I've always found KDE for 'weenies', those that really do not want to interface with UNIX the way it was meant: through a command-line interface or via a windowmanager like twm, fvwm or a light modern one like afterstep.
KDE with it's Windows look-alikeness is therefore the solution for those who do not want to bother with 'arcane' CLI's and windowmanagers.
But then, when I was at the OSDEM in Bruxelles quite a lot of 'smart' developers were using KDE, to my surprise. This made me think about it again and I'm now considering installing 2.x just to try it.
I've played around with several of the distros, as well as Debian and RedHat, and the absolute most basic reason I use Windows over Linux is simply because I have an easier time finding out how to install, maintain, admin or fix some problem from the various Microsoft sites out there.
It's not really a matter of which is technologically superior, and I suspect that Linux may in fact be so. However, in the particular style of searching for information on how to accomplish a particular task, I've always found the Windows information quicker and easier than for the Linux way of doing things. Again, this doesn't mean that Windows is better, far from it. It's just easier for me to run thanks to the types of online resources I come across.
As mentioned, like most/.-readers, I do not like portals like those of Yahoo, MSN or Netscape. Why? Because they try to be a portal to 'everything', and that's just not in line with how the web is set up. Using a general portal is like joining a club that does a little of everything, but excels at nothing. I rather like to choose my interest and find sites that are related. A subject-specific 'portal' might come in handy with that. But no Yahoo-alike portals for me please.
As for controlling the web. I don't think it will matter that much. Everyone who really uses the web for anything will eventually finds his/her sites of personal satisfaction. I cannot imagine people - even AOL members:) - keeping themselves locked into the choices "Shopping", "Entertainment", "Education", etc. that would pop up everytime they start up their browser, and browsing from there on. But I could be wrong here.
I use FreeBSD. Solaris uses the same syntax. Don't know about the syntaxes used by the distinguished Linux distributions. See your Linux manual for the correct syntax or call the local support desk..:)
You're right. I don't know where I got that. Vaguely remember doing a msn lookup and not getting a reply, but it works now. Hotmail uses other dns servers so it isn't related to them at all. Sorry for the hickup..
The authorative DNS servers (do a whois -h whois.networksolutions.com microsoft.com to find them out) don't know the hostnames so they cannot be looked up.
Also Hotmail and MSN suffer from this.
--
Rogier
Re:you dont know what you are talking about (IMO)
on
DaemonNews Goes Print
·
· Score: 1
If you read it that way, you could interpret it like that, indeed. I was implying FreeBSD though, when I mentioned the merger. I thought this was general knowledge (might be subjective about that since I attented the Dutch FreeBSD interest group meeting where Jordan Hubbard announced the merger before anyone from the press got to know about it).
As for conf files, I used RedHat and SuSe. Several versions, years ago. Can't name the specific conf files anymore. (Do remember the perl cranking YaST apparently had to do after changing one single configuration option in it).
It's obvious our opinions collide. But why make such a fuss of it? I'm just giving my opinion. I like FreeBSD better, it just looks and feels more solid in my eyes (and experience). Accept that.
Could this be a sign that BSD is getting bigger in the marketplace? They've never been that big. Maybe that the merger with BSDI is finally paying off, marketingwise.
I've been using FreeBSD for about three years now. Reasons are that I find FreeBSD more 'pure' than the usual Linux distributions. Config files placement changes only sporadically, while I have the feeling that every Linux distribution puts it's config files in another place (and has the locations change rather often).
I do like the cleanlyness of the system. You have to install/enable things if you really want them. RedHat is more like a Christmas tree with all the lights on (even those you don't use or impose a security problem).
Furthermore, a lot of people are using it at my job, an ISP. We use FreeBSD on several critical servers (a.o. for news, dns). I couldn't image Linux running on those servers because of the lesser reliability and security. On the other hand my opinion is coloured because I've gotten used to FreeBSD so much.
I do like the better hardware compatibility of Linux though. FreeBSD doesn't support that much hardware. It seems like the price to pay for a first class quality operating system.
A quote leaked from the manuscript at the publisher:
"I wanted to create an OS better than the example OS use in my OS class: MINIX. I never did succeed in making Linux better, but I had a lot of fun on the way."
I've only read a few paragraphs yet, and already I feel the biasedness towards KDE/Gnome. Example: you're comparing the Windows Start menu alike menu's of KDE/Gnome, as if they were original, with the new Start menu in Whistler and complain about the extra level you have to go to to start your programs. And then you say:
'This seems more user friendly, although a "recently used programs" option would be quite nice, and is a good idea on Microsoft's part, if not a completely original one.'
Recently used program not completely original, OK. But what about the CLONE of Windows that is KDE? As if KDE came up with the Start menu itself.
I remember seeing a show a (not so long) while ago with Elvis also there, projected as a hologram. So, is this technology something new or did it already exist? Might this be a totally different product?
Slashdot Mirror
Is more in order than first...
Interesting.
I've always found KDE for 'weenies', those that really do not want to interface with UNIX the way it was meant: through a command-line interface or via a windowmanager like twm, fvwm or a light modern one like afterstep.
KDE with it's Windows look-alikeness is therefore the solution for those who do not want to bother with 'arcane' CLI's and windowmanagers.
But then, when I was at the OSDEM in Bruxelles quite a lot of 'smart' developers were using KDE, to my surprise. This made me think about it again and I'm now considering installing 2.x just to try it.
--Rogier
I've played around with several of the distros, as well as Debian and RedHat, and the absolute most basic reason I use Windows over Linux is simply because I have an easier time finding out how to install, maintain, admin or fix some problem from the various Microsoft sites out there.
It's not really a matter of which is technologically superior, and I suspect that Linux may in fact be so. However, in the particular style of searching for information on how to accomplish a particular task, I've always found the Windows information quicker and easier than for the Linux way of doing things. Again, this doesn't mean that Windows is better, far from it. It's just easier for me to run thanks to the types of online resources I come across.
"FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack is faster than Linux's because it is implemented in hardware"
Please eleborate on this claim. As it stands now, without any arguments, this is a ridiculous claim.
Rogier
Parent is 5, Funny while this is a troll? You got to be kidding.
Rogier.
As mentioned, like most /.-readers, I do not like portals like those of Yahoo, MSN or Netscape. Why? Because they try to be a portal to 'everything', and that's just not in line with how the web is set up. Using a general portal is like joining a club that does a little of everything, but excels at nothing. I rather like to choose my interest and find sites that are related. A subject-specific 'portal' might come in handy with that. But no Yahoo-alike portals for me please.
:) - keeping themselves locked into the choices "Shopping", "Entertainment", "Education", etc. that would pop up everytime they start up their browser, and browsing from there on. But I could be wrong here.
As for controlling the web. I don't think it will matter that much. Everyone who really uses the web for anything will eventually finds his/her sites of personal satisfaction. I cannot imagine people - even AOL members
Rogier
I use FreeBSD. Solaris uses the same syntax. Don't know about the syntaxes used by the distinguished Linux distributions. See your Linux manual for the correct syntax or call the local support desk.. :)
-- Rogier
You're right. I don't know where I got that. Vaguely remember doing a msn lookup and not getting a reply, but it works now. Hotmail uses other dns servers so it isn't related to them at all. Sorry for the hickup..
--
Rgier
The authorative DNS servers (do a whois -h whois.networksolutions.com microsoft.com to find them out) don't know the hostnames so they cannot be looked up.
Also Hotmail and MSN suffer from this.
--
Rogier
If you read it that way, you could interpret it like that, indeed. I was implying FreeBSD though, when I mentioned the merger. I thought this was general knowledge (might be subjective about that since I attented the Dutch FreeBSD interest group meeting where Jordan Hubbard announced the merger before anyone from the press got to know about it).
As for conf files, I used RedHat and SuSe. Several versions, years ago. Can't name the specific conf files anymore. (Do remember the perl cranking YaST apparently had to do after changing one single configuration option in it).
It's obvious our opinions collide. But why make such a fuss of it? I'm just giving my opinion. I like FreeBSD better, it just looks and feels more solid in my eyes (and experience). Accept that.
Could this be a sign that BSD is getting bigger in the marketplace? They've never been that big. Maybe that the merger with BSDI is finally paying off, marketingwise.
I've been using FreeBSD for about three years now. Reasons are that I find FreeBSD more 'pure' than the usual Linux distributions. Config files placement changes only sporadically, while I have the feeling that every Linux distribution puts it's config files in another place (and has the locations change rather often).
I do like the cleanlyness of the system. You have to install/enable things if you really want them. RedHat is more like a Christmas tree with all the lights on (even those you don't use or impose a security problem).
Furthermore, a lot of people are using it at my job, an ISP. We use FreeBSD on several critical servers (a.o. for news, dns). I couldn't image Linux running on those servers because of the lesser reliability and security. On the other hand my opinion is coloured because I've gotten used to FreeBSD so much.
I do like the better hardware compatibility of Linux though. FreeBSD doesn't support that much hardware. It seems like the price to pay for a first class quality operating system.
Rogier
Wishful Thinking.
That's co-location.
What do you think? L.T. had a hand in the creation of this "chip".
It makes me puke.
L*n*s, get out of the f*cking kitchen, asshole!
A quote leaked from the manuscript at the publisher:
"I wanted to create an OS better than the example OS use in my OS class: MINIX. I never did succeed in making Linux better, but I had a lot of fun on the way."
Doesn't this say it all?
At university we have Sun boxes with CDE. I think it sucks. Furthermore, KDE is nothing like CDE. KDE is a CLONE of Windows. And a bad one at that.
I've only read a few paragraphs yet, and already I feel the biasedness towards KDE/Gnome. Example: you're comparing the Windows Start menu alike menu's of KDE/Gnome, as if they were original, with the new Start menu in Whistler and complain about the extra level you have to go to to start your programs. And then you say:
'This seems more user friendly, although a "recently used programs" option would be quite nice, and is a good idea on Microsoft's part, if not a completely original one.'
Recently used program not completely original, OK. But what about the CLONE of Windows that is KDE? As if KDE came up with the Start menu itself.
I remember seeing a show a (not so long) while ago with Elvis also there, projected as a hologram. So, is this technology something new or did it already exist? Might this be a totally different product?
Thanks.
.. when the one thing you need is a warm PC?