start.
blender, the 3d modeling package, ailed as a commercial entity. The community saved it, by getting together and buying the sources, and making a free project. After that, there are some commercial entities that contribute money.
The trend you are seeing is that commercial entities do give money to free software or open source projects, but usually _after_ they are succesful.
Of course, you have Eclipse, that IBM funded with a very explicit objective, and is now a great free tool for developers. But those are not the most common cases.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I tend to think that people in slashdot don't have problems with basic logic.
I was talking about a condition needed to be a pirate. Failing that condition, you can't be a pirate. In fact, I should have said "a pirate is a guys who sails", because as another poster pointed out, pirates don't always steal a ship of their own.
That was the "pirate" part of the post.
On the "robbing", or "stealing" part, I don't understand why you bring that up, because we were talking about copyright issues.
There was some poster in another article that redefined "theft" to mean "copyright infringement", too. The guy said that for him, "theft" meant "(obtaining something without proper payment)".
This is what I think about those creative definitions of theft, or stealing:
Hint: I don't think that lack of payment implies theft. Someone needs to lose something in order to have theft. And I know I am not the only one with that thought.
These are many of the same people that believe people are born with the right to pirate their copy of Windows because Microsoft has tons of money.
I, myself, think Microsoft, even having tons of money, doesn't have the right of having me copy (not pirate, pirates have sailing ship and I don't) MSWindows, without paying me in exchange. I am very happy with slackware, thank you very much.
If we just left Iraq now things will be worse off then if we didn't have a war.
Whenever you leave, things will be worse. Iraq was a free country under an oppressive regime. Now it's a country oppressed by an external oppresive regime. It's much more difficult to overthrow that. Add to that the fact that the invasion helped the growth of guerrilla groups that weren't as strong before. The problem that was created is much bigger that the one that already existed, taking into account that Iraq wasn't a menace to the rest of the world, at least not as much as lolts of other countries.
Or conversely, you blind, and not connected with reality.
If you look at what he writes, and not how he looks, you will find that most of the awful things he said could happen with software did happen. Anyone with some insight would have believed him.
The DMCA, along with the DeCSS issue are examples of how proprietary software can hurt people in their freedom, and not just in their freedom to use software.
Just because you don't get the relevance of freedom, it doesn't mean it's not important. It's just that you are blind to that kind of thing. The guy is no mesiah, it's just a guy with great insight. Of course, there's a thin line between +1 , insightful and -1, troll, but I believe he is on the right side of the line.
Nokia says it won't hurt the Linux kernel. Of course that doesn't mean they will leave you GNU/Linux OS alone, if they see any infringements.
In the meantime, Nokia lobbies for software patents in Europe, and RMSs analogy is exact.
They are asking for lots of power, and just claim they won't hurt the Linux kernel. Of course they won't, they don't want to alienate the developers of software that earns them money!
Well, giving money to charity isn't _always_ a good thing. traditionally, it's just a defense mechanism that the rich use to keep the poor, poor and slightly happy, intear of poor-er, and angry, or trying to become less poor.
That said, BG's charity is one of the best ways of charity, he invests in social development.
About bussiness tactics, well, MS bussiness tactics take money away from poor countries that don't need to buy their products, and do need to invest that money on social stuff, and that does translate in dead people, much more than with polluted rivers. Of course MS doesn't have as much of the fault as dumb governments that keep funneling money to them, for software without added value over free alternatives.
In Latin America, in the seventies and early eighties, the term "state terrorism" was used a lot. In those times, governments and intelligence agencies, teamed up to disarm the "communist threat". That meant fighting not the guerrillas that were scarce, but the left parties that wanted to win power by elections. The US even had an important role in coordination and resources (you can watch the NSA archives for that). The actions involved "detenidos desaparecidos", people arrested or kidnapped by the military. Even the civil governments used the military to repress the people protesting on the streets. They succeded in changing the government to a military-run government. They used terrorist methods.
The fact that terrorism is usually used against the state, doesn't meant that the government can't be terrorist. In that case, government attacks the state in order to overthrow itself, and impose a more powerful and restrictive government. You saw it on fiction, on star wars, but it happened troughout Latin America, and it can happen anywhere.
I believe that's why the word "pirates" is used. It touches some of the same strings that "terrorist" does. Of course "terrorist" is much more current, and has better metrics for usage in commercials.
"If piracy was a political problem 20 years ago they would have called them "commies"."
I believe you are right. But you have to give them credit, because it works. Somehow, right now, we call "pirate" a guy who copies a CD. "Pirate", more that a hundred years ago, shared a big part of the meaning of "terrorist". Some bad guy who does bad stuff. And most people right now, use a word that used to define a killer, thieve, rapist, to talk about a guy who shares a CD, or a DVD.
As the sibling poster said, you would bet, and you would lose. The only thing I did was removing the "task bar", replacing it with a small "task list" icon on the actual bar.
I don't complain about that "task bar", because i can see MSWindows users are lost without it. It's just a little complexity added, in order to keep familiarity with MSWindows. You can't have it both ways, an easy to use desktop, _and_ a MSWindows - friendly one, but I think it's a good trade-off.
For example, if you try Ubuntu, you just need to boot your machine from CD, to finally encounter the desktop I described, plus a taskbar.
Zero to working, including intallation and configuration: maybe one or two minutes. I don't think it gets faster or easier than that.
VHX Video highway tv capture card. Philips webcam. samsung webcam.
Lots of hardware that worked fine with win98, manufacturer dissapeared, and XP doesn't support it. With Linux, drivers never die. That's an increasing problem I am having.
I don't want to buy again hardware that I like. Now, I just keep win98 so i can run some games, but I am afraid of getting online with it. Of course, that is the use I have for the webcam, msnmessenger, in the first place.
But you are talking from a windows-user point of view. Lots of people have already been introduced to windows, and they eventually get to know the gestures needed to do the tasks. The point if that the letters on the widgets don't help. I use a Gnome desktop. It has two buttons at the top of the screen (the actual top, not near-the-top, so you don't have to learn to aim accurately with your mouse to hit them). One is labeled "Aplicaciones" ("apps" in spanish) and the other next to it, "Acciones" ("actions" in spanish). People who use my computer have no trouble using it, even if they haven't even seen a gnome desktop before. I have no task bar, and my buttons are on top, but as they are the only widgets (other than desktop "Navegador Web Firefox", and home directory icons) that call your attention, it's not difficult to figure out what you need to click. Windows, at first, is just too hard as a metaphor fr a desktop, if you don't already know how to use Windows, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
But you can double your productivity with Dvorak, and then double it again changing to Emacs. :)
Because real programmers use emacs, you know.
(Well, that's not so true, now I ditched emacs for Eclipse, most of the time. Well, now I code in java, so maybe I am not a real programmer any more.)
Yes, real programmers _do_ use emacs
I don't know about Linux itself, but most of GNU was written with user in mind, who happens to be a particular user.
That should not lead to the mistake of thinking that corners are cut in order to make an easier job for the programmer of the tool. Of course, the tools are made to be useful to users that might be programmers, but that's a completely different thing.
For example, a house builder would be happier if he didn't have to paint the house he is building, and not doing it would be good for his needs as a builder.
The same guy, as a house user, would like his walls to be painted, and a nice house, with a big garage to put his tools. That's a house made for house builders, by house builders.
Of course, the needs of such house builder, as a user, are very similar to the needs of everybody, because he is a user before being a builder.
The same thing happens with GNU, it ends up being very comfortable, because the people who built it happen to like nice stuff, too.
The notion that they would make a harsh, unfinished system, I believe is just not true.
Compared to propretary software, where the needs to be fulfilled are not the needs of the users, but of some company that might have completely interests that are orthogonal to the users', a better product should arise. Well, it has.
Capitalism is fueled by Greed. Socialism is fueled by Envy. Which is your sin?
Capitalism is fueled by greed, and it works, at least it works if people are greedy.
Socialism doesn't work if people are envious.
Socialism wasn't created by people who were envious. Usually socialists (not just people who call themselves that) are people who might like their place in society, but would rather be a piece of a better society. In general the "sin" of socialists is to not understand that human nature makes socialism a much harder task than it was though, it might even be impossible.
You don't seem to have the right idea about non-windows systems.
What you described is exactly the notion we have of Windows, and a reason why I don't use it. In windows, and many Microsoft programs, you need to do unrelated tasks, to perform a simple task. even if they are, as usually, easy tasks, it's too much trouble to deal with that kind of an interface.
The idea with, for example, GNU/Linux, is that tasks might be difficult, but they make sense.
In a GNU/House or a GNU/Linux House, you would need to solder and install yourself an automatic light switch that senses your presence, and turns the light accordingly. It would take lots of work, but once installed, you wouldn't have to worry again.
For recent distros, the analogy would go like: your constructor asks you what kind of lightswitch you want, if you refuse to pick one, you could even end without a lightswitch.
There's a reason why you post AC. You are a jackass.
I was answering to some guy who was discussing cutting electricity to the printer.
If you can disconnect the electricity of the printer (the context of the great parent), you have two cases, 1- it is attached to a print server, a real machine, and uses LPT, or USB, and my procedure works in both cases; 2- it is a network printer. Just erase the jobs, it will stop.
Maybe you don't understand the nature of a tree structure. There are parent nodes, and then there are nodes under them that lead to more specific aspects or contexts for the original discussion. This was one of them.
lprm
lprm
lprm
lprm
(or cancel jobs, on windows)
Then, turn off printer.
Then, remove parallel port connector.
Re-attach parallel port connector.
Turn computer on.
Print again.
It's a slow method, but it has the added value that it works 100% of the time, and there's no trial and error.
I would like to find a command that would lprm all my jobs, and another that flushes the parallel port buffers, so I could reduce the process to only removing jobs and flushing buffers, without reaching behind my printer.
Alright, now I'm feeling more like I am being trolled.
You are trying to establish a cause-effect correlation.
With your way of thinking, I could prove anything.
You can prove for example that without Microsoft, every major computer improvement wouldn't have become a success.
Then I could say... well, they didn't improve anything, they just took already succesful products, and either bought them out, or just used their strength to gain market share.
Then, using your line of argumentation, you could say: nonsense! name one major computer bussiness that is a success, where microsoft has nothing to do! Without microsoft intervention, no technology can be invented. Searching was invented by MSN, consoles wouldn't be powerful if it weren't because of the compatition by XBOX, the Internet wouldn't exist, and person computers wouldn't be widely used.
I hope you understand why I refuse to argue with you if you refuse to drop that kind of creative reverse logic.
I don't understand this "Cult of the Difficult"
Then you are just now a nerd. Nerds value knowledge, mostly any kind of knowledge. A nerds enjoys understanding stuff, respects those who value knowledge, and despises people who don't.
I am a nerd. You seem to be too selective about aquiring knowledge. You are not a nerd. I despiiiise you.
that was my point. Open source applications usually stop being developed after a certain point, mainly because the original creator lost interest or doesn't have the time to work on it anymore. I was just trying to point out that there aren't any popular/large open source projects that have no commerical support.
I knew that was your point, but it still isn't true.
It's true that most important free software products do have commercial support, but they do have commeercial support, _because_ they are succesful, not the other way around, like you say it is.
It's true that one developer might lose interest in his software project, but that's when the community kicks in.
Commercial entities don't support projects in risk of dissapearance, they fund already succesful projects that are actively developed, only to have the power to help the project advance fast enoughfor them.
someone who uses the tools of a system that they don't agree with is called a hypocrite.
Or a dissident.
software that is truly free has no restrictions.
The GPL, or the FSF, are not about the freedom of the software. The thing is the freedom of the _user_ to use the software.
Take into account that they don't care about the freedom of the distributor, only the user.
If you really think about the consequences of e.g. public domain software, compared tot he consequences of the GPL, you will surely understand that the GPL ensures more freedom _to_the_user_ than public domain, or BSD. Of course, the distributor, or middle man, loses some freedom in the meantime, but it's a non-issue for people who use the GPL. The users are the ones that matter, if only because there are a lot more of them than distributors.
About the GPl not being bussiness-friendly, well, to paraphrease an old saying it is bussiness friendly, but picks its friends very carefully.
If copyright was abolished, the GPL would have no value. But the FSF would be happy.
GPL uses copyleft in order to counteract copyright.
The idea is to use copyright in order to keep distributors for taking freedom away from _users_.
You, as a user, can do whatever you want with GPL programs. As a distributor, as long as there is a copyright law, your freedom to distribute is intact, as long as you don't try to take freedom away from further users.
So, while there is a coyright law, the gpl forces you to keep intact the freedom of the next user.
In fact the only thing it does if keeping you from using copyright against the next user.
If there wasn't a copyright law in the first place, the GPL wouldn't be valid, but you wouldn't be allowed to hurt the freedom of the next user with copyrights, either.
For the record. The FSF doen't say information is property.
It says that as long as there is a copyright law, it shouldn't be used against users of free software.
If you "close" GPLed software, you are taking freedom away from the users.
The guys are using copyrights to fight copyrights, not in order to get some rent on their made up "property". In some cases, you need to use the tools of a system that you don't like, but that doesn't mean you agree.
mysql - gained commercial support years after is was extremely popular. The project was successful, and then commercial interest started, not the other way around.
php - Rasmus was unemployed for a long time when making php4. That didn't make php any less succesful. After the success, maybe some bussinesses might be contributing, but they didn't contribute to success.
linux - Well, I wouldn't know where to start.
blender, the 3d modeling package, ailed as a commercial entity. The community saved it, by getting together and buying the sources, and making a free project. After that, there are some commercial entities that contribute money.
The trend you are seeing is that commercial entities do give money to free software or open source projects, but usually _after_ they are succesful.
Of course, you have Eclipse, that IBM funded with a very explicit objective, and is now a great free tool for developers. But those are not the most common cases.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I tend to think that people in slashdot don't have problems with basic logic.
5 92117
I was talking about a condition needed to be a pirate. Failing that condition, you can't be a pirate. In fact, I should have said "a pirate is a guys who sails", because as another poster pointed out, pirates don't always steal a ship of their own.
That was the "pirate" part of the post.
On the "robbing", or "stealing" part, I don't understand why you bring that up, because we were talking about copyright issues.
There was some poster in another article that redefined "theft" to mean "copyright infringement", too. The guy said that for him, "theft" meant "(obtaining something without proper payment)".
This is what I think about those creative definitions of theft, or stealing:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=150181&cid=12
Hint: I don't think that lack of payment implies theft. Someone needs to lose something in order to have theft. And I know I am not the only one with that thought.
These are many of the same people that believe people are born with the right to pirate their copy of Windows because Microsoft has tons of money.
I, myself, think Microsoft, even having tons of money, doesn't have the right of having me copy (not pirate, pirates have sailing ship and I don't) MSWindows, without paying me in exchange. I am very happy with slackware, thank you very much.
If we just left Iraq now things will be worse off then if we didn't have a war.
Whenever you leave, things will be worse.
Iraq was a free country under an oppressive regime. Now it's a country oppressed by an external oppresive regime. It's much more difficult to overthrow that.
Add to that the fact that the invasion helped the growth of guerrilla groups that weren't as strong before. The problem that was created is much bigger that the one that already existed, taking into account that Iraq wasn't a menace to the rest of the world, at least not as much as lolts of other countries.
Or conversely, you blind, and not connected with reality.
If you look at what he writes, and not how he looks, you will find that most of the awful things he said could happen with software did happen.
Anyone with some insight would have believed him.
The DMCA, along with the DeCSS issue are examples of how proprietary software can hurt people in their freedom, and not just in their freedom to use software.
Just because you don't get the relevance of freedom, it doesn't mean it's not important. It's just that you are blind to that kind of thing. The guy is no mesiah, it's just a guy with great insight. Of course, there's a thin line between +1 , insightful and -1, troll, but I believe he is on the right side of the line.
Nokia says it won't hurt the Linux kernel.
Of course that doesn't mean they will leave you GNU/Linux OS alone, if they see any infringements.
In the meantime, Nokia lobbies for software patents in Europe, and RMSs analogy is exact.
They are asking for lots of power, and just claim they won't hurt the Linux kernel. Of course they won't, they don't want to alienate the developers of software that earns them money!
Well, giving money to charity isn't _always_ a good thing. traditionally, it's just a defense mechanism that the rich use to keep the poor, poor and slightly happy, intear of poor-er, and angry, or trying to become less poor.
That said, BG's charity is one of the best ways of charity, he invests in social development.
About bussiness tactics, well, MS bussiness tactics take money away from poor countries that don't need to buy their products, and do need to invest that money on social stuff, and that does translate in dead people, much more than with polluted rivers.
Of course MS doesn't have as much of the fault as dumb governments that keep funneling money to them, for software without added value over free alternatives.
In Latin America, in the seventies and early eighties, the term "state terrorism" was used a lot.
In those times, governments and intelligence agencies, teamed up to disarm the "communist threat". That meant fighting not the guerrillas that were scarce, but the left parties that wanted to win power by elections. The US even had an important role in coordination and resources (you can watch the NSA archives for that).
The actions involved "detenidos desaparecidos", people arrested or kidnapped by the military.
Even the civil governments used the military to repress the people protesting on the streets.
They succeded in changing the government to a military-run government. They used terrorist methods.
The fact that terrorism is usually used against the state, doesn't meant that the government can't be terrorist. In that case, government attacks the state in order to overthrow itself, and impose a more powerful and restrictive government.
You saw it on fiction, on star wars, but it happened troughout Latin America, and it can happen anywhere.
I believe that's why the word "pirates" is used.
It touches some of the same strings that "terrorist" does. Of course "terrorist" is much more current, and has better metrics for usage in commercials.
"If piracy was a political problem 20 years ago they would have called them "commies"."
I believe you are right.
But you have to give them credit, because it works.
Somehow, right now, we call "pirate" a guy who copies a CD. "Pirate", more that a hundred years ago, shared a big part of the meaning of "terrorist". Some bad guy who does bad stuff. And most people right now, use a word that used to define a killer, thieve, rapist, to talk about a guy who shares a CD, or a DVD.
As the sibling poster said, you would bet, and you would lose.
The only thing I did was removing the "task bar", replacing it with a small "task list" icon on the actual bar.
I don't complain about that "task bar", because i can see MSWindows users are lost without it. It's just a little complexity added, in order to keep familiarity with MSWindows. You can't have it both ways, an easy to use desktop, _and_ a MSWindows - friendly one, but I think it's a good trade-off.
For example, if you try Ubuntu, you just need to boot your machine from CD, to finally encounter the desktop I described, plus a taskbar.
Zero to working, including intallation and configuration: maybe one or two minutes. I don't think it gets faster or easier than that.
VHX Video highway tv capture card.
Philips webcam.
samsung webcam.
Lots of hardware that worked fine with win98, manufacturer dissapeared, and XP doesn't support it.
With Linux, drivers never die.
That's an increasing problem I am having.
I don't want to buy again hardware that I like.
Now, I just keep win98 so i can run some games, but I am afraid of getting online with it.
Of course, that is the use I have for the webcam,
msnmessenger, in the first place.
But you are talking from a windows-user point of view.
Lots of people have already been introduced to windows, and they eventually get to know the gestures needed to do the tasks.
The point if that the letters on the widgets don't help.
I use a Gnome desktop.
It has two buttons at the top of the screen (the actual top, not near-the-top, so you don't have to learn to aim accurately with your mouse to hit them).
One is labeled "Aplicaciones" ("apps" in spanish) and the other next to it, "Acciones" ("actions" in spanish).
People who use my computer have no trouble using it, even if they haven't even seen a gnome desktop before. I have no task bar, and my buttons are on top, but as they are the only widgets (other than desktop "Navegador Web Firefox", and home directory icons) that call your attention, it's not difficult to figure out what you need to click.
Windows, at first, is just too hard as a metaphor fr a desktop, if you don't already know how to use Windows, of course.