What about having built-in support for all the distributions? If it's a small issue, it shouldn't be that dificult.
If it's a small issue you can do it yourself. And even if it is simply small issues, it adds up to big money doing quality assurance for 39 distros since no two are likely to have the same issues. You don't seem to have much comprehension of what's involved in getting a commercial product ready. Nor do you seem to respect the fact that a business might wish to exercise THEIR rights by keeping THEIR code proprietary.
Okay, then I have no idea what you're talking about. Code Warrior probably will, as far as I could guess, work with any Linux distro. Some people are whining because Metrowerks is calling their product "Code Warrior for Red Hat Linux." They are whining if in fact the product will work with any distro.
Metrowerks is perfectly within their rights to certify their product for a single distro if they wish. To certify for many is non-trivial if there are significant differences between them. If there are no significant differences then the whiners need to shut up because the product will work fine for them. These people are crying like babies because it appeared Metrowerks wasn't going to release a "Code Warrior for [insert-almost-unheard-of-distro-name-here]".
I never said RedHat didn't follow the standards, nor did i even imply it.
I misread your post. I thought you were suggesting that Red Hat doesn't use the LSB when in fact you were suggesting that Metrowerks follow it. My apologies.
rpm will never be standard, because it is inferior to deb.
I won't presume to judge the merits of the two. But superior products don't always win. Ask Sony about Beta. Look at Microsoft. If rpm becomes standard, it may very well have nothing to do with its quality compared to other alternatives.
This doesn't really answer my question, and it's a feeble argument anyway.
Considering that Red Hat adheres to the FSSTND, the number of file location issues is probably very minimal, isn't it? If that's true, it's a weak argument/complaint.
Worst of all, you ignored the substance of my post, which is that this is how business works. There aren't going to be 39 customized versions of any commercial product because, quite simply, it's not worth it. It's especially not worth it when there is a clear leader like Red Hat to aim at.
The alternative is to pay exorbitant prices for something that can be customized to satisfy you...but then I suppose people would whine about that too.
I'm not saying Red Hat's perfect at all. I'm especially not fond of the price hike for 6.0. But too many people damn them like satanists when there is plenty of reason to dispute that (witness their firm support of the GPL, releasing their own code under it as well).
This is my question as well. What's the big deal? Are there "proprietary" things in Red Hat? Nope. Are there non-"standard" file locations/configurations? file location issues can be fixed in the worst case with a symlink, can't they? And as for the configuration issue...well, it's an IDE, not a critical system program. In other words, it's in user space. So how can it be affected by anything "non-standard" that RedHat does?
As for the feasibility of supporting 39 distributions: Consider whether you, going to the software store, would want to fish around through 39 boxes that all otherwise look the same, looking for the one that says "My Gonzo Distro" or whatever. Business realities are what they are. You can't make them go away by wishing real hard. It costs extra money to package those 39 different "versions" (if really needed). It costs more in support.
Choices have to be made. If there's a real market, they ought to be able to convince some vendor or other to make "My Gonzo Linux" versions of anything. If there's not -- they won't. It's business, not a religion, and not even politics.
Sell maybe RedHat, Debian, (insert any major distro i forgot here) versions in stores. Put the logo on the front to indicate which distro it's for. As for the rest, how about a pull-down list on the website? "Select your distro" and it sends you to the right place. Download direct or mail-order 6-8 weeks.
There's more to it than just packaging, but even if there wasn't someone would whine about that instead. They just can't be happy. "YoYo app for Red Hat gets sold in stores, but not for Gonzo Linux! No Fair!" Don't say it wouldn't happen, because you know better.
But there *is* more to it than that, as others have said: there's all the quality assurance stuff that goes into making sure that 39 different versions all work the same.
You can't say that the differences are minor; if they are then there's no need for 39 different versions of a commercial app. If the differences really are significant, then quality assurance has to be done, or the users of Gonzo Linux will whine about how "Red Hat's version of YoYo works better than ours! Waaah!!"
Lastly, I suggested that other distros could actually use symlinks if necessary. And Red Hat *does* support the FSSTND and they are actively supporting LSB. So there's a lot of needless crying going on about this, AFAIC.
KDE isn't any more like windows than it is the Mac GUI, or NextStep or OS/2.
Hunh? Have you ever compared (for instance) the display properties applets of KDE and Windows? You don't think these two are a lot alike? How about a taskbar/panel? Or "Start" menu? Trash can? Auto-start folder? Shortcuts?
In fact, when I first tried KDE (during Beta 1), I read a FAQ from them where they said something to this effect: "We don't view this as copying Windows; we view this as taking the best from it and beating Microsoft over the head with it." Yes, there are differences (and there are definite improvements in KDE, too -- like editable *.kdelnk files, for instance). But to say that the two aren't very similar seems silly. Even the key bindings are extremely similar!
but you might find a web browser, e-mail client and word processor easier to use if they interoperate well and have consistent UIs.
A consistent UI is dependent upon the toolkit, not a "desktop environment." It is dependent upon developers working together to use that toolkit to make things work consistently. Certainly this has benefits, and you're right about that. But as to the integration -- isn't this something that is really NOT of benefit to everyone? Not everyone needs to be able to edit spreadsheets from within a word processor. Why should those who don't need such "features" be expected to suffer the overhead associated with them in their UI? Of course with Linux one has choice -- but that's beside the point. I am being told that GNOME and/or KDE represent the wave of the future for Linux GUIs. What if Joe User wants to use GNOME because he thinks it's cool but doesn't need all the "integration" junk? He's stuck with it. He can't turn it off, either -- just like Windows. No choice.
I'm not trying to be revolutionary. One of the *major* things I love about Linux is how fast it is. But it's *not* as fast at all running these big GUIs. It's manifestly slower. Why should I give up that speed for the sake of "integration"?
The NSA is not "right". They aren't offering even a plausible excuse. "Attorney-client privilege"?? HA!
Besides if you aren't doing something bad then why should you worry?
Is this a troll? "If you don't have anything to hide, why should you be bothered by mandatory searches of your home?" Get a clue, please.
With any form of security can/will come sacrifice.
I'm reminded of this Ben Franklin quote (this is probably rough, but it's close): "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither."
You seem to labor under what is a common misunderstanding today: that it is safe to entrust to government our safety and liberties. Nothing could be further from the truth, and that is precisely what the writers of the Constitution were attempting to prevent. The government has no vested interest in your liberty. Only you do.
Oh well, freedom is an illusion, but the illusion is good enough for me.
"If I have to choose between the real world and the matrix, then I choose the matrix."
I'm not trying to be totally off-topic here; I guess the obvious question is the same as in the movie: why would you want to be satisfied with an illusion?
Of course, the boys at the NSA are thrilled to read you saying that.
What exactly is it about an "environment" that is so enthralling? Drag and drop? Granted, it can be a handy thing, but is it worth the overhead?
If not drag and drop, then what?
Is it a unified look and feel? Can't this be had by using apps based on one toolkit, for less overhead?
Is it integrated apps? Setting aside KOffice for the moment (since it's not *quite* ready), what other "integrated" apps are there (not counting app-swallowing panels, since panels aren't (IMO) an essential part of an "environment" and since that functionality already exists in window managers lacking an "environment")?
Is the big attraction having a "desktop"? What work do you do on it? What benefits does it add?
I'm not trying to be a pain in the neck. I'm literally at a loss for what exactly the benefits are that a window manager like Window Maker or AfterStep doesn't provide. After 4 years of Windows 9X/NT and after spending time with KDE, I still don't see what the benefit is of a "desktop" other than a place for icons to generate clutter. Why do I need that? I do all my work in applications, not on a desktop. So what does this add?
I didn't know that about E. That's good, though. Now that I think about it, maybe *all* apps of any substance (e.g., who cares if 'ls' segfaults, apart from possible security issues) ought to be trapping for SEGVs, so they can die gracefully (i.e., without leaving you high and dry so often). I think emacs does this -- I can't remember ever losing anything in an emacs crash (and the only time I've seen emacs die is when running in X and X or the window mangler dies).
Nevertheless, a crash per week isn't what I'd call 'stable.' I've been running Window Maker for *months* and never had a crash till this week.
I'm not bad-mouthing E, and I know you said that this was an unstable version. I'm just pointing out that a crash/week ain't anything to write home about.
I have to agree that Window Maker is wonderfully stable. Two days ago I managed to segfault it (I'm not even sure how...some weird click event related to Netscape), and *boom*.
Did WM drop me to a command line? Did it dump me out of my running apps (including some coding)? Did it freeze the keyboard, leaving me high and dry?
NO it did not! Instead, WM actually trapped SIGSEGV and popped up a dialog asking me what I wanted to do (drop to the CLI, or restart WM)!!
THIS is how window managers should behave when there's a problem. There's nothing more galling than losing some work or time to a window manager crash. I suppose there are things that Window Maker can't catch, but I was duly impressed that it caught this. I'm a Window Maker fan for sure.
Okay, that seems like a reasonable (and honest) answer.
Now, what benefits are generally available from having applications that can communicate via CORBA? I know certainly that there are specific circumstances when this can be useful, but what particular benefit is there on a day-to-day basis that I'd want to suffer the overhead of running CORBA and a desktop environment in order to have it?
How is a desktop environment necessary for the use of CORBA? Can't I use CORBA without a "DE", thereby saving the resources?
Again, I'm not trying to be a butthead about this. I just wonder about the rather Microsoft-esque goods that we're all starting to swallow, and wondering about the benefits I'm supposed to realize from them. Everyone grumps about the M$ interface, but it appears to my poor vision that KDE and GNOME are striving to be nothing more than better implementations of what M$ has already done. Is that really the best course? How am I *really* going to benefit from giving up a load of RAM and CPU time to GNOME and KDE? I'm not saying that there aren't folk out there who really need that sort of stuff for their work -- so I'm by no means saying that GNOME/KDE are a waste of time. I just don't know what benefit *I* am supposed to obtain from them.
So: Why should I use either one? What are the benefits?
I have *never* in my life complained about another person's sig before, no matter how profane or crass they were. In this case I have to make an exception.
I hope you'll seriously consider changing your sig. To make a joke out of the deaths in Colorado -- particularly while the wound is still fresh, so to speak -- is in appallingly bad taste.
Perhaps you meant something else entirely. I can only hope so. But in view of what is an obvious interpretation of your sig for Americans, I hope you'll seriously consider using something else.
For Windows 95: "Guess I'll have to shell out $90 for the 98 upgrade now."
For Windows 98: "I sure hope that there aren't any more delays on that service release! It's been a year already! I hope this bug's covered in it or I'll have to wait another 6 to 8 months!"
For Windows NT: "Lessee, I can apply this 'unsupported' hotfix that Microsoft released...or I can wait for Service Pack 6 due in 3-6 months..."
Meanwhile, for Linux, it's this: "5 hours for a patch? What TOOK so long???"
By Microsoft's own admission (before the article was taken off their Knowledge Base), Windows NT and 9x can only be on for 49.7 days - max - before it will crash... of course, most people can't make NT or 9x run for more than a few days
This is not quite accurate. The actual bug was in Windows 95 (still in 98? Don't know). They discovered that the uptime counter rolled over after approximately the number of days you mentioned, and crashed the box. This was discovered, if I remember correctly, earlier this year (it seems that in 3 and 1/2 years NO ONE had ever successfully kept a Win95 box up for that long!).
NT, however, does not suffer from this particular bug. I have a client who managed to keep his NT box up for at least 78 days -- mostly because the machine was so little used (he's an exec, not a geek). After 78 or so days, he had next to no free RAM left for anything. The leaks in the OS itself had plugged the system horribly. Nevertheless, this man did successfully run it for 78+ days.
...what is Perl itself written in? Perl, or C? My, how orthogonal. How modernist.
I like Perl a lot. It's easy, fast, and cool. But I too weary at times of the idea that Perl is "better" than other languages because it's so free-form.
The only way post-modernism -- including Perl -- can really work is if there is a "modernist" foundation under it. When everyone literally abandons ethical standards (because "there's more than one way to do it"), we have chaos. So too with Perl: it is dependent upon an orthogonal OS to even run! Or shall we rewrite Linux in Perl?
His principles can only be applied so far. Which means they're not useful for everything. Just like Perl.
Meanwhile, MY post is being moderated to a zero. Go figure. I realize that the moderation is wildly subjective, but I can't help wondering what exactly it was in my post that got it ticked down.
It is...ironic...(ahem) that you would complain about the email account another poster chooses to publicize here on Slashdot, MR. ANONYMOUS COWARD.
Setting aside the cowardice and grotesque hypocrisy you have now demonstrated, did you ever stop to consider that there are actually good reasons why he might not wish to use the Red Hat account when posting here? Like this, for instance: if he posts with redhat.com associated with his name, his personal opinions have the taint of being "official." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Donnie ain't Bob Young.
Finally, perhaps you could seriously stop and think for a minute before posting such an irrelevant load of useless flamage.
Honestly, the similarities between these three now are so pronounced that I don't know what you mean. The GNOME/KDE panel is more customizable than the default WinXX (i.e., no IE desktop enhancements) taskbar, but aside from scrolling off to one side I don't see much difference in any of them.
All three have "Start" menus. I can't tell you how many times I've heard WinXX and KDE cursed over that thing, and now all three have it.
I can't tell you how many times KDE and WinXX have been cursed over their file manglers,...and now all three have just about the same thing, interface-wise (though Exploder sucks rocks in comparison to gmc & kfm).
Granted, KDE is much less unabashed about its roots, interface-wise, in Windows, but as far as I'm concerned the three are about equivalent.
And take a look at the default desktop for RH6 if you want to see something "reminiscent" of Windows.
Window Maker & AfterStep are genuinely different in interface from Windows; I'm not even sure you could make them look like Windows without adding at least the GNOME/KDE panel to them.
I uninstalled both Gnome and KDE within a day or two of installing RH6, because the machine was dragging. They're gone, and I'm not reinstalling them simply to satisfy your craving for numbers. If that makes you think you've won, then fine. I disagree. Sorry.:-)
Nevertheless, it hardly needs to be said that I am not alone in my assessment. Read the posts in this thread. Apart from those who explicitly agree with me, I am likewise joined in my assessment by those who only managed to say "we have to endure some bloat to have a good GUI" or "the only alternative is CLI -- no thanks" or somesuch. While I do not share their conclusions that this situation is either inevitable or necessarily superior to the CLI (don't misunderstand that as a statement of preference for the CLI), these folk implicitly acknowledge that there is bloat -- and they either don't care or don't see any way to avoid it.
By my reading, it is you who are in the minority in denying that there's bloat.
Oh well. I doubt you'll agree. It doesn't matter. Enjoy Gnome or KDE -- whichever you use. I'll enjoy no-Gnome Window Maker (and its lightweightness relative to its features).
One last note -- I read on LWN today that someone in the KDE camp is looking into ways to enhance its performance! Good for them (and an implicit admission that there IS a problem)!
If you really think that NT isn't bloated, then you and I have more than a simple difference of opinion. We live in different universes entirely. NT in 32MB is utterly intolerable. NT in 64MB is almost intolerable. I have only found NT to be tolerably fast on a machine with 128MB of RAM.
So if you really believe what you have written, I understand how you might think that Gnome and KDE don't suffer from bloat.
And I think you're wrong.
Re:You're not paying even minimal attention.
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 1
It seems to me that my minimal comparison is sufficient for my point. I realize that more detailed data is available with top, but it ought to be sufficient to compare with 'free' as I did so long as conditions are the same for each contestant. I could be wrong, I readily admit -- but if I am, please explain how it is that Gnome/KDE could give higher 'used' reports with 'free' and yet not be using 20MB more than no-Gnome Window Maker. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here; if I'm wrong this discrepancy must be explained.
Themes and The Road To Bloat
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 1
I've noticed this too under Window Maker (i.e., no GTK themes in use there). My findings were for the default configurations of RH6.0 Gnome/Enlightenment and KDE vs. my own custom-compiled Window Maker (I had to do this because the one included with RH6 is Gnomified and I couldn't run it without Gnome -- which is specifically what I wanted).
I agree with you that the present conditions are not set in stone. I surely hope that the Gnome/KDE folks will go back and try to optimize their stuff. Their efforts are still very young despite the amazing amount of functionality they have... I just hope that they aren't just ignoring the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's a small issue you can do it yourself. And even if it is simply small issues, it adds up to big money doing quality assurance for 39 distros since no two are likely to have the same issues. You don't seem to have much comprehension of what's involved in getting a commercial product ready. Nor do you seem to respect the fact that a business might wish to exercise THEIR rights by keeping THEIR code proprietary.
Okay, then I have no idea what you're talking about. Code Warrior probably will, as far as I could guess, work with any Linux distro. Some people are whining because Metrowerks is calling their product "Code Warrior for Red Hat Linux." They are whining if in fact the product will work with any distro.
Metrowerks is perfectly within their rights to certify their product for a single distro if they wish. To certify for many is non-trivial if there are significant differences between them. If there are no significant differences then the whiners need to shut up because the product will work fine for them. These people are crying like babies because it appeared Metrowerks wasn't going to release a "Code Warrior for [insert-almost-unheard-of-distro-name-here]".
I never said RedHat didn't follow the standards, nor did i even imply it.
I misread your post. I thought you were suggesting that Red Hat doesn't use the LSB when in fact you were suggesting that Metrowerks follow it. My apologies.
I won't presume to judge the merits of the two. But superior products don't always win. Ask Sony about Beta. Look at Microsoft. If rpm becomes standard, it may very well have nothing to do with its quality compared to other alternatives.
Considering that Red Hat adheres to the FSSTND, the number of file location issues is probably very minimal, isn't it? If that's true, it's a weak argument/complaint.
Worst of all, you ignored the substance of my post, which is that this is how business works. There aren't going to be 39 customized versions of any commercial product because, quite simply, it's not worth it. It's especially not worth it when there is a clear leader like Red Hat to aim at.
The alternative is to pay exorbitant prices for something that can be customized to satisfy you...but then I suppose people would whine about that too.
I'm not saying Red Hat's perfect at all. I'm especially not fond of the price hike for 6.0. But too many people damn them like satanists when there is plenty of reason to dispute that (witness their firm support of the GPL, releasing their own code under it as well).
As for the feasibility of supporting 39 distributions: Consider whether you, going to the software store, would want to fish around through 39 boxes that all otherwise look the same, looking for the one that says "My Gonzo Distro" or whatever. Business realities are what they are. You can't make them go away by wishing real hard. It costs extra money to package those 39 different "versions" (if really needed). It costs more in support.
Choices have to be made. If there's a real market, they ought to be able to convince some vendor or other to make "My Gonzo Linux" versions of anything. If there's not -- they won't. It's business, not a religion, and not even politics.
There's more to it than just packaging, but even if there wasn't someone would whine about that instead. They just can't be happy. "YoYo app for Red Hat gets sold in stores, but not for Gonzo Linux! No Fair!" Don't say it wouldn't happen, because you know better.
But there *is* more to it than that, as others have said: there's all the quality assurance stuff that goes into making sure that 39 different versions all work the same.
You can't say that the differences are minor; if they are then there's no need for 39 different versions of a commercial app. If the differences really are significant, then quality assurance has to be done, or the users of Gonzo Linux will whine about how "Red Hat's version of YoYo works better than ours! Waaah!!"
Lastly, I suggested that other distros could actually use symlinks if necessary. And Red Hat *does* support the FSSTND and they are actively supporting LSB. So there's a lot of needless crying going on about this, AFAIC.
Hunh? Have you ever compared (for instance) the display properties applets of KDE and Windows? You don't think these two are a lot alike? How about a taskbar/panel? Or "Start" menu? Trash can? Auto-start folder? Shortcuts?
In fact, when I first tried KDE (during Beta 1), I read a FAQ from them where they said something to this effect: "We don't view this as copying Windows; we view this as taking the best from it and beating Microsoft over the head with it." Yes, there are differences (and there are definite improvements in KDE, too -- like editable *.kdelnk files, for instance). But to say that the two aren't very similar seems silly. Even the key bindings are extremely similar!
but you might find a web browser, e-mail client and word processor easier to use if they interoperate well and have consistent UIs.
A consistent UI is dependent upon the toolkit, not a "desktop environment." It is dependent upon developers working together to use that toolkit to make things work consistently. Certainly this has benefits, and you're right about that. But as to the integration -- isn't this something that is really NOT of benefit to everyone? Not everyone needs to be able to edit spreadsheets from within a word processor. Why should those who don't need such "features" be expected to suffer the overhead associated with them in their UI? Of course with Linux one has choice -- but that's beside the point. I am being told that GNOME and/or KDE represent the wave of the future for Linux GUIs. What if Joe User wants to use GNOME because he thinks it's cool but doesn't need all the "integration" junk? He's stuck with it. He can't turn it off, either -- just like Windows. No choice.
I'm not trying to be revolutionary. One of the *major* things I love about Linux is how fast it is. But it's *not* as fast at all running these big GUIs. It's manifestly slower. Why should I give up that speed for the sake of "integration"?
Besides if you aren't doing something bad then why should you worry?
Is this a troll? "If you don't have anything to hide, why should you be bothered by mandatory searches of your home?" Get a clue, please.
With any form of security can/will come sacrifice.
I'm reminded of this Ben Franklin quote (this is probably rough, but it's close): "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither."
You seem to labor under what is a common misunderstanding today: that it is safe to entrust to government our safety and liberties. Nothing could be further from the truth, and that is precisely what the writers of the Constitution were attempting to prevent. The government has no vested interest in your liberty. Only you do.
"If I have to choose between the real world and the matrix, then I choose the matrix."
I'm not trying to be totally off-topic here; I guess the obvious question is the same as in the movie: why would you want to be satisfied with an illusion?
Of course, the boys at the NSA are thrilled to read you saying that.
If not drag and drop, then what?
Is it a unified look and feel? Can't this be had by using apps based on one toolkit, for less overhead?
Is it integrated apps? Setting aside KOffice for the moment (since it's not *quite* ready), what other "integrated" apps are there (not counting app-swallowing panels, since panels aren't (IMO) an essential part of an "environment" and since that functionality already exists in window managers lacking an "environment")?
Is the big attraction having a "desktop"? What work do you do on it? What benefits does it add?
I'm not trying to be a pain in the neck. I'm literally at a loss for what exactly the benefits are that a window manager like Window Maker or AfterStep doesn't provide. After 4 years of Windows 9X/NT and after spending time with KDE, I still don't see what the benefit is of a "desktop" other than a place for icons to generate clutter. Why do I need that? I do all my work in applications, not on a desktop. So what does this add?
So what is it?
Nevertheless, a crash per week isn't what I'd call 'stable.' I've been running Window Maker for *months* and never had a crash till this week.
I'm not bad-mouthing E, and I know you said that this was an unstable version. I'm just pointing out that a crash/week ain't anything to write home about.
Did WM drop me to a command line? Did it dump me out of my running apps (including some coding)? Did it freeze the keyboard, leaving me high and dry?
NO it did not! Instead, WM actually trapped SIGSEGV and popped up a dialog asking me what I wanted to do (drop to the CLI, or restart WM)!!
THIS is how window managers should behave when there's a problem. There's nothing more galling than losing some work or time to a window manager crash. I suppose there are things that Window Maker can't catch, but I was duly impressed that it caught this. I'm a Window Maker fan for sure.
Now, what benefits are generally available from having applications that can communicate via CORBA? I know certainly that there are specific circumstances when this can be useful, but what particular benefit is there on a day-to-day basis that I'd want to suffer the overhead of running CORBA and a desktop environment in order to have it?
How is a desktop environment necessary for the use of CORBA? Can't I use CORBA without a "DE", thereby saving the resources?
Again, I'm not trying to be a butthead about this. I just wonder about the rather Microsoft-esque goods that we're all starting to swallow, and wondering about the benefits I'm supposed to realize from them. Everyone grumps about the M$ interface, but it appears to my poor vision that KDE and GNOME are striving to be nothing more than better implementations of what M$ has already done. Is that really the best course? How am I *really* going to benefit from giving up a load of RAM and CPU time to GNOME and KDE? I'm not saying that there aren't folk out there who really need that sort of stuff for their work -- so I'm by no means saying that GNOME/KDE are a waste of time. I just don't know what benefit *I* am supposed to obtain from them.
So: Why should I use either one? What are the benefits?
I hope you'll seriously consider changing your sig. To make a joke out of the deaths in Colorado -- particularly while the wound is still fresh, so to speak -- is in appallingly bad taste.
Perhaps you meant something else entirely. I can only hope so. But in view of what is an obvious interpretation of your sig for Americans, I hope you'll seriously consider using something else.
:-)
For Windows 98: "I sure hope that there aren't any more delays on that service release! It's been a year already! I hope this bug's covered in it or I'll have to wait another 6 to 8 months!"
For Windows NT: "Lessee, I can apply this 'unsupported' hotfix that Microsoft released...or I can wait for Service Pack 6 due in 3-6 months..."
Meanwhile, for Linux, it's this: "5 hours for a patch? What TOOK so long???"
This is not quite accurate. The actual bug was in Windows 95 (still in 98? Don't know). They discovered that the uptime counter rolled over after approximately the number of days you mentioned, and crashed the box. This was discovered, if I remember correctly, earlier this year (it seems that in 3 and 1/2 years NO ONE had ever successfully kept a Win95 box up for that long!).
NT, however, does not suffer from this particular bug. I have a client who managed to keep his NT box up for at least 78 days -- mostly because the machine was so little used (he's an exec, not a geek). After 78 or so days, he had next to no free RAM left for anything. The leaks in the OS itself had plugged the system horribly. Nevertheless, this man did successfully run it for 78+ days.
I like Perl a lot. It's easy, fast, and cool. But I too weary at times of the idea that Perl is "better" than other languages because it's so free-form.
The only way post-modernism -- including Perl -- can really work is if there is a "modernist" foundation under it. When everyone literally abandons ethical standards (because "there's more than one way to do it"), we have chaos. So too with Perl: it is dependent upon an orthogonal OS to even run! Or shall we rewrite Linux in Perl?
His principles can only be applied so far. Which means they're not useful for everything. Just like Perl.
Setting aside the cowardice and grotesque hypocrisy you have now demonstrated, did you ever stop to consider that there are actually good reasons why he might not wish to use the Red Hat account when posting here? Like this, for instance: if he posts with redhat.com associated with his name, his personal opinions have the taint of being "official." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Donnie ain't Bob Young.
Finally, perhaps you could seriously stop and think for a minute before posting such an irrelevant load of useless flamage.
All three have "Start" menus. I can't tell you how many times I've heard WinXX and KDE cursed over that thing, and now all three have it.
I can't tell you how many times KDE and WinXX have been cursed over their file manglers,...and now all three have just about the same thing, interface-wise (though Exploder sucks rocks in comparison to gmc & kfm).
Granted, KDE is much less unabashed about its roots, interface-wise, in Windows, but as far as I'm concerned the three are about equivalent.
And take a look at the default desktop for RH6 if you want to see something "reminiscent" of Windows.
Window Maker & AfterStep are genuinely different in interface from Windows; I'm not even sure you could make them look like Windows without adding at least the GNOME/KDE panel to them.
My random opinion,
I uninstalled both Gnome and KDE within a day or two of installing RH6, because the machine was dragging. They're gone, and I'm not reinstalling them simply to satisfy your craving for numbers. If that makes you think you've won, then fine. I disagree. Sorry. :-)
Nevertheless, it hardly needs to be said that I am not alone in my assessment. Read the posts in this thread. Apart from those who explicitly agree with me, I am likewise joined in my assessment by those who only managed to say "we have to endure some bloat to have a good GUI" or "the only alternative is CLI -- no thanks" or somesuch. While I do not share their conclusions that this situation is either inevitable or necessarily superior to the CLI (don't misunderstand that as a statement of preference for the CLI), these folk implicitly acknowledge that there is bloat -- and they either don't care or don't see any way to avoid it.
By my reading, it is you who are in the minority in denying that there's bloat.
Oh well. I doubt you'll agree. It doesn't matter. Enjoy Gnome or KDE -- whichever you use. I'll enjoy no-Gnome Window Maker (and its lightweightness relative to its features).
One last note -- I read on LWN today that someone in the KDE camp is looking into ways to enhance its performance! Good for them (and an implicit admission that there IS a problem)!
So if you really believe what you have written, I understand how you might think that Gnome and KDE don't suffer from bloat.
And I think you're wrong.
I agree with you that the present conditions are not set in stone. I surely hope that the Gnome/KDE folks will go back and try to optimize their stuff. Their efforts are still very young despite the amazing amount of functionality they have... I just hope that they aren't just ignoring the matter.