Jeez, man. Pull your head out of your ass. I'm a poor college student with a small budget, and I'm no genius- but I can make Linux do wonderful cool things like play my damn StarCraft game whenever I find the need to. I can use it to write my term papers, my reports for French (because of the incredible internationalization) and all of my presentation crap. I'm not that exceptional- maybe you use the wrong distro if you can't get anything done on Linux.
I mean, what else do I need from a computer? I can do email, type my papers, make presentations (with the KOffice components, which are a blessing), do 2D and 3D graphic design (GIMP and Blender), use the Net with Netscape Communicator or Mozilla, program in various languages (C++, C, Python....), Instant Message with my friends, and play the greatest computer game of all time- StarCraft. What else could you expect from a computer? I don't know, but I also expect it to stay up for weeks and months at a time- which Windows FAILS at miserably.
Peace, and maybe it's time to re-check some of what you said.
The point isn't whether or not Linux is fragmented; nor is it about whether or not Windows is fragmented. It is about the fact that Bill Gates himself, who we all know and either love/hate, claimed that one of the reasons that people probably WOULD NOT USE LINUX IS BECAUSE IT IS FRAGMENTED. Now that implies that Windows ISN'T fragmented; however, seeing as how there are innumerable different versions, we ALL know that this isn't true. That's what the article is about. It is just more proof that Micro$oft is hypocritical. Don't get your panties in a wad over whether or not Linux is fragmented; Linux himself agrees with that and doesn't apologize for it. But he doesn't criticize Windows or Bill Gates because of their product having the same fragmentation as his; I realize that that is on a much lesser scale (with Windows having at most ?30? different builds including all the different CE versions and Linux having what was it? 191 versions?) But the real question is this. How MANY of those windows versions ran, and currently do run, with as much uptime as ANY of the marked stable versions of Linux? Remember, EVERY RELEASE of windows is supposed to be stable unless marked otherwise. So 95, 95b, 95c, 98, 98SE, NT3.51, NTWS4.0, NTS4.0, NTES4.0, all of these are supposed to be stable. I won't claim that the versions of NT crash as much as the 9x versions, but they aren't (in my experience) as stable as Linux. Comments?
-Chris
Sorry about the dual posting
on
Some KDE news
·
· Score: 1
This is something that really impresses me about the KDE team. KDE2.0, even in pre-alpha stage, is so much more impressive stable than GNOME. There are definitely some issues to be worked out (like the fact that all of my icons aren't on the desktop, just in a small window on my screen) but there are some really impressive things going on especially with the KOffice suite. Now the thing is- is there public access via CVS or any other means to GNOME2.0? Is there even development going on with GNOME2.0? KDE is here to stay, and they've got a real road map- there's been work going on with KDE2.0 since 1.1 was released, and maybe even a little before that.... plus, have you seen the "GNOME Office suite"? There are at least three different word processors! Where's the coordination? I hate to bash GNOME (really, I do- I use GNOME plenty and I really like it) but they don't have as much of a future plan as KDE.
Also about the themes: I saw an earlier comment remarking about how they hoped the System style (themes are called "Styles" in KDE2.0) wasn't the default. No, it's not- the default is really impressive, and it's not a "theme" like for E or for GNOME. It's just a simple new way of making the desktop look and act a bit more futuristic. And also, about the System style itself: It is ten times more stable than any of the themes I've seen for E, save the default (BigClean) and ShinyMetal themes. The styles are really cool and not only that, but they also are functional. They work, which is more than I can say for some of the themes for the other desktop...
All in all, I'm pretty glad to be using Linux. The months ahead are looking better and better... and to the guy who wrote that in 5 years Linux will be the champion, I doubt that it will take that long.
This is something that really impresses me about the KDE team. KDE2.0, even in pre-alpha stage, is so much more impressive stable than GNOME. There are definitely some issues to be worked out (like the fact that all of my icons aren't on the desktop, just in a small window on my screen) but there are some really impressive things going on especially with the KOffice suite. Now the thing is- is there public access via CVS or any other means to GNOME2.0? Is there even development going on with GNOME2.0? KDE is here to stay, and they've got a real road map- there's been work going on with KDE2.0 since 1.1 was released, and maybe even a little before that.... plus, have you seen the "GNOME Office suite"? There are at least three different word processors! Where's the coordination? I hate to bash GNOME (really, I do- I use GNOME plenty and I really like it) but they don't have as much of a future plan as KDE.
Also about the themes: I saw an earlier comment remarking about how they hoped the System style (themes are called "Styles" in KDE2.0) wasn't the default. No, it's not- the default is really impressive, and it's not a "theme" like for E or for GNOME. It's just a simple new way of making the desktop look and act a bit more futuristic. And also, about the System style itself: It is ten times more stable than any of the themes I've seen for E, save the default (BigClean) and ShinyMetal themes. The styles are really cool and not only that, but they also are functional. They work, which is more than I can say for some of the themes for the other desktop...
All in all, I'm pretty glad to be using Linux. The months ahead are looking better and better... and to the guy who wrote that in 5 years Linux will be the champion, I doubt that it will take that long.
Hey, Mong- interesting reply. If you're using win95c, then more power to you- but I shouldn't talk about it since I haven't used it yet. Proficient w/ 95a and b, though- well, not exactly proficient. See, I can't get those damn blue screens to go away- and yes, I'm a *bit* smarter than the average user. Average Joe User ain't A+ certified and doesn't take college courses for his MCSE; at least, last time I checked he wasn't/didn't. But I have tweaked the progs, downloaded the service packs- and I've just gotten damn sick of it. If it works, no reason to change it- but for me, it didn't work- so I fixed it. Nope, didn't find any way to get into the code- I got another OS. Linux is all I really need- full programming environment, nice Desktop Environments, cool rippling backgrounds- hey, I'm set. *grin*
But if Windows is your bag, then that's your choice! That's the great thing- I have NEVER had great luck with Windows and stability (as a matter of fact, I've come to believe them to be mutually exclusive terms when it comes to each other), while I do like some of the ways that they do things. I liked the idea of icons- now, they're in Linux. I liked the user-definable backgrounds- GNOME takes this to another level, as does KDE. (What? Did someone say gradients?) And Enlightenment does that damn cool ripple thing- I have NEVER seen anything like it under Windows.
As the bottom line, if I wanted the same kind of an environment that I get under Linux (with good, rock-solid stability and a great selection of programming tools) under Windows, it would cost me more than I can afford as a simple college student- but Slackware4.0 cost me $1.99 at Cheapbytes. Can't beat that, for the cash... Plus, I love emacs. If I wanted the same kinds of tools- let's see, windowsNT4.0, workstation edition- about $400 last time I checked (correct me if I'm wrong) and Visual Studio costs anywhere from $200 to $500. A whole grand for some pretty tools? Nah. And besides, NT doesn't even run all the stuff that windows95 does. Ah well. Guess that's why I'm kinda happy with what I've got. Eh?
I thought it was well thought out... I was wondering when an easy-to-understand article by an articulate author would grace the 'unwashed' as Hemos put it...
All that I can say is I really *really* hope that KDE doesn't make any stability sacrifices in order to be more GNOME-compliant.... If I want a really pretty and slightly crashy desktop with incredible themes and a screwy file manager that doesn't do what I tell it to, I use KDE2.0 (the CVS version.)
It is really sweet. As a matter of fact, I'm posting from it right now- using Netscape. I have heard the complaints about it and I know why they exist- but as far as stability goes, Netscape makes the Konqueror look like a rickety bridge across a deep chasm. And Netscape crashes on me if I leave it on for more than an hour at a time... So far, the Konqueror has some really neat features and it is showing some real promise- but as DFaure says it's not ready for mass usage yet.
I have had absolutely no real stability issues though, not with the stable versions of KDE. When I feel like taking a break, I go ahead and use KDE1.1.1- and I do use GNOME from time to time. Damn, I have to say this at least- on an AMD K6-2 300, with 64MB of RAM, it is sure perty... the problem is that it crashes at least as much as the KDE2.0/Konqueror combination. GNOME+GMC crashes and I am left with the haunting "gdk: an x io error occurred" line on the command prompt all too often when I do use GNOME. Altogether though, I'm glad that it does at least drop me back to the command line- at least the entire system doesn't require a reboot....
I really *hate* saying this, because it's *probably* flamebait that I'm being so smug... but in all of my Linux installs, (which at this point are innumerable... I love fscking around with different distros. Current fave? gotta be the Slack...) I have never had to "muck around with dozens of textfiles" as you claim. If I want things to run differently then hell, yeah, I alter things- but sometimes without even knowing it. e.g.: if I wanted to reconfigure my mouse, I could look for and find the textfile where the mouse configuration is stored. Or, under Slack, I could run "mouseconfig" and have the script determine for me where the mouse is. Do I need to know? Yep. Do I need to "muck with a textfile"? Nope. The script, which presents a pretty little interface, does it for me. Same with RedHat. Haven't tried Caldera, but SuSE's got YaST, and Debian.... well, there's always Debian.
See, that's kinda also what it's about. You've got choice! Let's see you go out and buy Digital Research Windows. Or perhaps QWindows. Oh, wait a second- you CAN'T. Why not? There's no CHOICE, that's why not. At least, even with DOS, we had a choice.... and at this point, I've rebuilt my slackware 4.0 kernel twice. No problems yet, and the only reasons for a rebuild were: 1) wanted new features and 2) wanted kernel 2.2.10 and when I was updating to 2.2.10, I figured "ah, what the hell- I'll upgrade to glibc2.1 as well" and know what? the damn thing is FASTER than it was before! How is that possible?
With MS-DOS 6.22, you could notice almost no slowdown when running a program or executing a command on a 486DX2-66. But the same computer, running Windows3.1, was just a tad slower. Pile a Windows95 upgrade on there, and the sucker can hardly breathe. Upgrade again to Windows98SE and guess what? You have to wait a full 20 SECONDS before you get a reaction from a double-click on the desktop. Even under KDE, resource hog that it is, the lag is only about 5-10 seconds. Not 20. And the machine has stock RAM, 16MB of it- nothing fancy like EDO, but regular old non-parity RAM. A 1.6 GB hard drive, too. The best thing I ever did for it was installing Slack. And it's not that hard, either. Peace.
IIRC, there was a LARGE amount of anti-KDE feeling in general mostly because KDE was dependent on the QT toolkit. Opera, which looks to kick MAJOR ass, and is definitely the browser I'm going to be running (even if it only has HALF of the features of the Windows version) is also based on the QT toolkit. What is Mozilla based on? Forgive my ignorance, I can't recall if they're still using the Motif/Lesstif libraries or if they're now using the GTK.... This should be interesting. Opera, most likely (unless there is a HUGE amount of *polite* email requesting otherwise) will not include the source code for their browser.
Personally, I have a bit of a problem w/ that, but Mozilla (while nice) has been disappointing (the betas, at least.) Yeah, I know they're only betas- but when can we get a NON-BLOATED browser that works with source and fully free licenses? (Just because it's not the GPL doesn't mean it ain't free, BTW) I will definitely try out the final version of Mozilla, don't get me wrong- and the Konqueror kicks MAJOR ass (what, don't you know what it is? time to get into some CVS, methinks...) but so far Konqy is still lacking in some HTML/Java support (it doesn't render out dear/. properly yet) but when do we get that killer browser? IE is nice, it's a pretty little toy, but I don't like it enough that I'd want to run it on my machine. Even if M$ DID release it for Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeez, man. Pull your head out of your ass. I'm a poor college student with a small budget, and I'm no genius- but I can make Linux do wonderful cool things like play my damn StarCraft game whenever I find the need to. I can use it to write my term papers, my reports for French (because of the incredible internationalization) and all of my presentation crap. I'm not that exceptional- maybe you use the wrong distro if you can't get anything done on Linux.
I mean, what else do I need from a computer? I can do email, type my papers, make presentations (with the KOffice components, which are a blessing), do 2D and 3D graphic design (GIMP and Blender), use the Net with Netscape Communicator or Mozilla, program in various languages (C++, C, Python....), Instant Message with my friends, and play the greatest computer game of all time- StarCraft. What else could you expect from a computer? I don't know, but I also expect it to stay up for weeks and months at a time- which Windows FAILS at miserably.
Peace, and maybe it's time to re-check some of what you said.
The point isn't whether or not Linux is fragmented; nor is it about whether or not Windows is fragmented. It is about the fact that Bill Gates himself, who we all know and either love/hate, claimed that one of the reasons that people probably WOULD NOT USE LINUX IS BECAUSE IT IS FRAGMENTED. Now that implies that Windows ISN'T fragmented; however, seeing as how there are innumerable different versions, we ALL know that this isn't true. That's what the article is about. It is just more proof that Micro$oft is hypocritical. Don't get your panties in a wad over whether or not Linux is fragmented; Linux himself agrees with that and doesn't apologize for it. But he doesn't criticize Windows or Bill Gates because of their product having the same fragmentation as his; I realize that that is on a much lesser scale (with Windows having at most ?30? different builds including all the different CE versions and Linux having what was it? 191 versions?) But the real question is this. How MANY of those windows versions ran, and currently do run, with as much uptime as ANY of the marked stable versions of Linux? Remember, EVERY RELEASE of windows is supposed to be stable unless marked otherwise. So 95, 95b, 95c, 98, 98SE, NT3.51, NTWS4.0, NTS4.0, NTES4.0, all of these are supposed to be stable. I won't claim that the versions of NT crash as much as the 9x versions, but they aren't (in my experience) as stable as Linux. Comments?
-Chris
Sorry about that.... ::slaps self in face:: d'oh!
This is something that really impresses me about the KDE team. KDE2.0, even in pre-alpha stage, is so much more impressive stable than GNOME. There are definitely some issues to be worked out (like the fact that all of my icons aren't on the desktop, just in a small window on my screen) but there are some really impressive things going on especially with the KOffice suite. Now the thing is- is there public access via CVS or any other means to GNOME2.0? Is there even development going on with GNOME2.0? KDE is here to stay, and they've got a real road map- there's been work going on with KDE2.0 since 1.1 was released, and maybe even a little before that.... plus, have you seen the "GNOME Office suite"? There are at least three different word processors! Where's the coordination? I hate to bash GNOME (really, I do- I use GNOME plenty and I really like it) but they don't have as much of a future plan as KDE.
Also about the themes: I saw an earlier comment remarking about how they hoped the System style (themes are called "Styles" in KDE2.0) wasn't the default. No, it's not- the default is really impressive, and it's not a "theme" like for E or for GNOME. It's just a simple new way of making the desktop look and act a bit more futuristic. And also, about the System style itself: It is ten times more stable than any of the themes I've seen for E, save the default (BigClean) and ShinyMetal themes. The styles are really cool and not only that, but they also are functional. They work, which is more than I can say for some of the themes for the other desktop...
All in all, I'm pretty glad to be using Linux. The months ahead are looking better and better... and to the guy who wrote that in 5 years Linux will be the champion, I doubt that it will take that long.
Also, one last thing: Has anyone seen/used Windows 2000betaX©? Seems like the more rehashed Windows© gets, the more it looks like KDE... oh, yeah, and everybody who claims that KDE isn't as advanced as Windows95/98/NT has to remember: KDE is only at MajorVersion 1. Wait til WE get to version 4.0....
This is something that really impresses me about the KDE team. KDE2.0, even in pre-alpha stage, is so much more impressive stable than GNOME. There are definitely some issues to be worked out (like the fact that all of my icons aren't on the desktop, just in a small window on my screen) but there are some really impressive things going on especially with the KOffice suite. Now the thing is- is there public access via CVS or any other means to GNOME2.0? Is there even development going on with GNOME2.0? KDE is here to stay, and they've got a real road map- there's been work going on with KDE2.0 since 1.1 was released, and maybe even a little before that.... plus, have you seen the "GNOME Office suite"? There are at least three different word processors! Where's the coordination? I hate to bash GNOME (really, I do- I use GNOME plenty and I really like it) but they don't have as much of a future plan as KDE.
Also about the themes: I saw an earlier comment remarking about how they hoped the System style (themes are called "Styles" in KDE2.0) wasn't the default. No, it's not- the default is really impressive, and it's not a "theme" like for E or for GNOME. It's just a simple new way of making the desktop look and act a bit more futuristic. And also, about the System style itself: It is ten times more stable than any of the themes I've seen for E, save the default (BigClean) and ShinyMetal themes. The styles are really cool and not only that, but they also are functional. They work, which is more than I can say for some of the themes for the other desktop...
All in all, I'm pretty glad to be using Linux. The months ahead are looking better and better... and to the guy who wrote that in 5 years Linux will be the champion, I doubt that it will take that long.
Also, one last thing: Has anyone seen/used Windows 2000betaX©? Seems like the more rehashed Windows© gets, the more it looks like KDE... oh, yeah, and everybody who claims that KDE isn't as advanced as Windows95/98/NT has to remember: KDE is only at MajorVersion 1. Wait til WE get to version 4.0....
Hey, Mong-
interesting reply. If you're using win95c, then more power to you- but I shouldn't talk about it since I haven't used it yet. Proficient w/ 95a and b, though- well, not exactly proficient. See, I can't get those damn blue screens to go away- and yes, I'm a *bit* smarter than the average user. Average Joe User ain't A+ certified and doesn't take college courses for his MCSE; at least, last time I checked he wasn't/didn't. But I have tweaked the progs, downloaded the service packs- and I've just gotten damn sick of it. If it works, no reason to change it- but for me, it didn't work- so I fixed it. Nope, didn't find any way to get into the code- I got another OS. Linux is all I really need- full programming environment, nice Desktop Environments, cool rippling backgrounds- hey, I'm set. *grin*
But if Windows is your bag, then that's your choice! That's the great thing- I have NEVER had great luck with Windows and stability (as a matter of fact, I've come to believe them to be mutually exclusive terms when it comes to each other), while I do like some of the ways that they do things. I liked the idea of icons- now, they're in Linux. I liked the user-definable backgrounds- GNOME takes this to another level, as does KDE. (What? Did someone say gradients?) And Enlightenment does that damn cool ripple thing- I have NEVER seen anything like it under Windows.
As the bottom line, if I wanted the same kind of an environment that I get under Linux (with good, rock-solid stability and a great selection of programming tools) under Windows, it would cost me more than I can afford as a simple college student- but Slackware4.0 cost me $1.99 at Cheapbytes. Can't beat that, for the cash... Plus, I love emacs. If I wanted the same kinds of tools- let's see, windowsNT4.0, workstation edition- about $400 last time I checked (correct me if I'm wrong) and Visual Studio costs anywhere from $200 to $500. A whole grand for some pretty tools? Nah. And besides, NT doesn't even run all the stuff that windows95 does. Ah well. Guess that's why I'm kinda happy with what I've got. Eh?
I thought it was well thought out... I was wondering when an easy-to-understand article by an articulate author would grace the 'unwashed' as Hemos put it...
All that I can say is I really *really* hope that KDE doesn't make any stability sacrifices in order to be more GNOME-compliant.... If I want a really pretty and slightly crashy desktop with incredible themes and a screwy file manager that doesn't do what I tell it to, I use KDE2.0 (the CVS version.)
It is really sweet. As a matter of fact, I'm posting from it right now- using Netscape. I have heard the complaints about it and I know why they exist- but as far as stability goes, Netscape makes the Konqueror look like a rickety bridge across a deep chasm. And Netscape crashes on me if I leave it on for more than an hour at a time... So far, the Konqueror has some really neat features and it is showing some real promise- but as DFaure says it's not ready for mass usage yet.
I have had absolutely no real stability issues though, not with the stable versions of KDE. When I feel like taking a break, I go ahead and use KDE1.1.1- and I do use GNOME from time to time. Damn, I have to say this at least- on an AMD K6-2 300, with 64MB of RAM, it is sure perty... the problem is that it crashes at least as much as the KDE2.0/Konqueror combination. GNOME+GMC crashes and I am left with the haunting "gdk: an x io error occurred" line on the command prompt all too often when I do use GNOME. Altogether though, I'm glad that it does at least drop me back to the command line- at least the entire system doesn't require a reboot....
I really *hate* saying this, because it's *probably* flamebait that I'm being so smug... but in all of my Linux installs, (which at this point are innumerable... I love fscking around with different distros. Current fave? gotta be the Slack...) I have never had to "muck around with dozens of textfiles" as you claim. If I want things to run differently then hell, yeah, I alter things- but sometimes without even knowing it. e.g.: if I wanted to reconfigure my mouse, I could look for and find the textfile where the mouse configuration is stored. Or, under Slack, I could run "mouseconfig" and have the script determine for me where the mouse is. Do I need to know? Yep. Do I need to "muck with a textfile"? Nope. The script, which presents a pretty little interface, does it for me. Same with RedHat. Haven't tried Caldera, but SuSE's got YaST, and Debian.... well, there's always Debian.
See, that's kinda also what it's about. You've got choice! Let's see you go out and buy Digital Research Windows. Or perhaps QWindows. Oh, wait a second- you CAN'T. Why not? There's no CHOICE, that's why not. At least, even with DOS, we had a choice.... and at this point, I've rebuilt my slackware 4.0 kernel twice. No problems yet, and the only reasons for a rebuild were:
1) wanted new features and
2) wanted kernel 2.2.10
and when I was updating to 2.2.10, I figured "ah, what the hell- I'll upgrade to glibc2.1 as well" and know what? the damn thing is FASTER than it was before! How is that possible?
With MS-DOS 6.22, you could notice almost no slowdown when running a program or executing a command on a 486DX2-66. But the same computer, running Windows3.1, was just a tad slower. Pile a Windows95 upgrade on there, and the sucker can hardly breathe. Upgrade again to Windows98SE and guess what? You have to wait a full 20 SECONDS before you get a reaction from a double-click on the desktop. Even under KDE, resource hog that it is, the lag is only about 5-10 seconds. Not 20. And the machine has stock RAM, 16MB of it- nothing fancy like EDO, but regular old non-parity RAM. A 1.6 GB hard drive, too. The best thing I ever did for it was installing Slack. And it's not that hard, either. Peace.
-Chris
IIRC, there was a LARGE amount of anti-KDE feeling in general mostly because KDE was dependent on the QT toolkit. Opera, which looks to kick MAJOR ass, and is definitely the browser I'm going to be running (even if it only has HALF of the features of the Windows version) is also based on the QT toolkit. What is Mozilla based on? Forgive my ignorance, I can't recall if they're still using the Motif/Lesstif libraries or if they're now using the GTK.... This should be interesting. Opera, most likely (unless there is a HUGE amount of *polite* email requesting otherwise) will not include the source code for their browser.
/. properly yet) but when do we get that killer browser? IE is nice, it's a pretty little toy, but I don't like it enough that I'd want to run it on my machine. Even if M$ DID release it for Linux.
Personally, I have a bit of a problem w/ that, but Mozilla (while nice) has been disappointing (the betas, at least.) Yeah, I know they're only betas- but when can we get a NON-BLOATED browser that works with source and fully free licenses? (Just because it's not the GPL doesn't mean it ain't free, BTW) I will definitely try out the final version of Mozilla, don't get me wrong- and the Konqueror kicks MAJOR ass (what, don't you know what it is? time to get into some CVS, methinks...) but so far Konqy is still lacking in some HTML/Java support (it doesn't render out dear