A capitalist uses his control over capital to enhance his wealth and power (capital. ..see? It is in his name. Not always money). With the RIAA/MPAA, this capital is the distribution rights of material created by artists.
Don't pretend that the consumer is in control here. The mythical "average consumer" doesn't know what he wants until that want is programmed in to him by demand enhancing marketing. Stalinist mind control was never this effective!
To be true to his economic model of choice, a capitalist does not have to use capital to produce goods. All he needs to produce is profit. This is a key characteristic of capitalism.
To illustrate: BMG does not exist to produce music CDs, it exists to produce profits. As long as they can get away with it, any way of investing capital that improves profitability if fair. If the cost/benefit analysis was favorable, they would send out goons to "neutralize" p2p file sharing nodes. As it is, it is more cost effective to buy congressmen and get the DOJ to send out the goons.
Make no mistake about it, this is Capitalism. That your idealised and utopian vision of what capitalism should be doesn't match the reality of modern capitalism means that your understanding is flawed. Calling it communism is just ignorant regurgitation of capitalist propaganda.
The RIAA: Filthy? Yes. Capitalists? Most certainly.
...and there's one sure-fire solution. If enough people in the market are willing to get off their lazy asses and do something about it, they'll take their business elsewhere. A monopoly creates opportunities for abuse, but its the money that allows the abuse to continue. If consumers would rid themselves of their indifference, it seems like it could really turn things around.
Hmmm. . . I really hope that this wasn't posted from IE running on some flavor of Windows!
Played a round of Tempest 2000 this morning on my Jaguar console before dragging my carcass into the codemine. ..That has got to be my favorite console game of all time.
Still have my very first machine. ..Atari 400 with an upgraded keyboard (the 400s membrane keyboard was probably the best of its type ever made but it still sucked. ..soda and PBJ-proof though) and a full 52K of memory! I fire it up every now and then for nostalgia's sake. I replaced the 400 when I got to college though with a 130xe and proceeded to upgrade that beyond all reason (320K, 20meg SCSI HD etc). It still works too.
Ahh. . the good old days when there were actually lots of platform choices. ..
"Besides, you probably aren't important enough in the first place to warrant their attention. "
Perhaps you don't understand the vast reserves of 'attention' that 'They' have. Breaking news in the early 1980's was about a top secret intelligence agency called the NSA. With a budget bigger that the Air Force's, they have a fair amount of resources. By way of bragging, they released some of their accomplishments of the previous decade as they didn't want to talk about any of their state-of-the-art (this was the `80s, remember) capabilities.
Seems that as of 1976, the NSA had the ability to monitor 10% of all interstate telephone traffic and ALL international phone calls.
I am willing to bet that the NSA has updated their voice recognition systems a bit since 1976.
Anyway, perhaps you do lead a lily-white clean life that can stand up to constant scrutiny. Perhaps you are so pure that you will never, even accidentally, stray beyond the strictures of any current or future law. ..I, however, regularly exceed the speed limit when driving, sometimes by as much as 10mph! I rip DVDs and audio CDs to play on my laptop (it only has a CD-ROM drive and MP3s take up less space).
Everybody used to joke about the "Video Police" when the FBI warnings were displayed on prerecorded videos and DVDs. ..With the big media corporations going on the offensive over the last few years combined with the moves towards increased domestic surveillance by the government. ..no one that I know is laughing anymore.
While I cannot see how my ripping of the DVDs and CDs that I buy hurts the big corporations, it is technically illegal. If you think that the media corporations don't care about the way I use the materials I purchase from them, then you have not been paying attention lately. If you think the big media corporations don't have enough leverage to get words like "DVD", "hack" and "rip" and such included in the list of keywords that the NSA scans phone calls for then not only have you not been paying attention, you are naive.
I am not even a little frightened by terrorists. You should develop some fortitude and stop demanding that those of us equipt with a functioning pair hand over the maintenence of our sense of well being to the government.
"One keeps wondering why they sell these PCs without Windows"
Well, no. ..one does not keep wondering. Certainly, this would confuse you if you were the type who when ask to name OSes for x86 machines could only come up with various flavors of Windows and Linux. It is a bigger world than that however. I can name a number of modern OSes for x86 without invoking the Beast of Redmond or refering to a Linux distro.
The truth is, the Wal-Mart OSless PCs that I have tested work fine with eComStation and OS/2. Of course, hand building your machines is the best bet for compatibility but as long as they work, the prices for the Wal-Mart machines are hard to beat.
Perhaps the manufacturer did not consider support for X to be the same as support for Linux? Perhaps they were tested by the manufacturer but with OSes other than Linux? After all, they do work real well with eComStation and I know of some that were bought for just that reason.
Try to remember that there are other good OSes available aside from Linux
And you are Dumb as Ass. Clearly your disfunctional mind is comparing OS/2 1.2 with Windows XP or something. ..Comparing Warp3 with Windows 3.1 is a little more appropriate and Warp 4 with Win9x. OS/2 1.3 looks almost identical to NT 3.5.
The icons were a problem for you? More adventuresome or competent users changed the ones they didn't like. ..Really pretty easy on OS/2.
How long was it before Windows supported transparent backgrounds for icon text? Having an opaque text background was butt-ugly.
Howabout bitmaps for folder backgrounds. ..I assume that M$ implemented that at some point after the challenge of keeping suckers like yourself convinced of the superiority of their desktop became too expensive.
I like your final thought. ..you had that one some years ago and have not had another since, right? With a little imagination (very little. ..but you aparently lack even that much) the drives objects combined with Launchpad objects make a remarkable file management system. In fact, Microsoft's latest offerings STILL lack desktop tools as powerful yet simple to configure as Launchpads (Warp 3 and later) or the WarpCenter (Warp 4 and later). The cheezy Taskbar/System Tray isn't even in the running. And then there are Workspaces. ..Windows thralls don't know what they are missing without Workspaces. . .
More about ugly. ..let me see if I can visualize your Windows desktop. ..dozens upon dozens of icons crowding each other. ..sitting pretty much where the application's installer dropped them or if you are neat, aligned in row after row. Like most Windows users you are probably afraid to move the icons off the desktop to their own folder because Windows might forget what the icons are for. ..Don't tell me about ugly. ..I have yet to see a windows desktop that someone actually works with that isn't ugly.
"the Windows 95 GUI was prettier". ..What? When did that happen? It was. ..and always will be, I'll bet, lame beyond description. ..I have always gotten a kick, for an example, out of having to select the 'START" button to shut the bitch down (a feature that seems to work reliably only when when you are not pressed for time). Beauty is more than just expensive icons (not skin deep? I guess you would never hear a microserf supporting THAT idea!). For some, function is an element of beauty.
"the GUI on OS/2 was just freaking confusing". ..Then you most certainly DIDN'T use it for ten minutes. ..much less 2 years. ..Perhaps you occasionally had contact with OS/2 over a two year period, but I know you didn't USE it.
"change an icon" is "just horrible"? OK. ..for someone habituated with the strange rituals needed to make Windows work the idea of a 'Context Menu' (simply right-click the object?) would be completely alien. .."Oh! that's what that other mouse button is for!" . ..
In the future, don NOT admit that the OS/2 GUI confused you in front of people who might have actually used the OS. ..it sorta brands you as a dumbass that runs on autopilot. ..(WTF. ..OS/2 more confusing than WinXX? Weird!).
"the Windows 95 GUI was prettier". ..What? When did that happen? It was. ..and always will be, I'll bet, lame beyond description. ..I have always gotten a kick, for an example, out of having to select the 'START" button to shut the bitch down (a feature that seems to work reliably only when when you are not pressed for time). Beauty is more than just expensive icons (not skin deep? I guess you would never hear a microserf supporting THAT idea!). For some, function is an element of beauty.
"the GUI on OS/2 was just freaking confusing". ..The you most certainly DIDN'T use it for ten minutes. ..much less 2 years. ..Perhaps you occasionally had contact with OS/2 over a two year period, but I know you didn't USE it. "change an icon"? OK. ..for someone habituated with the strange rituals needed to make Windows work the idea of a 'Context Menu' (simply right-click the object?) would be completely alien. .."Oh! that's what that other mouse button is for!" . . .
In the future, don NOT admit that the OS/2 GUI confused you in front of people who might have actually used the OS. ..it sorta brands you as a dumbass that runs on autopilot. ..(WTF. ..OS/2 more confusing than WinXX? Weird!).
"As long as governments have a monopoly on space, we as individuals have no opportunity."
Well, I hate to intrude upon your fantasy here but governments have a monopoly on space exploration/exploitation because they are the only entities on the planet with the capital and . ..well. ..scope of vision to make it a reality. Corporations must show a profit each quarter, or at least the potential to make a profit in the near term or investors will lose interest (or should I say dividends? heheh!) and move their capital elsewhere.Corporations don't have the staying power to invest trillions in a project that could take decades to show any returns.
The first step to serious industry in space is the development of some heavy lift to orbit infrastructure. We are not talking competition with that AMC Pacer of the sky, the shuttle. ..here we're talking the spaceworthy equivalent of a 40,000 ton container ship. This, I am quite sure, is well beyond the means of any individuals on Earth and few corporation would be capable of it even if they devoted all of their resources to the task for a few decades.
On the other hand, the US government thinks nothing of slapping a few $trillion on the table for such items as Trident submarines and stealth bombers. A heavy lift to orbit infrastructure is well withing the abilities of governments. ..Get government out of the way and no one will do it. . .
"Remember how much hostility NASA reacted with when told that the Russians were going to let a paying customer go into space?"
Just because someone can pay you for the gas doesn't mean that they have the means to buy the car! This in no way what so ever indicates that private citizens (or even corporations for that matter) are willing or able to take on the task of off-planet infrastructure development. BTW, were there a commercial space station. ..say . ..like a novelty orbiting hotel built by Hilton. ..the price for a weekend there would be an order of magnitude greater than what our intrepid "paying customer" shelled out. ..In this latter case, the ticket price would have to cover things other than the cost of fuel to haul your carcass up to orbit. ..things like construction costs, crew and employee payroll, oh yeah, and profit. . .
NASA was upset by the RSA's plan because the International Space Station is being built with taxpayer dollars to coonduct serious research, not to be a playground for the rich and famous ..now if the rich and famous were willing to foot a substantial portion of the cost of construction, I'm sure that NASA would reconsider their position. . .
Face it. ..It is because of governments that we have done anything at all in space. If it hadn't been for the Soviets forcing the issue, we would still be wondering what the Earth looked like from more than a few thousand feet away. If the human race has a future in space, it will be governments that get us there. . .
Don't take my word on it though! Prove me wrong! Go ahead. ..build a starship. ..no one will stop you. ..If you are afraid of the US government intervening, just build your starship in the Dominican Republic. ..or Mexico. ..or Haiti. ..a few thousand dollars in bribes and you won't be hassled.
I have used OS/2 since 1993. I have never (except when required at work) used any version of Windows.
I have OS/2 on my primary development machine here at work (and on the poor victim-of-untested-code too!) I have a Debian test system here as well as a Win2K machine but they are just for testing the code that I am responsible for. All of my real work is done on OS/2. Sure, the victim machine is just a 486 but my main workstation is slightly more modern PIII 500 with all of the bells and whistles. ..I'm not missing anything there. . .
My main home machine is a dual Athlon beast with even more bells and whistles. ..I will admit that I dual boot this creature though. ..between eComStation and OS/2! I have a couple other machines for playing with the likes of Linux(Debian)and the HURD but I don't really use them for anything besides seeing what the latest themes are for Enlightenment(aren't they sooo cute?) or trying the latest ports for the HURD. For completeness, I also have a Mac and a SparcStation for playing with. ..I don't really spend much time with them though.
"is there even new software wich will run native on it?" Perhaps I've been living in a cave or something but I haven't noticed any rad new must-have apps out there. I have seen incremental improvements in word processors and the like but I haven't seen anything worth shelling out cash for.
Let me ammend that. I really like the latest version of Beyond Compare (I am a programmer after all) but that runs fine on OS/2.
What can you get in eCS that you cannot get in the various flavors of *nix-like OSes? How about a truely useful GUI. I can really appreciate the effort that has gone into making X look pretty but ergonomic it is not. After all of the improvements to X over the years, I still find myself opening a terminal window whenever I need to interact with the OS living under X. One really has to face the fact that even after all of the changes to the toolkits and window managers, X is still about fun to use as a dental drill (on oneself!). The key to the previous sentence is 'use'. I really enjoy playing with the desktop effects in Enlightenment and things like that. What I am refering to is the day to day use of the system to get work done. The *nixen currently available just are not all that pleasant to use (yet).
To wrap up, I write my code, I run my gnutella servent, I run my apache web server, I firewall my network, I surf the web, I watch my videos, I listen to my MP3s, read my email (virus free!) and a whole bunch more, on a machine with a lean, fast and rock solid OS that is remarkably fun and easy to use. What am I missing? It is hardly a "nostolgia OS" as it easily addresses all of my OS needs. I consider what I got when I bought eCS to be well worth the price.
Just to clear things up for you a little. ..eComStation is not an OpenSores project. You have to, like, PAY for it. If you shell out the extra cash to get the SMP version, then you do indeed get the option at install time to set up as UNI or SMP.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take issue with that as well.
.see? It is in his name. Not always money). With the RIAA/MPAA, this capital is the distribution rights of material created by artists.
A capitalist uses his control over capital to enhance his wealth and power (capital. .
Don't pretend that the consumer is in control here. The mythical "average consumer" doesn't know what he wants until that want is programmed in to him by demand enhancing marketing. Stalinist mind control was never this effective!
To be true to his economic model of choice, a capitalist does not have to use capital to produce goods. All he needs to produce is profit. This is a key characteristic of capitalism.
To illustrate: BMG does not exist to produce music CDs, it exists to produce profits. As long as they can get away with it, any way of investing capital that improves profitability if fair. If the cost/benefit analysis was favorable, they would send out goons to "neutralize" p2p file sharing nodes. As it is, it is more cost effective to buy congressmen and get the DOJ to send out the goons.
Make no mistake about it, this is Capitalism. That your idealised and utopian vision of what capitalism should be doesn't match the reality of modern capitalism means that your understanding is flawed. Calling it communism is just ignorant regurgitation of capitalist propaganda.
The RIAA: Filthy? Yes. Capitalists? Most certainly.
Hmmm. . . I really hope that this wasn't posted from IE running on some flavor of Windows!
Played a round of Tempest 2000 this morning on my Jaguar console before dragging my carcass into the codemine. . .That has got to be my favorite console game of all time.
Still have my very first machine. . .Atari 400 with an upgraded keyboard (the 400s membrane keyboard was probably the best of its type ever made but it still sucked. . .soda and PBJ-proof though) and a full 52K of memory! I fire it up every now and then for nostalgia's sake. I replaced the 400 when I got to college though with a 130xe and proceeded to upgrade that beyond all reason (320K, 20meg SCSI HD etc). It still works too.
.
Ahh. . the good old days when there were actually lots of platform choices. .
"Besides, you probably aren't important enough in the first place to warrant their attention. "
.I, however, regularly exceed the speed limit when driving, sometimes by as much as 10mph! I rip DVDs and audio CDs to play on my laptop (it only has a CD-ROM drive and MP3s take up less space).
.With the big media corporations going on the offensive over the last few years combined with the moves towards increased domestic surveillance by the government. . .no one that I know is laughing anymore.
Perhaps you don't understand the vast reserves of 'attention' that 'They' have. Breaking news in the early 1980's was about a top secret intelligence agency called the NSA. With a budget bigger that the Air Force's, they have a fair amount of resources. By way of bragging, they released some of their accomplishments of the previous decade as they didn't want to talk about any of their state-of-the-art (this was the `80s, remember) capabilities.
Seems that as of 1976, the NSA had the ability to monitor 10% of all interstate telephone traffic and ALL international phone calls.
I am willing to bet that the NSA has updated their voice recognition systems a bit since 1976.
Anyway, perhaps you do lead a lily-white clean life that can stand up to constant scrutiny. Perhaps you are so pure that you will never, even accidentally, stray beyond the strictures of any current or future law. .
Everybody used to joke about the "Video Police" when the FBI warnings were displayed on prerecorded videos and DVDs. .
While I cannot see how my ripping of the DVDs and CDs that I buy hurts the big corporations, it is technically illegal. If you think that the media corporations don't care about the way I use the materials I purchase from them, then you have not been paying attention lately. If you think the big media corporations don't have enough leverage to get words like "DVD", "hack" and "rip" and such included in the list of keywords that the NSA scans phone calls for then not only have you not been paying attention, you are naive.
I am not even a little frightened by terrorists. You should develop some fortitude and stop demanding that those of us equipt with a functioning pair hand over the maintenence of our sense of well being to the government.
"One keeps wondering why they sell these PCs without Windows"
.one does not keep wondering. Certainly, this would confuse you if you were the type who when ask to name OSes for x86 machines could only come up with various flavors of Windows and Linux. It is a bigger world than that however. I can name a number of modern OSes for x86 without invoking the Beast of Redmond or refering to a Linux distro.
Well, no. .
The truth is, the Wal-Mart OSless PCs that I have tested work fine with eComStation and OS/2. Of course, hand building your machines is the best bet for compatibility but as long as they work, the prices for the Wal-Mart machines are hard to beat.
Perhaps the manufacturer did not consider support for X to be the same as support for Linux? Perhaps they were tested by the manufacturer but with OSes other than Linux? After all, they do work real well with eComStation and I know of some that were bought for just that reason.
Try to remember that there are other good OSes available aside from Linux
And you are Dumb as Ass. Clearly your disfunctional mind is comparing OS/2 1.2 with Windows XP or something. . .Comparing Warp3 with Windows 3.1 is a little more appropriate and Warp 4 with Win9x. OS/2 1.3 looks almost identical to NT 3.5.
The icons were a problem for you? More adventuresome or competent users changed the ones they didn't like. . .Really pretty easy on OS/2.
How long was it before Windows supported transparent backgrounds for icon text? Having an opaque text background was butt-ugly.
Howabout bitmaps for folder backgrounds. . .I assume that M$ implemented that at some point after the challenge of keeping suckers like yourself convinced of the superiority of their desktop became too expensive.
I like your final thought. . .you had that one some years ago and have not had another since, right? With a little imagination (very little. . .but you aparently lack even that much) the drives objects combined with Launchpad objects make a remarkable file management system. In fact, Microsoft's latest offerings STILL lack desktop tools as powerful yet simple to configure as Launchpads (Warp 3 and later) or the WarpCenter (Warp 4 and later). The cheezy Taskbar/System Tray isn't even in the running. And then there are Workspaces. . .Windows thralls don't know what they are missing without Workspaces. . .
More about ugly. . .let me see if I can visualize your Windows desktop. . .dozens upon dozens of icons crowding each other. . .sitting pretty much where the application's installer dropped them or if you are neat, aligned in row after row. Like most Windows users you are probably afraid to move the icons off the desktop to their own folder because Windows might forget what the icons are for. . .Don't tell me about ugly. . .I have yet to see a windows desktop that someone actually works with that isn't ugly.
"the Windows 95 GUI was prettier". . .What? When did that happen? It was. . .and always will be, I'll bet, lame beyond description. . .I have always gotten a kick, for an example, out of having to select the 'START" button to shut the bitch down (a feature that seems to work reliably only when when you are not pressed for time). Beauty is more than just expensive icons (not skin deep? I guess you would never hear a microserf supporting THAT idea!). For some, function is an element of beauty.
.Then you most certainly DIDN'T use it for ten minutes. . .much less 2 years. . .Perhaps you occasionally had contact with OS/2 over a two year period, but I know you didn't USE it.
.for someone habituated with the strange rituals needed to make Windows work the idea of a 'Context Menu' (simply right-click the object?) would be completely alien. . ."Oh! that's what that other mouse button is for!" . . .
.it sorta brands you as a dumbass that runs on autopilot. . .(WTF. . .OS/2 more confusing than WinXX? Weird!).
"the GUI on OS/2 was just freaking confusing". .
"change an icon" is "just horrible"? OK. .
In the future, don NOT admit that the OS/2 GUI confused you in front of people who might have actually used the OS. .
"the Windows 95 GUI was prettier". . .What? When did that happen? It was. . .and always will be, I'll bet, lame beyond description. . .I have always gotten a kick, for an example, out of having to select the 'START" button to shut the bitch down (a feature that seems to work reliably only when when you are not pressed for time). Beauty is more than just expensive icons (not skin deep? I guess you would never hear a microserf supporting THAT idea!). For some, function is an element of beauty.
"the GUI on OS/2 was just freaking confusing". . .The you most certainly DIDN'T use it for ten minutes. . .much less 2 years. . .Perhaps you occasionally had contact with OS/2 over a two year period, but I know you didn't USE it. "change an icon"? OK. . .for someone habituated with the strange rituals needed to make Windows work the idea of a 'Context Menu' (simply right-click the object?) would be completely alien. . ."Oh! that's what that other mouse button is for!" . . .
In the future, don NOT admit that the OS/2 GUI confused you in front of people who might have actually used the OS. . .it sorta brands you as a dumbass that runs on autopilot. . .(WTF. . .OS/2 more confusing than WinXX? Weird!).
"As long as governments have a monopoly on space, we as individuals have no opportunity." Well, I hate to intrude upon your fantasy here but governments have a monopoly on space exploration/exploitation because they are the only entities on the planet with the capital and . . .well. . .scope of vision to make it a reality. Corporations must show a profit each quarter, or at least the potential to make a profit in the near term or investors will lose interest (or should I say dividends? heheh!) and move their capital elsewhere.Corporations don't have the staying power to invest trillions in a project that could take decades to show any returns.
The first step to serious industry in space is the development of some heavy lift to orbit infrastructure. We are not talking competition with that AMC Pacer of the sky, the shuttle. . .here we're talking the spaceworthy equivalent of a 40,000 ton container ship. This, I am quite sure, is well beyond the means of any individuals on Earth and few corporation would be capable of it even if they devoted all of their resources to the task for a few decades.
On the other hand, the US government thinks nothing of slapping a few $trillion on the table for such items as Trident submarines and stealth bombers. A heavy lift to orbit infrastructure is well withing the abilities of governments. . .Get government out of the way and no one will do it. . .
"Remember how much hostility NASA reacted with when told that the Russians were going to let a paying customer go into space?"
Just because someone can pay you for the gas doesn't mean that they have the means to buy the car! This in no way what so ever indicates that private citizens (or even corporations for that matter) are willing or able to take on the task of off-planet infrastructure development. BTW, were there a commercial space station. . .say . . .like a novelty orbiting hotel built by Hilton. . .the price for a weekend there would be an order of magnitude greater than what our intrepid "paying customer" shelled out. . .In this latter case, the ticket price would have to cover things other than the cost of fuel to haul your carcass up to orbit. . .things like construction costs, crew and employee payroll, oh yeah, and profit. . .
NASA was upset by the RSA's plan because the International Space Station is being built with taxpayer dollars to coonduct serious research, not to be a playground for the rich and famous . .now if the rich and famous were willing to foot a substantial portion of the cost of construction, I'm sure that NASA would reconsider their position. . .
Face it. . .It is because of governments that we have done anything at all in space. If it hadn't been for the Soviets forcing the issue, we would still be wondering what the Earth looked like from more than a few thousand feet away. If the human race has a future in space, it will be governments that get us there. . .
Don't take my word on it though! Prove me wrong! Go ahead. . .build a starship. . .no one will stop you. . .If you are afraid of the US government intervening, just build your starship in the Dominican Republic. . .or Mexico. . .or Haiti. . .a few thousand dollars in bribes and you won't be hassled.
I have used OS/2 since 1993. I have never (except when required at work) used any version of Windows.
.I'm not missing anything there. . .
.I will admit that I dual boot this creature though. . .between eComStation and OS/2! I have a couple other machines for playing with the likes of Linux(Debian)and the HURD but I don't really use them for anything besides seeing what the latest themes are for Enlightenment(aren't they sooo cute?) or trying the latest ports for the HURD. For completeness, I also have a Mac and a SparcStation for playing with. . .I don't really spend much time with them though.
I have OS/2 on my primary development machine here at work (and on the poor victim-of-untested-code too!) I have a Debian test system here as well as a Win2K machine but they are just for testing the code that I am responsible for. All of my real work is done on OS/2. Sure, the victim machine is just a 486 but my main workstation is slightly more modern PIII 500 with all of the bells and whistles. .
My main home machine is a dual Athlon beast with even more bells and whistles. .
"is there even new software wich will run native on it?" Perhaps I've been living in a cave or something but I haven't noticed any rad new must-have apps out there. I have seen incremental improvements in word processors and the like but I haven't seen anything worth shelling out cash for.
Let me ammend that. I really like the latest version of Beyond Compare (I am a programmer after all) but that runs fine on OS/2.
What can you get in eCS that you cannot get in the various flavors of *nix-like OSes? How about a truely useful GUI. I can really appreciate the effort that has gone into making X look pretty but ergonomic it is not. After all of the improvements to X over the years, I still find myself opening a terminal window whenever I need to interact with the OS living under X. One really has to face the fact that even after all of the changes to the toolkits and window managers, X is still about fun to use as a dental drill (on oneself!). The key to the previous sentence is 'use'. I really enjoy playing with the desktop effects in Enlightenment and things like that. What I am refering to is the day to day use of the system to get work done. The *nixen currently available just are not all that pleasant to use (yet).
To wrap up, I write my code, I run my gnutella servent, I run my apache web server, I firewall my network, I surf the web, I watch my videos, I listen to my MP3s, read my email (virus free!) and a whole bunch more, on a machine with a lean, fast and rock solid OS that is remarkably fun and easy to use. What am I missing? It is hardly a "nostolgia OS" as it easily addresses all of my OS needs. I consider what I got when I bought eCS to be well worth the price.
Just to clear things up for you a little. . .eComStation is not an OpenSores project. You have to, like, PAY for it. If you shell out the extra cash to get the SMP version, then you do indeed get the option at install time to set up as UNI or SMP.