Please pardon me for a statement of the obvious... where do the almighty and linux get into the same forum? If I wanted to get into some kind of theological/spiritual debate it certainly would not be here! Linux, please, and save the rants on religion for some other web forum.
Yeah, this is pretty fucking stupid.
I can't think of the last time I've had to delete so much bullshit from this list.
-dave
0xFA904573
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Craig Aldinger wrote:
Please pardon me for a statement of the obvious... where do the almighty and linux get into the same forum? If I wanted to get into some kind of theological/spiritual debate it certainly would not be here! Linux, please, and save the rants on religion for some other web forum.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Craig Aldinger gonzogone@gmail.com wrote:
Please pardon me for a statement of the obvious... where do the almighty and linux get into the same forum? If I wanted to get into some kind of theological/spiritual debate it certainly would not be here! Linux, please, and save the rants on religion for some other web forum.
It is rather unfortunate. I have a strict personal policy about not talking about religion except specifically within a religious forum. I have strong opinions which would offend the religious and some atheists alike -- and I consider myself to be a Christian.
I have some Ubuntu and Fedora disks here -- better we get back to a inter distro flame war than continue this noise.
Ubuntu sucks balls!!! discuss this instead please.
Ubuntu sucks balls!!! discuss this instead please.
Really? How about this. http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/03/ubuntu-probably-best-linux.html
It was done by LinuxQuestions.org and they surveyed 2500 users.
-- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com ) _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Phil Thayer phil.thayer@vitalsite.com wrote:
Ubuntu sucks balls!!! discuss this instead please.
Really? How about this. http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/03/ubuntu-probably-best-linux.html
It was done by LinuxQuestions.org and they surveyed 2500 users.
Well aside from the fact that they chose Gnome (eww) like Redhat/Fedora. I think Ubuntu is actually a very polished distro. I popped in a disk into my test machine the other day and was pleased. I haven't switched to it because I think Ubuntu has attracted, by no fault of their own, a lot of dicks and retards (excuse the language). The only reason I haven't switched is because I have no reason to, everything I need and want is in Fedora, minus a lot of the personalities that I don't like.
My only significant issue with Ubuntu as a whole is that (I am learning about this, and I am subject to correction) they are quite selfish in terms of their development. While most of the fedora streams work on projects upstream, Ubuntu does most of their work downstream so that only Ubuntu people immediately benefit from work they do, leaving it for individual projets to port any changes.
Fedora on the other hand a pretty strict policy of sticking with upstream, applying as few downstream patches as possible. In this way, everyone benefits from a fix. I am sure there are exceptions to this of course. So this may be all good and well for Ubuntu users, but again it's pretty selfish.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Phil Thayer phil.thayer@vitalsite.com wrote:
Ubuntu sucks balls!!! discuss this instead please.
Really? How about this. http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/03/ubuntu-probably-best-linux.html
It was done by LinuxQuestions.org and they surveyed 2500 users.
Ubuntu has attracted, by no fault of their own, a lot of dicks and retards
#%^# you, #^#@^er #%#%ing #%#@@ on a #%# doing #%)#%^* to #%#)* and #%)*&@ so #%^#^@ you #%^# #^^#@ stupid #^)*@. @)%*@ing idiots #%*)@ing @%(* and #@)*@^ing other #@*)@^. Take your #@)%^@* Fedora and @@)(%@ it down your )#**&@ and )*&@% while @*)@&ing @*)@& dinner and ))@&@% thinking about the future, @%@%.
On a serious note, agreed. I've been using Ubuntu since I switched (almost a year now!) and though I don't really see any problems with other distros, I just don't see much of a need to switch. My biggest reason for staying is that it's just the largest, which means that help is easy to find, and most programs that come with packages come with Ubuntu packages.
--- Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Phil Thayer phil.thayer@vitalsite.com wrote:
Ubuntu sucks balls!!! discuss this instead please.
Really? How about this.
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/03/ubuntu-probably-best-linux.html
It was done by LinuxQuestions.org and they surveyed 2500 users.
Well aside from the fact that they chose Gnome (eww) like Redhat/Fedora. I think Ubuntu is actually a
very
polished distro.
Well, considering that the other major alternative is KDE, which looks entirely too much like Windows, I think that a sigh of relief could easily replace that "eww".
My only significant issue with Ubuntu as a whole is that (I am learning about this, and I am subject to correction) they are quite selfish in terms of their development. While most of the fedora streams work on projects upstream, Ubuntu does most of their work downstream so that only Ubuntu people immediately benefit from work they do, leaving it for individual projets to port any changes.
Fedora on the other hand a pretty strict policy of sticking with upstream, applying as few downstream patches as possible. In this way, everyone benefits from a fix. I am sure there are exceptions to this of course. So this may be all good and well for Ubuntu users, but again it's pretty selfish.
I agree its selfish, but OTOH it is a policy which focuses all of Canonical's resources on the end user, which is quite likely why Ubuntu is so popular among end users.
Fedora's policy, while still quite a lot better than Microsoft's policy of "nope, I don't see that BSOD right in front of my eyes, nope, nope, nope <sticks fingers in ears> Lalalalalalalalalalala", still means that the end user might have to wait a bit longer while Fedora works on some upstream project with limited benefit to end users. And if someone trying Linux for the first time is reminded of Microsoft's "End Users Are Evil And Should Be Punished" policy, then they go back to Microsoft because its easier than waiting for Fedora coders to finish up with some new project they're doing for a Gentoo-created application.
Fedora can assume a big chunk of their users are at least shell script coders. Ubuntu has focused almost entirely on non-technical end users, so they have to have policies which benefit their non-technical end users in the quickest way possible. Spending time on outside projects is laudable, but only when you're fairly certain that your end users are getting what they need.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Phil Thayer phil.thayer@vitalsite.com wrote:
Ubuntu sucks balls!!! discuss this instead please.
Really? How about this.
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/03/ubuntu-probably-best-linux.html
It was done by LinuxQuestions.org and they surveyed 2500 users.
Well aside from the fact that they chose Gnome (eww) like Redhat/Fedora. I think Ubuntu is actually a
very
polished distro.
Well, considering that the other major alternative is KDE, which looks entirely too much like Windows, I think that a sigh of relief could easily replace that "eww".
While I use Ubuntu and am probably one of the five people who actually prefers GNOME, I have to say that KDE looks entirely too much like whatever you want it to look like. If the initial theme bugs you, change it.
--- feba thatl febaen@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
Well aside from the fact that they chose Gnome (eww) like Redhat/Fedora. I think Ubuntu is actually a very polished distro.
Well, considering that the other major alternative is KDE, which looks entirely too much like Windows, I think that a sigh of relief could easily replace that "eww".
While I use Ubuntu and am probably one of the five people who actually prefers GNOME, I have to say that KDE looks entirely too much like whatever you want it to look like. If the initial theme bugs you, change it.
Well, the nice part about having GNOME instead of KDE in basic Ubuntu is that, as I mentioned before, Ubuntu's main userbase is non-technical people. Non-technical people are less inclined to change the initial theme of an OS's GUI to something else, since they've probably come over from Another OS where changing the theme wasn't an option.
Which boils down to the very important detail that as more and more people adopt Ubuntu Linux, other people viewing these end users' computers will know from a single glance that they are not running Windows. Default KDE is enough like Windows that a single glance might lead someone to believe the household is still on Windows.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm exploiting the common man here, but if thats what it takes to dramatically increase Linux usage... ;-)
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
Well, considering that the other major alternative is KDE, which looks entirely too much like Windows, I think that a sigh of relief could easily replace that "eww".
Yes, KDE looks almost exactly like Windows *if you take the effort to click Windows as your default settings when you start it the first time*. On the other hand, if you choose, say, the default "KDE" settings, it's no more like Windows than GNOME is. And you can easily configure KDE to be far more different from Windows than you can configure GNOME.
--- Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
Well, considering that the other major alternative is KDE, which looks entirely too much like Windows, I think that a sigh of relief could easily replace that "eww".
Yes, KDE looks almost exactly like Windows *if you take the effort to click Windows as your default settings when you start it the first time*. On the other hand, if you choose, say, the default "KDE" settings, it's no more like Windows than GNOME is.
*Default* KDE has:
1) A "Start" menu in the lower left corner, which is very similar to Windows.
2) A single user application/applet bar at the bottom of the screen, again very similar to Windows.
*Default* GNOME has:
1) A "Start" menu in the upper left corner, completely unlike Windows.
2) A user application/applet bar at both the top and bottom of the screen, again completely unlike Windows.
A split-second glance at a *default* KDE screen reveals a desktop which looks very much like Windows. A split-second glance at a *default* GNOME screen reveals a desktop which is very *different* from Windows.
And as such, only the GNOME desktop will invite much comment about the difference in the desktop. The KDE desktop, if viewed idly across the room by a Windows user, looks enough like a Windows desktop that there's not much else to say about it.
And if your desktop isn't different enough to incite comments, then thats one less avenue through which to interest other people in Linux.
Ubuntu Linux is aimed at non-technical people. Non-technical people typically don't change their desktop because they've just come over from an OS which doesn't let you change your desktop. This means that default Ubuntu Linux is like a huge sign on their computers saying "Hey! I'm Different! Ask Me Why I'm Different!"
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
*Default* KDE has:
- A "Start" menu in the lower left corner, which is
very similar to Windows.
Hm, I wonder why. Obviously, the left is logical for left-to-right languages. Which means that even if we assume there are no other reasons for top/bottom, the choice is between being similar to another common OS and use the bottom, or using the top just to be not Windows. What reasons are there to use the top over the bottom?
- A single user application/applet bar at the bottom
of the screen, again very similar to Windows.
Again, only similar to the extent that is logical.
*Default* GNOME has:
- A "Start" menu in the upper left corner, completely
unlike Windows.
- A user application/applet bar at both the top and
bottom of the screen, again completely unlike Windows.
Why? Just to be "completely unlike Windows"?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
*Default* KDE has:
- A "Start" menu in the lower left corner, which is
very similar to Windows.
Hm, I wonder why. Obviously, the left is logical for left-to-right languages. Which means that even if we assume there are no other reasons for top/bottom, the choice is between being similar to another common OS and use the bottom, or using the top just to be not Windows. What reasons are there to use the top over the bottom?
On my Windows PC for work, I moved the taskbar so it's vertical, putting the Start button at the top. This way, if I have windows that I've moved such that the title bar (the handle you use to move the thing) is still onscreen, but the bottom/side runs offscreen, it doesn't cover the Start button or taskbar.
Again, only similar to the extent that is logical.
There are 5 places that it's very easy to put your mouse cursor: The four corners of the screen, and where it already is. The four edges provide more places that are fairly easy to get to, as the Mac's "mile high menu" attests. Good GUI design puts the things you want to get to the most often in the four corners, with the most frequent in the upper left (right for RTL languages) corner, second in the lower left, third in the upper right, and fourth in the lower right, and puts popup dialog boxes wherever your cursor already is, with the cursor positioned over, the choice that won't break anything if you accidentally click it.
Would you agree that when explaining Linux desktops to a newbie, one could say that KDE is more like Windows and Gnome more like Mac?
Monty J. Harder wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org mailto:luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote: > *Default* KDE has: > > 1) A "Start" menu in the lower left corner, which is > very similar to Windows. Hm, I wonder why. Obviously, the left is logical for left-to-right languages. Which means that even if we assume there are no other reasons for top/bottom, the choice is between being similar to another common OS and use the bottom, or using the top just to be not Windows. What reasons are there to use the top over the bottom?On my Windows PC for work, I moved the taskbar so it's vertical, putting the Start button at the top. This way, if I have windows that I've moved such that the title bar (the handle you use to move the thing) is still onscreen, but the bottom/side runs offscreen, it doesn't cover the Start button or taskbar.
Again, only similar to the extent that is logical.There are 5 places that it's very easy to put your mouse cursor: The four corners of the screen, and where it already is. The four edges provide more places that are fairly easy to get to, as the Mac's "mile high menu" attests. Good GUI design puts the things you want to get to the most often in the four corners, with the most frequent in the upper left (right for RTL languages) corner, second in the lower left, third in the upper right, and fourth in the lower right, and puts popup dialog boxes wherever your cursor already is, with the cursor positioned over, the choice that won't break anything if you accidentally click it.
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Ty Unes riverty@kc.rr.com wrote:
Would you agree that when explaining Linux desktops to a newbie, one could say that KDE is more like Windows and Gnome more like Mac?
Monty J. Harder wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org
mailto:luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote: > *Default* KDE has: > > 1) A "Start" menu in the lower left corner, which is > very similar to Windows. Hm, I wonder why. Obviously, the left is logical for left-to-right languages. Which means that even if we assume there are no other reasons for top/bottom, the choice is between being similar to another common OS and use the bottom, or using the top just to be not Windows. What reasons are there to use the top over the bottom?On my Windows PC for work, I moved the taskbar so it's vertical, putting the Start button at the top. This way, if I have windows that I've moved such that the title bar (the handle you use to move the thing) is still onscreen, but the bottom/side runs offscreen, it doesn't cover the Start button or taskbar.
Again, only similar to the extent that is logical.There are 5 places that it's very easy to put your mouse cursor: The four corners of the screen, and where it already is. The four edges provide more places that are fairly easy to get to, as the Mac's "mile high menu" attests. Good GUI design puts the things you want to get to the most often in the four corners, with the most frequent in the upper left (right for RTL languages) corner, second in the lower left, third in the upper right, and fourth in the lower right, and puts popup dialog boxes wherever your cursor already is, with the cursor positioned over, the choice that won't break anything if you accidentally click it.
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- Ty Unes - UNIX / Linux Administrator Point b Computer Services Email: riverty@kc.rr.com
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Honestly, for a linux newbie, I'd avoid comparisons to other software. It's *like* it, sure, but it *isn't* it, and that needs to be clear. They shouldn't expect it to be a clone of it, that will work the same way. They should expect it to be an entirely new thing, that will take a little bit of getting used to. Somewhat in the same way you wouldn't tell someone that driving an SUV is like driving a moving van, but they both use the same basic skills.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, feba thatl febaen@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, for a linux newbie, I'd avoid comparisons to other software. It's *like* it, sure, but it *isn't* it, and that needs to be clear. They shouldn't expect it to be a clone of it, that will work the same way. They should expect it to be an entirely new thing, that will take a little bit of getting used to. Somewhat in the same way you wouldn't tell someone that driving an SUV is like driving a moving van, but they both use the same basic skills.
I put a Ubuntu Athlon XP system in a friends house as an upgrade from their old K6 Win98 POS. I didn't tell them anything much about it except that "it's not Windows and doesn't run Windows stuff. That includes viruses and crap." I pretty much only showed them how to login (one for each adult in the house), that FireFox was how to get on the web, and where Add/Remove Programs was and what it did. It's been many months and the only problem I've heard about was a problem playing CDs. Turns out they were fairly well scratched, so it wasn't a Linux/UI problem. I know they use XP systems at work and they never questioned me about how to do something "like on Windows". They aren't really computer power users or even particularly savvy but Gnome was straight forward enough that they didn't have any big transition issues because I told them up front that it was going to be different. For a new user stuff like popup tooltips are invaluable. Anyway, I don't think they would have got along so well if it had been KDE and setup to be like Windows. They would likely have been trying to find stuff as under Windows because there wouldn't have been a significant visual difference between them.
Jon.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, feba thatl febaen@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, for a linux newbie, I'd avoid comparisons to other software. It's *like* it, sure, but it *isn't* it, and that needs to be clear. They shouldn't expect it to be a clone of it, that will work the same way. They should expect it to be an entirely new thing, that will take a little bit of getting used to. Somewhat in the same way you wouldn't tell someone that driving an SUV is like driving a moving van, but they both use the same basic skills.
I put a Ubuntu Athlon XP system in a friends house as an upgrade from their old K6 Win98 POS. I didn't tell them anything much about it except that "it's not Windows and doesn't run Windows stuff. That includes viruses and crap." I pretty much only showed them how to login (one for each adult in the house), that FireFox was how to get on the web, and where Add/Remove Programs was and what it did. It's been many months and the only problem I've heard about was a problem playing CDs. Turns out they were fairly well scratched, so it wasn't a Linux/UI problem. I know they use XP systems at work and they never questioned me about how to do something "like on Windows". They aren't really computer power users or even particularly savvy but Gnome was straight forward enough that they didn't have any big transition issues because I told them up front that it was going to be different. For a new user stuff like popup tooltips are invaluable. Anyway, I don't think they would have got along so well if it had been KDE and setup to be like Windows. They would likely have been trying to find stuff as under Windows because there wouldn't have been a significant visual difference between them.
Why would you set KDE up like Windows ?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you set KDE up like Windows ?
The general idea would be to provide a familiar interface to users.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you set KDE up like Windows ?
The general idea would be to provide a familiar interface to users.
So why would you do this to KDE, but not to Gnome?
On Friday 14 March 2008, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com
wrote:
Why would you set KDE up like Windows ?
The general idea would be to provide a familiar interface to users.
So why would you do this to KDE, but not to Gnome?
I'm not sure you even CAN do this with GNOME...
--- Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Friday 14 March 2008, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you set KDE up like Windows ?
The general idea would be to provide a familiar interface to users.
So why would you do this to KDE, but not to Gnome?
I'm not sure you even CAN do this with GNOME...
You can do this in GNOME. The following instructions will give you a desktop exactly like a Windows XP desktop.
Making Ubuntu look like Windows http://www.squidoo.com/makingubuntulooklikewindows
Someone has even made a script which will convert all of the graphics in the Ubuntu default GNOME desktop into Windows XP graphics, creating a "Windows XP Desktop" which happens to have a top and bottom taskbar on it. The script is one-way: if you run it and want to restore to prior settings, you will have to change it all back by hand.
XpGnome - Make Linux Look like Windows XP http://ubuntu.online02.com/node/14
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, feba thatl febaen@gmail.com wrote:
you wouldn't tell someone that driving an SUV is like driving a moving van, but they both use the same basic skills.
If one was trying to sell a SUV to someone who was comfortable with a moving van, one very will might tell them that.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:22 PM, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, feba thatl febaen@gmail.com wrote:
you wouldn't tell someone that driving an SUV is like driving a moving van, but they both use the same basic skills.
If one was trying to sell a SUV to someone who was comfortable with a moving van, one very will might tell them that.
If you prefer lying for short term sales instead of being honest for long term customer satisfaction, perhaps. But I think the reason most of us are here in the first place is because we're tired of being screwed over by someone we're supposedly paying for a quality product, dishonesty doesn't suit our community.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:54 PM, feba thatl febaen@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:22 PM, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, feba thatl febaen@gmail.com wrote:
you wouldn't tell someone that driving an SUV is like driving a moving van, but they both use the same basic skills.
If one was trying to sell a SUV to someone who was comfortable with a moving van, one very will might tell them that.
If you prefer lying for short term sales instead of being honest for long term customer satisfaction, perhaps. But I think the reason most of us are here in the first place is because we're tired of being screwed over by someone we're supposedly paying for a quality product, dishonesty doesn't suit our community.
I think calling it lying is a bit far for what is being said here. How is is lying to say that driving a large passenger vehicle is like driving large truck? Except for the size of the vehicle all standard skills of driving apply in about the same way. Now, if you are wondering where your 6 friends are supposed to be riding in the moving van and are lied to about it, that's a valid complaint.
Jon.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Ty Unes riverty@kc.rr.com wrote:
Would you agree that when explaining Linux desktops to a newbie, one could say that KDE is more like Windows and Gnome more like Mac?
I would say Gnome is more like Mac. The only similarity I see between Windows and KDE is that KDE can be made to look like a Windows clone. Gnome (from what I've heard) is what that that has something comparable to Windows' registry.
It's pretty obvious Luke. People read from Top to Bottom. Menus on the bottom expand upwards, requiring the eye to move Bottom to Top. Using menus on the top of the screen is more natural and more intuitive.
You'll notice that Macintoshes have used Top menus since their inception. There's a reason for that.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Which means that even if we assume there are no other reasons for top/bottom, the choice is between being similar to another common OS and use the bottom, or using the top just to be not Windows. What reasons are there to use the top over the bottom?
--- Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
*Default* KDE has:
- A "Start" menu in the lower left corner,
which is very similar to Windows.
Hm, I wonder why. Obviously, the left is logical for left-to-right languages. Which means that even if we assume there are no other reasons for top/bottom, the choice is between being similar to another common OS and use the bottom, or using the top just to be not Windows. What reasons are there to use the top over the bottom?
*Default* GNOME has:
- A "Start" menu in the upper left corner,
completely unlike Windows.
- A user application/applet bar at both the
top and bottom of the screen, again completely unlike Windows.
Why? Just to be "completely unlike Windows"?
One thing I particularly enjoy about using both top and bottom is the division between the "menu and applets" bar, and the "desktops and running applications" bar. Instead of one bottom taskbar (in Windows and KDE) which has to hold everything, a top and bottom bar means more of what I'm doing is visible at any one time, and no application names are being abbreviated or erased in their buttons. I also get to see day of the week, date, and seconds in addition to the time, without having to increase the width of a single taskbar or further shrink everything else on a single taskbar.
I don't know if KDE does what I call "application instance stacking", where three instances of, say, Notepad, are stacked in a single button in the "running applications" section of the bottom bar in Windows. If KDE does do that behavior then I have another reason to dislike KDE, though I'm afraid its a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for KDE, because the alternative to "application stacking" is to shorten the application button size until the text is unreadable.
Obviously I could do more to make my workspace more efficient by really customizing my window manager, but as I haven't had a lot of free time lately, having a top and bottom bar in default Ubuntu Linux has made me rather enjoy using Linux (and made Windows in many ways downright painful). Multiple desktops might alleviate the "crammed tight bottom bar"situation in KDE, but it just doesn't seem as efficient as the way GNOME does it.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
*Default* KDE has:
- A "Start" menu in the lower left corner,
which is very similar to Windows.
Hm, I wonder why. Obviously, the left is logical for left-to-right languages. Which means that even if we assume there are no other reasons for top/bottom, the choice is between being similar to another common OS and use the bottom, or using the top just to be not Windows. What reasons are there to use the top over the bottom?
*Default* GNOME has:
- A "Start" menu in the upper left corner,
completely unlike Windows.
- A user application/applet bar at both the
top and bottom of the screen, again completely unlike Windows.
Why? Just to be "completely unlike Windows"?
One thing I particularly enjoy about using both top and bottom is the division between the "menu and applets" bar, and the "desktops and running applications" bar.
I have tested out all the configs, every time I install Fedora I take a few hours to give KDE a fresh look
Instead of one bottom taskbar (in Windows and KDE)
This is purely it's default state, so doesn't seem fair to use that as a mark against it.
which has to hold everything, a top and bottom bar means more of what I'm doing is visible at any one time, and no application names are being abbreviated or erased in their buttons. I also get to see day of the week, date, and seconds in addition to the time, without having to increase the width of a single taskbar or further shrink everything else on a single taskbar.
Really, you get to decide how you want it.
I don't know if KDE does what I call "application instance stacking", where three instances of, say, Notepad, are stacked in a single button in the "running applications" section of the bottom bar in Windows.
This is optional in both Windows and KDE
If KDE does do that behavior then I have another reason to dislike KDE, though I'm afraid its a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for KDE, because the alternative to "application stacking" is to shorten the application button size until the text is unreadable.
Is it still damned if it leaves the choice to the user?
Obviously I could do more to make my workspace more efficient by really customizing my window manager, but as I haven't had a lot of free time lately, having a top and bottom bar in default Ubuntu Linux has made me rather enjoy using Linux (and made Windows in many ways downright painful).
It takes less than a minute to add a second bar. Definitely less than 5 clicks
Multiple desktops might alleviate the "crammed tight bottom bar"situation in KDE, but it just doesn't seem as efficient as the way GNOME does it.
Do explain.
--- Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
Instead of one bottom taskbar (in Windows and KDE)
This is purely it's default state, so doesn't seem fair to use that as a mark against it.
Kubuntu will both be used most of the time by the same people who use Ubuntu, people who won't change from the default, so I think its completely fair to use it as a mark against it.
which has to hold everything, a top and bottom bar means more of what I'm doing is visible at any one time, and no application names are being abbreviated or erased in their buttons. I also get to see day of the week, date, and seconds in addition to the time, without having to increase the width of a single taskbar or further shrink everything else on a single taskbar.
Really, you get to decide how you want it.
Unless you don't know how to change it to something else, like most users of Kubuntu.
You may recall back when AOL went "average user" and millions of people who had never used the Internet before ended up on the Internet? Back then there were thousands of technical users complaining about all the AOL Internet users really screwing up on the Internet because they didn't know how to do anything. This is that situation all over again, only with Kubuntu Linux.
If KDE does do that behavior then I have another reason to dislike KDE, though I'm afraid its a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for KDE, because the alternative to "application stacking" is to shorten the application button size until the text is unreadable.
Is it still damned if it leaves the choice to the user?
I have the option of converting my gasoline engine in my car to an electric engine. The fact that I don't know how to do it and would have to take weeks/months/years to learn means that it really isn't an option. If one has trouble sending an E-mail, I really don't see them being able to take advantage of the option to change the desktop.
Obviously I could do more to make my workspace more efficient by really customizing my window manager, but as I haven't had a lot of free time lately, having a top and bottom bar in default Ubuntu Linux has made me rather enjoy using Linux (and made Windows in many ways downright painful).
It takes less than a minute to add a second bar. Definitely less than 5 clicks
Find someone who barely knows how to send an E-mail in Outlook, and see if it only takes them 5 clicks. And you then have to add applets to the top bar, which is going beyond "5 clicks" and going into "hours of time" if you;ve never done it before. I know it took me awhile to learn it, and I did it several times a week just for the practice. Joe Average is just going to screw it up and go back to Windows.
The problem you're having here is that you are thinking Fedora while forgetting that we're talking about Ubuntu (note subject line if you don't believe me). The reason Ubuntu Linux is so popular is because it takes away a lot of the options by making most of the choices for the end user (unlike Fedora). While I personally find that irritating (it isn't difficult, but it is still a pain to always have to uninstall OpenOffice from a 128MB RAM PII-300Mhz machine after Ubuntu installs it automatically without asking), most people probably find that it makes their lack of computer experience irrelevant to their enjoyment of Linux.
Kubuntu defaults to everything I've said, and most of the end users who use it won't know how to change the default KDE desktop to something else, let alone make it look like GNOME's default "top and bottom taskbar" desktop. I don't think its unfair to point out all the problems of KDE that will be unfixable (or at least have a long "steep learning curve") by *most* of the end users of Kubuntu.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On Friday 21 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
Instead of one bottom taskbar (in Windows and KDE)
This is purely it's default state, so doesn't seem fair to use that as a mark against it.
Kubuntu will both be used most of the time by the same people who use Ubuntu, people who won't change from the default, so I think its completely fair to use it as a mark against it.
Kubuntu isn't KDE. Nor does Kubuntu use KDE's defaults, IIRC. Mark Kubuntu as much as you like, but there is absolutely no excuse to mark KDE here.
If KDE does do that behavior then I have another reason to dislike KDE, though I'm afraid its a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for KDE, because the alternative to "application stacking" is to shorten the application button size until the text is unreadable.
Is it still damned if it leaves the choice to the user?
I have the option of converting my gasoline engine in my car to an electric engine. The fact that I don't know how to do it and would have to take weeks/months/years to learn means that it really isn't an option. If one has trouble sending an E-mail, I really don't see them being able to take advantage of the option to change the desktop.
That's a mark against GNOME. You need to learn internals (gconf/registry) to make any small change. Unlike GNOME, KDE can be configured in many ways without the need of being an expert. So the equivalent here is how to turn your overhead light to always-off instead of automatic.
Joe Average is just going to screw it up and go back to Windows.
If Joe Average wants something like Windows, then he doesn't *need* to change anything. Maybe that's the entire purpose of the defaults being what they are.
The problem you're having here is that you are thinking Fedora while forgetting that we're talking about Ubuntu (note subject line if you don't believe me).
No, we're talking about KDE. Someone just left the subject line alone when they changed topic.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
That's a mark against GNOME. You need to learn internals (gconf/registry) to make any small change. Unlike GNOME, KDE can be configured in many ways without the need of being an expert. So the equivalent here is how to turn your overhead light to always-off instead of automatic.
Have you ever used GNOME Luke? Or are you just trolling? Because what you just said is completely untrue.
Jeffrey.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
That's a mark against GNOME. You need to learn internals (gconf/registry) to make any small change. Unlike GNOME, KDE can be configured in many ways without the need of being an expert. So the equivalent here is how to turn your overhead light to always-off instead of automatic.
Have you ever used GNOME Luke? Or are you just trolling? Because what you just said is completely untrue.
Jeffrey.
It was only this year that Gnome got a way to edit the main menu without a text editor.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
It was only this year that Gnome got a way to edit the main menu without a text editor.
He said "any small change". Last I looked I can create menubars, add applets, change themes, change window behavior, etc all without using gconf. One can easily argue that those are "small changes" and thus invalidate his argument utterly. Furthermore, they call into question his motives in stating something that's so obviously untrue.
In regards to your statement, even if somehow modifying the menu was the end-all-be-all of UI configuration, the fact that it exists now means that your counter argument is nothing more than a straw man. We're speaking about the present. If we go far back enough in time, I think you'll find that all UIs had difficulties in modification sans special tools or knowledge...
Jeffrey.
On Friday 21 March 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
It was only this year that Gnome got a way to edit the main menu without a text editor.
He said "any small change". Last I looked I can create menubars, add applets, change themes, change window behavior, etc all without using gconf. One can easily argue that those are "small changes" and thus invalidate his argument utterly. Furthermore, they call into question his motives in stating something that's so obviously untrue.
You assume a generalization is meant to be all inclusive, which, even if meant to be, is never factually accurate. In my case, I never intend generalizations to be all inclusive.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
You assume a generalization is meant to be all inclusive, which, even if meant to be, is never factually accurate. In my case, I never intend generalizations to be all inclusive.
You seem to be avoiding the fact that what you said was untrue. You could have said in your defense that you were using hyperbole when you should have been more precise. That would have sufficiently explained why you said what you said - after all, I think all of us here probably have made the same mistake in our speaking at some time.
However, you seem to be claiming that somehow you meant what you said but I was just too ignorant to understand it. The response you just gave was, to put it in technical terms, a "giant load of BS".
I'm not stupid Luke. Don't try and wordsmith reality so that generalizations aren't really generalizations. Your original statement was either just ignorance of how Gnome works (which seems unlikely) or just old-fashioned hyperbole.
Jeffrey.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
In regards to your statement, even if somehow modifying the menu was the end-all-be-all of UI configuration, the fact that it exists now means that your counter argument is nothing more than a straw man. We're speaking about the present. If we go far back enough in time, I think you'll find that all UIs had difficulties in modification sans special tools or knowledge...
It is a simple example that to support the original idea that modifying Gnome apparently not generally planned for.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
It is a simple example that to support the original idea that modifying Gnome apparently not generally planned for.
With all due respect Arthur, I don't see any examples in this thread that support that position. But perhaps I missed it in the massive overuse of similes that occurred. I must confess that I tuned out once folks started arguing about SUVs and moving vans. ;)
Jeffrey.
On Mar 21, 2008, at 5:53 AM, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
Instead of one bottom taskbar (in Windows and KDE)
This is purely it's default state, so doesn't seem fair to use that as a mark against it.
Kubuntu will both be used most of the time by the same people who use Ubuntu, people who won't change from the default, so I think its completely fair to use it as a mark against it.
The only evidence to support this assertion is the stereotype that somehow, Ubuntu, and Ubuntu users, are "Linux Lite" and just want a Windows machine without paying for it.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I've assisted hundreds of Linux users over the years, including a large number of Ubuntu users, and in my experience, Ubuntu users are no different from any other Linux user.
First off, if they were the kind of people who just stuck with the default, no matter the circumstance, then it is unlikely they ever would have left Windows in the first place. It takes a bit of courage, and a lot of effort, to move your electronic life from one OS to the other. In part that is why Linux and Apple have not taken significant market share from Windows, despite an abundance of technical and financial reasons to do so. So the folks who do it, and more significantly, the folks who stick with it after the initial shock, are not likely to be timid wallflowers with a high resistance to change.
Secondly, my experience with Ubuntu users (and Linux users in general) indicates to me that they stick with the default as long as it works, and no longer. One of the most common reasons given to me for why a particular user switches is that they want to make their computer fit their lifestyle, rather than changing their lifestyle to fit the computer. The folks who I've helped were often highly knowledgeable Windows users who had simply exhausted its capabilities for customization and wanted to evolve, for lack of a better word. The ability to modify not just the Linux desktop, but the entire operating system in a nearly infinite number of ways is a selling point, not a turn-off, for the Linux user who chooses to stay with the OS. The folks who need cookie-cutter solutions either go back to Windows after their first experience or never bother leaving at all.
I am not an academic, so I have no statistics other than a *lot* of experience helping out my fellow Linux users, but I think my observations are valid. What I generally see is that once a user (of Ubuntu, Fedora, or any other distribution) gets over the initial bump of getting the OS installed and getting into a routine, one of the first things he or she does is tweak it to fit their needs. They play with the menubars, experiment with alternate file managers and software alternatives, throw on some new themes, and generally get dirty. I strongly encourage users to play with everything on their system even before they try to get "productive," because once they discover just how much fun it can be to have an OS that really responds to the way you think and work, they are much more willing to make the changes and sacrifices necessary to move over.
I've used several versions of Ubuntu and Kubuntu, and I have never had a problem customizing it to fit my needs. For example, just before buying my Macbook, I decided I wanted my Ubuntu machine to act more like a Mac. I was so successful that when I purchased a Macbook with OSX, I quickly discovered that I liked my "Gnome Like a Mac" version better than I liked the real thing. Hence, OSX is about to go "bye bye" and I'm about to say Hello to Ubuntu once again, this time on a quality piece of hardware.
which has to hold everything, a top and bottom bar means more of what I'm doing is visible at any one time, and no application names are being abbreviated or erased in their buttons. I also get to see day of the week, date, and seconds in addition to the time, without having to increase the width of a single taskbar or further shrink everything else on a single taskbar.
Really, you get to decide how you want it.
Unless you don't know how to change it to something else, like most users of Kubuntu.
You may recall back when AOL went "average user" and millions of people who had never used the Internet before ended up on the Internet? Back then there were thousands of technical users complaining about all the AOL Internet users really screwing up on the Internet because they didn't know how to do anything. This is that situation all over again, only with Kubuntu Linux.
Kubuntu (and its *buntu brethren) were designed with ease of use in mind. IMNSHO, they have succeeded to a remarkable degree, without losing the features that make Linux the operating system I have known and loved for several years now. But being easy to use does not necessarily mean "dumbed down" or designed for the technically impaired.
The difference between a Kubuntu user and an AOL user is that, as you mention above, the AOL user had never been on the internet before. The internet culture was unknown to them (as, indeed, it was unknown to nearly all of us who discovered the Internet outside of a University CS department). Most Kubuntu users are quite comfortable around computers, or as I said before, they wouldn't have wiped Windows off the drive and replaced it in the first place. Most of them don't seem to be that put off by the hacker culture, either -- after all, there have been Windows hackers as long as there have been Linux hackers, and Windows users have been downloading freeware and shareware for years. You don't even have to be particularly adventurous to do that. I don't see many who find themselves lost in the free software world, either -- after all, applications such as openoffice.org, Firefox, and Thunderbird are very popular in the Windows world.
What you are trying to describe are not Kubuntu users in particular, but new Linux users in general; and your stereotypes are no more valid to describe that group then they are the subset who might choose Kubuntu (because many distros attract new Linux users, not just *buntu).
A final thought about AOL users -- the Internet was a pretty barren place before they arrived. They may have been an annoying lot to the academics who already populated the 'Net, but it was those newbies, not the CS and EE professors, who made the Internet a household word and an irreplaceable piece of modern life. And it will be future Linux newbies, not old crusties like me, who will make Free Software similarly irreplaceable.
If KDE does do that behavior then I have another reason to dislike KDE, though I'm afraid its a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for KDE, because the alternative to "application stacking" is to shorten the application button size until the text is unreadable.
Is it still damned if it leaves the choice to the user?
I have the option of converting my gasoline engine in my car to an electric engine. The fact that I don't know how to do it and would have to take weeks/months/years to learn means that it really isn't an option. If one has trouble sending an E-mail, I really don't see them being able to take advantage of the option to change the desktop.
If one has trouble sending an e-mail, one is probably not using Kubuntu (or any other distro) in the first place. One may not even own a computer.
Obviously I could do more to make my workspace more efficient by really customizing my window manager, but as I haven't had a lot of free time lately, having a top and bottom bar in default Ubuntu Linux has made me rather enjoy using Linux (and made Windows in many ways downright painful).
It takes less than a minute to add a second bar. Definitely less than 5 clicks
Find someone who barely knows how to send an E-mail in Outlook, and see if it only takes them 5 clicks. And you then have to add applets to the top bar, which is going beyond "5 clicks" and going into "hours of time" if you;ve never done it before. I know it took me awhile to learn it, and I did it several times a week just for the practice. Joe Average is just going to screw it up and go back to Windows.
I don't think you know enough about Joe Average to make any generalizations about his or her behavior. Ask yourself how this individual got into Linux in the first place, if he or she is so incompetent that they cannot configure Outlook. Why would they even be trying Linux in the first place? More than likely, the bad experience with Outlook would convince them to stick with IE7 and gmail or hotmail, rather than driving them into the arms of KDE or Gnome.
The problem you're having here is that you are thinking Fedora while forgetting that we're talking about Ubuntu (note subject line if you don't believe me). The reason Ubuntu Linux is so popular is because it takes away a lot of the options by making most of the choices for the end user (unlike Fedora). While I personally find that irritating (it isn't difficult, but it is still a pain to always have to uninstall OpenOffice from a 128MB RAM PII-300Mhz machine after Ubuntu installs it automatically without asking), most people probably find that it makes their lack of computer experience irrelevant to their enjoyment of Linux.
Ubuntu doesn't take away any options, it just backloads them. In the interest of being able to install off one CD (instead of a DVD or five CDs, which is a pain even for a long-time Linux guy like me), they limit the amount of software one initially installs and sets reasonable defaults -- all of which can be changed after installation is completed. Yes, the install is highly scripted, but IMNSHO, that is an advantage, because I'd rather tweak my machine after it is installed rather than trying to do it during the install.
The only real "options" you have with SuSE or Fedora are the option of choosing between thousands of packages at installation, 99% of which no one needs and many of which introduce dependencies that are best analyzed when one isn't worried about just getting a workable system together. In Ubuntu, when you figure out you need it, you just go to Synaptic and search for it.
Everything on an Ubuntu system is fully as configurable as on a Fedora or a SuSE system.
Kubuntu defaults to everything I've said, and most of the end users who use it won't know how to change the default KDE desktop to something else, let alone make it look like GNOME's default "top and bottom taskbar" desktop. I don't think its unfair to point out all the problems of KDE that will be unfixable (or at least have a long "steep learning curve") by *most* of the end users of Kubuntu.
I think Linux users are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.
Matthew Copple mcopple@kcopensource.org
On Friday 21 March 2008 17:46:36 Matthew Copple wrote:
The only evidence to support this assertion is the stereotype that somehow, Ubuntu, and Ubuntu users, are "Linux Lite" and just want a Windows machine without paying for it.
This would be a fair assessment of many of the people I've encountered in the #kubuntu support channel on freenode. They are largely from Eastern Europe - Romania mostly, they don't give a hoot about the OS and refuse to look at a command line. They just want to get the system up so they can run their pirated games.
When the install process gets too easy and starts to do too much thinking for you, you're gonna get those people who should never have left windows - if they should even be running that!
(I've also encountered a few real cool folks who, in spite of a pretty steep language barrier that extends a bit into how thoughts/sentences are constructed, have not only sought help graciously, but returned it as soon as they reached the point that they could.)
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.org wrote:
On Friday 21 March 2008 17:46:36 Matthew Copple wrote:
The only evidence to support this assertion is the stereotype that somehow, Ubuntu, and Ubuntu users, are "Linux Lite" and just want a Windows machine without paying for it.
This would be a fair assessment of many of the people I've encountered in the #kubuntu support channel on freenode. They are largely from Eastern Europe - Romania mostly, they don't give a hoot about the OS and refuse to look at a command line. They just want to get the system up so they can run their pirated games.
When the install process gets too easy and starts to do too much thinking for you, you're gonna get those people who should never have left windows - if they should even be running that!
All I can add to this is that the [k]ubuntu users who come over to #fedora are normally the kind of people that I (and others on the channel) don't really care for. I have no explanation for this, this is just what I have observed.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.org wrote:
This would be a fair assessment of many of the people I've encountered in the #kubuntu support channel on freenode. They are largely from Eastern Europe - Romania mostly, they don't give a hoot about the OS and refuse to look at a command line. They just want to get the system up so they can run their pirated games.
When the install process gets too easy and starts to do too much thinking for you, you're gonna get those people who should never have left windows - if they should even be running that!
By stating this view aren't you just reinforcing the stereotype of Unix geeks that we're all just a bunch of snobs? Yes, I'm making assumptions about you based upon a general stereotype of Unix geeks and a small sample of your comments. Much like how you stereotyped an entire community based on your observation of a few people in #kubuntu.
http://ozguru.mu.nu/Photos/2005-11-11--Dilbert_Unix.jpg
Jeffrey.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.org wrote:
This would be a fair assessment of many of the people I've encountered in the #kubuntu support channel on freenode. They are largely from Eastern Europe - Romania mostly, they don't give a hoot about the OS and refuse to look at a command line. They just want to get the system up so they can run their pirated games.
When the install process gets too easy and starts to do too much thinking for you, you're gonna get those people who should never have left windows - if they should even be running that!
By stating this view aren't you just reinforcing the stereotype of Unix geeks that we're all just a bunch of snobs?
If telling the truth is being a snob, then i accept that charge.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
If telling the truth is being a snob, then i accept that charge.
Truth? That's an odd choice of words. Usually only zealots and politicians speak of "truth". In this case, can you prove your "truth"? And I mean in an empirical sense. Or are you just using your stereotype to denigrate a bunch of people?
Last I looked IRC was hardly a representative sample of a community. Perhaps the group of people who use IRC are, in general, predisposed to be a certain way that's different than the general population?
Perhaps you might concede that your demographic isn't representative?
Jeffrey.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
If telling the truth is being a snob, then i accept that charge.
Truth? That's an odd choice of words. Usually only zealots and politicians speak of "truth". In this case, can you prove your "truth"? And I mean in an empirical sense. Or are you just using your stereotype to denigrate a bunch of people?
So you're implying that I am lying about my _own_ observation?
Last I looked IRC was hardly a representative sample of a community. Perhaps the group of people who use IRC are, in general, predisposed to be a certain way that's different than the general population?
And did I say it was representative of the entire community? I SPECIFICALLY said I was commenting about those that I observed.
Perhaps you might concede that your demographic isn't representative?
I never said that in the first place. What are you talking about?
I posted in response to Jonathan's comments. You then apparently thought it was posted in response to you. You then defended his comments, and I rebutted. Please check my earlier post, I think you got confused in the thread a little bit. :)
As far as your observation goes, you acknowledge that it's anecdotal. I can probably produce anecdotal accounts one way or another on a huge range of issues, but as we all know anecdotal accounts aren't really useful when trying to make generalizations.
Jeffrey.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
And did I say it was representative of the entire community? I SPECIFICALLY said I was commenting about those that I observed.
[ ... snip ... ]
I never said that in the first place. What are you talking about?
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
I posted in response to Jonathan's comments. You then apparently thought it was posted in response to you. You then defended his comments, and I rebutted. Please check my earlier post, I think you got confused in the thread a little bit. :)
As far as your observation goes, you acknowledge that it's anecdotal. I can probably produce anecdotal accounts one way or another on a huge range of issues, but as we all know anecdotal accounts aren't really useful when trying to make generalizations.
Jeffrey.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
And did I say it was representative of the entire community? I SPECIFICALLY said I was commenting about those that I observed.
[ ... snip ... ]
I never said that in the first place. What are you talking about?
--
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine _______________________________________________
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
OK- here's something directly on the KDE VS Gnome issue/s. DVD ubiquity has now made it almost trivial to package *BOTH* environments on distribution media. And large hard drives make "installing" both desktop/UI realms equally trivial. The undiscussed kudos for Ubuntu wil be discussed after more awareness of THIS::
http://www.linuxidentity.com/us/
Read the writeup about their Ubuntu family issue..
It comes in the form of a magazine containing a 2 DVD set. Basic explanation -one 32 bit,one 64 bit of the various Ubuntu flavors.
Get them. Evaluate them. Then after we all do so we might be able to have some experiential base to comment from intelligently. Oh, PLEASE do NOT take that out of context as derogatory! consider it more as explanation of how I try to self direct whenever possible.
"When did Autodidact's become an endangered species?"
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
I posted in response to Jonathan's comments. You then apparently thought it was posted in response to you. You then defended his comments, and I rebutted. Please check my earlier post, I think you got confused in the thread a little bit. :)
that i did
As far as your observation goes, you acknowledge that it's anecdotal. I can probably produce anecdotal accounts one way or another on a huge range of issues, but as we all know anecdotal accounts aren't really useful when trying to make generalizations.
true, but i don't think i have attempted to make a generalization yet
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
Well, considering that the other major alternative is KDE, which looks entirely too much like Windows, I think that a sigh of relief could easily replace that "eww".
Yes, KDE looks almost exactly like Windows *if you take the effort to click Windows as your default settings when you start it the first time*. On the other hand, if you choose, say, the default "KDE" settings, it's no more like Windows than GNOME is.
*Default* KDE has:
Nothing stops a distro from putting in a better default KDE look. I personally never stay with the default look.
--- Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
Well, considering that the other major alternative is KDE, which looks entirely too much like Windows, I think that a sigh of relief could easily replace that "eww".
Yes, KDE looks almost exactly like Windows *if you take the effort to click Windows as your default settings when you start it the first time*. On the other hand, if you choose, say, the default "KDE" settings, it's no more like Windows than GNOME is.
*Default* KDE has:
Nothing stops a distro from putting in a better default KDE look. I personally never stay with the default look.
But the majority of new Ubuntu users will never change their desktop, because they're coming from a Windows world where "changing your desktop" is an unheard-of concept.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
--- Craig Aldinger gonzogone@gmail.com wrote:
Please pardon me for a statement of the obvious... where do the almighty and linux get into the same forum? If I wanted to get into some kind of theological/spiritual debate it certainly would not be here! Linux, please, and save the rants on religion for some other web forum.
Linux vs. Microsoft has always been framed in a very "good vs. evil" conceptual structure, so rants about the almighty and rants about Linux have a lot of history in common: the Burning Kernel, the Exodus from Windows, the Penguin hitting Microsoft with a metaphorical slingshot stone, Linus the Baptist, the LinuxCon on the Mount, the triumphant ride up the hill of Corporate America (as corporations cheered and threw "greenery" at Linux), you get the picture.
When you throw in someone who is devout in both areas (such as Luke-Jr, who regards "ndiswrapper" as a kind of apostasy because it requires the use of Microsoft drivers), a Linux list getting a religious rant is entirely too likely.
You can't jokingly refer to Microsoft as "Satan" for very long before you start to believe it (provided you already believe in ultimate good and ultimate evil). Words have power.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
When you throw in someone who is devout in both areas (such as Luke-Jr, who regards "ndiswrapper" as a kind of apostasy because it requires the use of Microsoft drivers), a Linux list getting a religious rant is entirely too likely.
Do you enjoy misquoting?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
When you throw in someone who is devout in both areas (such as Luke-Jr, who regards "ndiswrapper" as a kind of apostasy because it requires the use of Microsoft drivers), a Linux list getting a religious rant is entirely too likely.
Do you enjoy misquoting?
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
I'll enjoy anything that annoys you!
RE:Satan.
Comparing MS to Satan is depending on which usage of the term- your position holds as having domination -a "flame" risk.
just for the sake of a straw man -- (incidentally, we haven't seen Don Davidson here in ages; he certainly has better things to do than dignify our drunken games with participation)
I would like to posit that the reason the sun comes up every morning is no more and no less than that Stephen Nordquist wills it to do so.
--- Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
When you throw in someone who is devout in both areas (such as Luke-Jr, who regards "ndiswrapper" as a kind of apostasy because it requires the use of Microsoft drivers), a Linux list getting a religious rant is entirely too likely.
Do you enjoy misquoting?
Nope, which is why I didn't quote you from memory. Note the lack of quotation marks around my own words in the phrase "Luke-Jr ... regards 'ndiswrapper' as a kind of apostasy" (the one above, obviously not this one). "Apostasy" generally means "becoming immoral" or "adopting immoral behaviors" (both of which aren't that much different from the strict dictionary definition, "leaving one's religion").
I pretty much nailed your exact opinion of "ndiswrapper", which you revealed during a KCLUG list discussion from December 2005 to January 2006, "Linux on older laptops":
On Thursday, 29 Dec 2005 14:20:47 Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:57, Leo Mauler wrote:
As for wireless support, learn this keyword: "ndiswrapper".
ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral drivers. Not a real solution at all.
Your use of the words "immoral drivers" was what prompted my comment about "apostasy". You didn't call the Microsoft drivers "bad drivers," or "poorly-written drivers." No, you used the religious term "immoral."
And when I tried to defend ndiswrapper, you replied again that it is better to have no drivers AT ALL than to have immoral drivers:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:57:18, Luke-Jr Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Sunday 01 January 2006 06:58, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral drivers. Not a real solution at all.
Of course its a real solution. If you don't have drivers then you don't have a network card. If you do have drivers then you have a network card, regardless of where the drivers came from.
What you meant to say was that it is a less preferable solution.
Better to not have drivers at all than to have immoral drivers.
Other people tried to reason with you as well. You would have none of it:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 03:17:03, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Monday 02 January 2006 02:20, Matthew Copple wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:57:18, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Better to not have drivers at all than to have immoral drivers.
Better an immoral driver than a $1,000+ paperweight (or a $1,299 Windows XP box, which is what would happen if there were no driver available).
Better to deprive business and a sale than to buy hardware without [moral] drivers.
===== And: =====
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:54:32, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Monday 02 January 2006 13:03, Bill Cavalieri wrote:
I'm not understanding your comparison of morality and ndiswrapper I guess.
The only practical use for ndiswrapper is to load an immoral driver.
========================== And I tried one more time: ==========================
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 04:33:11, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 20:42, Leo Mauler wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 05:34:44, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 00:19, Richard Piper wrote:
Just curious Luke, how far do you take this belief? Do you only run computers which work with a free-as-in-freedom BIOs as well?
If I had that choice, I certainly would. Ditto for firmware and hardware.
And if we had the choice of using "moral" drivers, we certainly would. Some of us don't have the choice of using "moral" drivers, so, EXACTLY LIKE YOU, we choose what we have to and not necessarily what we want.
That doesn't work when someone knowingly chooses to limit their choices by buying hardware lacking moral drivers.
I think that "apostasy" accurately describes your opinion of anyone who uses ndiswrapper in Linux. From the words you actually said, your opinion seems to be that there is no *moral* way to use ndiswrapper, thus anyone who uses ndiswrapper has clearly "left the fold".
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
Note the lack of quotation marks around my own words in the phrase "Luke-Jr ... regards 'ndiswrapper' as a kind of apostasy" (the one above, obviously not this one). "Apostasy" generally means "becoming immoral" or "adopting immoral behaviors" (both of which aren't that much different from the strict dictionary definition, "leaving one's religion").
Well, it looks like in this case you are only to blame for taking past tense as present, though I am as much to blame for having voiced such in the past and not remembering to correct them afterward.
I pretty much nailed your exact opinion of "ndiswrapper", which you revealed during a KCLUG list discussion from December 2005 to January 2006, "Linux on older laptops"
To revise my opinion, because it is indeed merely an opinion, I will state for the record: - I have no authority to speak on morality myself (only cite such authority). - - Therefore, unless someone with authority judges proprietary software to be immoral, I cannot assert it is. - - - Therefore, ndiswrapper is not inherently immoral. - ndiswrapper in fact adds support for NDIS, apparently an open standard for network drivers, to Linux - Since most NDIS drivers are proprietary and thus GPL-incompatible, this NDIS layer can be used (abused?) to legally bypass the GPL.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
Note the lack of quotation marks around my own words in the phrase "Luke-Jr ... regards 'ndiswrapper' as a kind of apostasy" (the one above, obviously not this one). "Apostasy" generally means "becoming immoral" or "adopting immoral behaviors" (both of which aren't that much different from the strict dictionary definition, "leaving one's religion").
Well, it looks like in this case you are only to blame for taking past tense as present, though I am as much to blame for having voiced such in the past and not remembering to correct them afterward.
I pretty much nailed your exact opinion of "ndiswrapper", which you revealed during a KCLUG list discussion from December 2005 to January 2006, "Linux on older laptops"
To revise my opinion, because it is indeed merely an opinion, I will state for the record:
- I have no authority to speak on morality myself (only cite such
authority).
- Therefore, unless someone with authority judges proprietary software
to be immoral, I cannot assert it is.
- Therefore, ndiswrapper is not inherently immoral.
- ndiswrapper in fact adds support for NDIS, apparently an open standard
for network drivers, to Linux
- Since most NDIS drivers are proprietary and thus GPL-incompatible, this
NDIS layer can be used (abused?) to legally bypass the GPL. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Ok- so in concept could not one apply using WINE as equally tainting of GPL? Since the vast majority of uses for WINE are to execute "proprietary" code.
We need to examine perhaps if using non-GPL code is either situationally ethical or unconditionally an ethics risk.
On Thursday 13 March 2008, you wrote:
Ok- so in concept could not one apply using WINE as equally tainting of GPL? Since the vast majority of uses for WINE are to execute "proprietary" code.
Neither ndiswrapper nor WINE violate GPL. Heck, WINE doesn't even link to anything GPL'd AFAIK, and it has a large application base that is GPL'd...
-
Arthur Pemberton -
Craig Aldinger -
David Ambs -
David Nicol -
feba thatl -
Jeffrey Watts -
Jon Pruente -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr -
Matthew Copple -
Monty J. Harder -
Oren Beck -
Phil Thayer -
Ty Unes