You are proving my point. Your entire view of Israel is through the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You are not able to see anything which is Israeli which is unrelated to it.
That's right. They're shooting people in the streets. I couldn't care less about what else they're doing.
Israel is not only its foreign policy or its military.
Like hell. Israel lives and dies by the occupation. It is central to their very way of life. Bulldozing people's houses, taking over their land, and shooting their kids in the street is their main deal.
Just like France or the USA are more complicated than a single agenda which might bother us about it.
You are comparing apples and Honda Civics. Is France bulldozing the houses of women who wear the veil? If you wanted to make a comparison to, say, the United States' continuing occupation of Afghanistan, that'd be a lot more valid. And likewise, there are a lot of people around the world who do see the US in terms of our foreign policy. And as much as I'd love to, I can't call that invalid.
But talking about veils and patents and trying to compare that in some meaningful way to a domestic and regional policy based on land theft and murder is ridiculous.
In essence, what you are advocating here is collective punishment.
Two responses to that.
1. I never advocated anything. I explained why people would see certain actions through a certain light. 2. How in the fuck can you use the phrase "collective punishment" in a conversation about the Palestinian occupation without just collapsing in self ridicule?
A singer performing in New York does not mean the singer supports the USA's aggressive intellectual property foreign policy. Yet, for some reason, a singer appearing in Tel-Aviv is told that this will be interpreted as supporting the occupation.
And it's not a very difficult reason to discern, if you were willing to try. France does not base its entire regional and international policy around its stance toward Muslim garb. The United States isn't shooting people in the streets over patents.
If that's the mentality you're going in with, no wonder you don't like it. Plasma bears zero resemblance to Windows. They both have a panel. That's it.
If you could just can that imbecilic desktop and replace it with a single simple folder view like in KDE3 and Gnome2, where you can put launchers and objects, KDE4 is basically perfect.
You absolutely can use it as a "classic" 90's desktop if you wish. Drag an icon to the desktop, there it is. I for one really love the new workspace, but you can use it the old-fashioned way if you want. Another poster already mentioned how to turn the desktop into one big folder view, but if all you want are icons on the desktop, just put icons on the desktop.
godawful new style which copies one of the most HATED and DESPISED "innovations" of Vista.
Plasma was actually in development before Vista was released. If anyone copied anyone, it was Microsoft. But aside from the superficial visual similarity, I wouldn't really call them "copies." They don't act alike at all.
To be fair, KDE 3.5.10 _is_ extremely fast. From the end user's perspective KDE 4 seemed to focus on eye candy first and everything else second. Using it on non-current hardware was and is horrible even though performance has increased significantly.
I don't find this to be the case. I'm running 4.6 on a Pentium D processor, Intel graphics, and 3 Gb of RAM. It's fine. Not great, but fine. On my Pentium Dual Core laptop, 4 Gb of RAM, also with Intel graphics, it is great. I know, neither of those is quite "old," (but Pentium D is getting there, damn I've had this rig forever) and two anecdotes don't equal data, but there they are.
As a Windows person, these don't really amount to much.
Of course they don't. You're not allowed to use them.
Maybe I'm missing why multiple workspaces are so great, but the general user will only have a handful of windows open, usually all maximised.
Hell, that's how I work too (sans the maximized bit, because I have plenty of screen for everyone). And it makes my life tremendously easier to be able to group those on desktop by task. Try it for a week, and you'll never go back.
I'm a developer and don't have a problem using 10+ windows. (With the help of a free little tool that lets me rearrange them logically on the task bar.)
Heh, Windows makes you use a third party tool to do that? Hoo boy. It must just be too confusing for Granny.
Sharing data - the average user will be using Office, or an equivalent, and occasionally perhaps a CSV export or most likely cut & paste.
Again, this just shows your blind spots. The contacts in your chat program are typically the same people that are in your address book, are they not? Wouldn't it be neat if both programs knew that? And hey, what if you're looking at an image in your image viewer and you think "Hey, I'd like to send this to Bob?" (These were the first and easiest two examples I could pull out of thin air in five seconds. If you'd like more, just ask.)
Windows decorations... ok, you got me there.:) I feel people eventually don't bother much with desktop backgrounds, because generally windows are maximised all the time - you hardly ever see the desktop during the day!
Re: Window decorations, if you've ever had to work all damn night with a bright color theme scorching out your eyeballs, you don't need to be told that being able to change those colors is good.
Re: Backgrounds and whatnot, well, you've been force fed bad, counter-productive, time-sucking habits for a decade. Of course your windows are maximized all the time, because your desktop navigation is broken to the point of making window placement largely useless.
I had written half a paragraph on it, actually, and then deleted it. I deliberately did not draw a comparison with that processor-hungry, GPU-pegging piece of crap. Google Earth is so utterly terrible that I didn't want to even go there. And it's ugly.
I guess I don't have an issue with Gwenview, but my usage of it is extremely limited. Mostly one-shot image viewing of things where the preview image in the file manager isn't sufficient for me. Now that I stop and think though, I do find that navigating directories and such in the UI is rather cumbersome.
Better yet, in KDE that setting is zero clicks away. I just tried to put an icon on my desktop (which I don't do in my daily use, but I just wanted to try) and damned if it didn't Just Work!
no I would like to know why I am dumb for thinking that these new GUI's cant even provide something as simple and as old as a desktop
its not an unreasonable request, I happen to like the desktop vs having to manually setup little semitransparent boxes to replicate that function with widgets
You know, that's pretty funny. I don't put icons on my desktop, but just to check, I just right now dragged an icon out of my menu onto my (KDE 4.6) desktop, and what the fuck do you know, it created an icon on my desktop! Holy shit, alert the media!
KDE? Windows-ish? I can't imagine how people get that idea. They look nothing alike, they act nothing alike. I mean, other than "has a panel," what is Windows-ish about KDE?
I am not trolling you, and I welcome your reply. I have heard this over and over again, and as a KDE user of long standing, I just don't get it at all.
I still don't understand why KDE and Gnome are such big deals. Maybe I'm too Windows-centric, but what I expect from the GUI is simple: a launcher/taskbar widget, configurable window management and theming, and a handful of integrated utilities or configuration panels that govern common functionality among all apps (e.g. network shares, security defaults, notification prefs, video accel).
You were deprived of a proper desktop as a child. You know nothing of multiple workspaces, the ability of your applications to share their data with each other, even the simplest things like changing the color of your window decorations is beyond your ken. It's like you were raised in a cage.
I find the bundled apps largely deficient in functionality and stability, they're like "store brand" knockoffs of specialized 3rd party apps.
I think you're out of your mind. Okular is the best document viewer I have ever seen. Show me a pdf reader that does a third of the things that Okular does, and does them half as well, and I will eat my hat. Kontact is absolutely gold. Even the file manager has been doing things for three years that Windows Exploder still can't even imagine doing. Marble...well, I was gonna say Marble's the best at what it does, but actually, it's the only application that I'm aware of that does what it does.
why not deliver a solid API and widget library that allows 3rd parties to properly integrate with the look and feel
Yeah, we got that. We've had it for years. Have you looked? No you haven't, have you?
KDE 3.5 was fast, lean, maybe a little hard on the eyes but it did everything I needed without getting in the way. Everything since then has been a bad acid trip through OSX envy and good-old-fashioned programmer-designed atrocity. Just look at Windows 7, they pared it down from Vista to be as simple and efficient as Microsoft can be.
"foo n-1 was the best thing ever, new is crap, Windows 7 is shiny." Okay then. Use Windows 7.
In the screenshot of Dolphin, look at how shitting massive the icons are! If they were half the size, you could get twice as many shown at once, and still be able to see the thumbnail image just fine.
Then there's all the wasted space to the right of the toolbars, and below the list of directories/places on the left side. In the "old days", we used to just put that shit in the menus, with it taking up very little space. But since menus aren't "trendy" these days, functionality that was conveniently hidden is now in-your-face and wasting a lot of screen real estate.
You can change every one of those things in thirty seconds, you obnoxious piece of shit. Godalmightychrist, do you ever piss and moan.
I can see your point, but that logic leads to "I can't use the internet ever again." You can't search, you can't follow links, you can't chat, you can't do nothin'. I do not find that solution acceptable. Do I have a compelling answer? No I do not. But we'd better find one.
Slashdot Mirror
You are proving my point. Your entire view of Israel is through the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You are not able to see anything which is Israeli which is unrelated to it.
That's right. They're shooting people in the streets. I couldn't care less about what else they're doing.
Israel is not only its foreign policy or its military.
Like hell. Israel lives and dies by the occupation. It is central to their very way of life. Bulldozing people's houses, taking over their land, and shooting their kids in the street is their main deal.
Just like France or the USA are more complicated than a single agenda which might bother us about it.
You are comparing apples and Honda Civics. Is France bulldozing the houses of women who wear the veil? If you wanted to make a comparison to, say, the United States' continuing occupation of Afghanistan, that'd be a lot more valid. And likewise, there are a lot of people around the world who do see the US in terms of our foreign policy. And as much as I'd love to, I can't call that invalid.
But talking about veils and patents and trying to compare that in some meaningful way to a domestic and regional policy based on land theft and murder is ridiculous.
In essence, what you are advocating here is collective punishment.
Two responses to that.
1. I never advocated anything. I explained why people would see certain actions through a certain light.
2. How in the fuck can you use the phrase "collective punishment" in a conversation about the Palestinian occupation without just collapsing in self ridicule?
A singer performing in New York does not mean the singer supports the USA's aggressive intellectual property foreign policy. Yet, for some reason, a singer appearing in Tel-Aviv is told that this will be interpreted as supporting the occupation.
And it's not a very difficult reason to discern, if you were willing to try. France does not base its entire regional and international policy around its stance toward Muslim garb. The United States isn't shooting people in the streets over patents.
Lol. Whatever, man. They're icons.
It's true. Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
With KDE they seem to follow the Windows model
If that's the mentality you're going in with, no wonder you don't like it. Plasma bears zero resemblance to Windows. They both have a panel. That's it.
I lol'd.
If you could just can that imbecilic desktop and replace it with a single simple folder view like in KDE3 and Gnome2, where you can put launchers and objects, KDE4 is basically perfect.
You absolutely can use it as a "classic" 90's desktop if you wish. Drag an icon to the desktop, there it is. I for one really love the new workspace, but you can use it the old-fashioned way if you want. Another poster already mentioned how to turn the desktop into one big folder view, but if all you want are icons on the desktop, just put icons on the desktop.
godawful new style which copies one of the most HATED and DESPISED "innovations" of Vista.
Plasma was actually in development before Vista was released. If anyone copied anyone, it was Microsoft. But aside from the superficial visual similarity, I wouldn't really call them "copies." They don't act alike at all.
To be fair, KDE 3.5.10 _is_ extremely fast. From the end user's perspective KDE 4 seemed to focus on eye candy first and everything else second. Using it on non-current hardware was and is horrible even though performance has increased significantly.
I don't find this to be the case. I'm running 4.6 on a Pentium D processor, Intel graphics, and 3 Gb of RAM. It's fine. Not great, but fine. On my Pentium Dual Core laptop, 4 Gb of RAM, also with Intel graphics, it is great. I know, neither of those is quite "old," (but Pentium D is getting there, damn I've had this rig forever) and two anecdotes don't equal data, but there they are.
As a Windows person, these don't really amount to much.
Of course they don't. You're not allowed to use them.
Maybe I'm missing why multiple workspaces are so great, but the general user will only have a handful of windows open, usually all maximised.
Hell, that's how I work too (sans the maximized bit, because I have plenty of screen for everyone). And it makes my life tremendously easier to be able to group those on desktop by task. Try it for a week, and you'll never go back.
I'm a developer and don't have a problem using 10+ windows. (With the help of a free little tool that lets me rearrange them logically on the task bar.)
Heh, Windows makes you use a third party tool to do that? Hoo boy. It must just be too confusing for Granny.
Sharing data - the average user will be using Office, or an equivalent, and occasionally perhaps a CSV export or most likely cut & paste.
Again, this just shows your blind spots. The contacts in your chat program are typically the same people that are in your address book, are they not? Wouldn't it be neat if both programs knew that? And hey, what if you're looking at an image in your image viewer and you think "Hey, I'd like to send this to Bob?" (These were the first and easiest two examples I could pull out of thin air in five seconds. If you'd like more, just ask.)
Windows decorations... ok, you got me there. :) I feel people eventually don't bother much with desktop backgrounds, because generally windows are maximised all the time - you hardly ever see the desktop during the day!
Re: Window decorations, if you've ever had to work all damn night with a bright color theme scorching out your eyeballs, you don't need to be told that being able to change those colors is good.
Re: Backgrounds and whatnot, well, you've been force fed bad, counter-productive, time-sucking habits for a decade. Of course your windows are maximized all the time, because your desktop navigation is broken to the point of making window placement largely useless.
I had written half a paragraph on it, actually, and then deleted it. I deliberately did not draw a comparison with that processor-hungry, GPU-pegging piece of crap. Google Earth is so utterly terrible that I didn't want to even go there. And it's ugly.
Neither of those things happen to me on KDE 4.6. I just tried them both, and behavior is as expected.
That's because Ctrl-V and Ctrl-C do other things in the shell. Add in a shift modifier, you're golden.
I guess I don't have an issue with Gwenview, but my usage of it is extremely limited. Mostly one-shot image viewing of things where the preview image in the file manager isn't sufficient for me. Now that I stop and think though, I do find that navigating directories and such in the UI is rather cumbersome.
Better yet, in KDE that setting is zero clicks away. I just tried to put an icon on my desktop (which I don't do in my daily use, but I just wanted to try) and damned if it didn't Just Work!
no I would like to know why I am dumb for thinking that these new GUI's cant even provide something as simple and as old as a desktop
its not an unreasonable request, I happen to like the desktop vs having to manually setup little semitransparent boxes to replicate that function with widgets
You know, that's pretty funny. I don't put icons on my desktop, but just to check, I just right now dragged an icon out of my menu onto my (KDE 4.6) desktop, and what the fuck do you know, it created an icon on my desktop! Holy shit, alert the media!
know how to operate a computer
Really?
I offered as much explanation as you did.
I usually put my panel on the top, center it and shrink it to maybe 50% of the desktop width.
Wow, you too? That's how I set mine up. I don't use the mouse wheel for scrolling, I just like the look.
So like I said, other than "has a panel..."
You're dumb.
KDE? Windows-ish? I can't imagine how people get that idea. They look nothing alike, they act nothing alike. I mean, other than "has a panel," what is Windows-ish about KDE?
I am not trolling you, and I welcome your reply. I have heard this over and over again, and as a KDE user of long standing, I just don't get it at all.
I still don't understand why KDE and Gnome are such big deals. Maybe I'm too Windows-centric, but what I expect from the GUI is simple: a launcher/taskbar widget, configurable window management and theming, and a handful of integrated utilities or configuration panels that govern common functionality among all apps (e.g. network shares, security defaults, notification prefs, video accel).
You were deprived of a proper desktop as a child. You know nothing of multiple workspaces, the ability of your applications to share their data with each other, even the simplest things like changing the color of your window decorations is beyond your ken. It's like you were raised in a cage.
I find the bundled apps largely deficient in functionality and stability, they're like "store brand" knockoffs of specialized 3rd party apps.
I think you're out of your mind. Okular is the best document viewer I have ever seen. Show me a pdf reader that does a third of the things that Okular does, and does them half as well, and I will eat my hat. Kontact is absolutely gold. Even the file manager has been doing things for three years that Windows Exploder still can't even imagine doing. Marble...well, I was gonna say Marble's the best at what it does, but actually, it's the only application that I'm aware of that does what it does.
why not deliver a solid API and widget library that allows 3rd parties to properly integrate with the look and feel
Yeah, we got that. We've had it for years. Have you looked? No you haven't, have you?
KDE 3.5 was fast, lean, maybe a little hard on the eyes but it did everything I needed without getting in the way. Everything since then has been a bad acid trip through OSX envy and good-old-fashioned programmer-designed atrocity. Just look at Windows 7, they pared it down from Vista to be as simple and efficient as Microsoft can be.
"foo n-1 was the best thing ever, new is crap, Windows 7 is shiny." Okay then. Use Windows 7.
In the screenshot of Dolphin, look at how shitting massive the icons are! If they were half the size, you could get twice as many shown at once, and still be able to see the thumbnail image just fine.
Then there's all the wasted space to the right of the toolbars, and below the list of directories/places on the left side. In the "old days", we used to just put that shit in the menus, with it taking up very little space. But since menus aren't "trendy" these days, functionality that was conveniently hidden is now in-your-face and wasting a lot of screen real estate.
You can change every one of those things in thirty seconds, you obnoxious piece of shit. Godalmightychrist, do you ever piss and moan.
You just answered your own question.
I can see your point, but that logic leads to "I can't use the internet ever again." You can't search, you can't follow links, you can't chat, you can't do nothin'. I do not find that solution acceptable. Do I have a compelling answer? No I do not. But we'd better find one.
Nope. I use Duck Duck Go. http://duckduckgo.com/
You can opt out of that. Call the phone company. It's free.