Mandrake 8.2 comes with KDE3 RC 2 but they are quick to point out that it should be considered beta quality and is not for everyday use yet. Guess they're not trying to get one up over all the other distros by offering bleeding edge software that doesnt work too well.
Why is it whenever OSes, in particular UNIX-clones, are mentioned on Slashdot we end up with a daft slanging match between rival factions? Every OS is written to perform the task of separating the user from the complex and arcane world of computer hardware. They all do it in different fashions, but they all go for similar goals.
Only at the highest layers of abstraction do their objectives change, some are aimed at desktop users who know nothing about computers except pointing and clicking, some are developed primarily to offer services and therefore do not need highly capable and intuitive user interfaces.
IMHO, all of them achieve their goals respectably. Windows 9x is unashamedly a desktop OS, MS has never tried to hide this fact, and it does its job admirably. Most of the tasks you need to perform are very simple to do, and if you do not know how to do something, then based on how you did something else you can generally figure it out.
Linux/BSD are both UNIX-clones, and as such are not based on a desktop-oriented OS, they provide services of all kinds extremely well though.
A good case in point is my place of employment, an ISP. Most of our servers are running some variant of UNIX, webservers have linux and mail servers/news servers have BSD, but all the workstations for the staff run Windows 98/2000 because it is still the best choice for the desktop user. I know people will scream KDE or GNOME at me but however slick they are as GUIs they rely on a server-oriented OS and you can tell.
I dual-boot at home between WinME and Mandrake 7.2 and I still haven't got anywhere near the functionality available to me in Windows working on Mandrake. I cannot think of a single task I perform that Mandrake does better than Windows: it does not seem to be much quicker, if at all; sound only worked after hacking text files (hardly an average computer user job); it is no more stable, simply because Windows has not crashed on me and nor has Mandrake; and the GUI, while being of a similar design, is different enough to slow me down doing stuff.
I suppose at the end of all this, comparing OSes is like comparing chalk and cheese. However much the OS companies trumpet about their particular product being easy to use AND powerful enough for enterprise server solutions, the plain truth appears to me to be that servers and workstations are too different to be combined into one, and there will always be fundamental differences that are difficult to overcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Mandrake 8.2 comes with KDE3 RC 2 but they are quick to point out that it should be considered beta quality and is not for everyday use yet. Guess they're not trying to get one up over all the other distros by offering bleeding edge software that doesnt work too well.
Why is it whenever OSes, in particular UNIX-clones, are mentioned on Slashdot we end up with a daft slanging match between rival factions? Every OS is written to perform the task of separating the user from the complex and arcane world of computer hardware. They all do it in different fashions, but they all go for similar goals.
Only at the highest layers of abstraction do their objectives change, some are aimed at desktop users who know nothing about computers except pointing and clicking, some are developed primarily to offer services and therefore do not need highly capable and intuitive user interfaces.
IMHO, all of them achieve their goals respectably. Windows 9x is unashamedly a desktop OS, MS has never tried to hide this fact, and it does its job admirably. Most of the tasks you need to perform are very simple to do, and if you do not know how to do something, then based on how you did something else you can generally figure it out.
Linux/BSD are both UNIX-clones, and as such are not based on a desktop-oriented OS, they provide services of all kinds extremely well though. A good case in point is my place of employment, an ISP. Most of our servers are running some variant of UNIX, webservers have linux and mail servers/news servers have BSD, but all the workstations for the staff run Windows 98/2000 because it is still the best choice for the desktop user. I know people will scream KDE or GNOME at me but however slick they are as GUIs they rely on a server-oriented OS and you can tell.
I dual-boot at home between WinME and Mandrake 7.2 and I still haven't got anywhere near the functionality available to me in Windows working on Mandrake. I cannot think of a single task I perform that Mandrake does better than Windows: it does not seem to be much quicker, if at all; sound only worked after hacking text files (hardly an average computer user job); it is no more stable, simply because Windows has not crashed on me and nor has Mandrake; and the GUI, while being of a similar design, is different enough to slow me down doing stuff.
I suppose at the end of all this, comparing OSes is like comparing chalk and cheese. However much the OS companies trumpet about their particular product being easy to use AND powerful enough for enterprise server solutions, the plain truth appears to me to be that servers and workstations are too different to be combined into one, and there will always be fundamental differences that are difficult to overcome.
OK I've finished, you can start flaming now...
course if they used this for driving a car, people, like myself, who have nystagmus, would be constantly being arrested for driving dangerously!