On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:14:23AM -0600, Ryan McDougall wrote: > I dont dare run a desktop at 800x600! :) I quite prefer they eye candy, > only when its spent on improving the computing experience. Granted
I guess that's where we differ - To me, "improving the experience" means more power, less unwanted interference from the UI (GUI or TUI) and more flexibility. That's one reason I've never liked Macs - I always found myself having to work around the interface to get things done. Often, there was no alternative. Fortunately, I haven't had to work on them in a few years. I certainly have nothing against GUIs, but I'm a firm believer in "if it's there, do it right". I realize "right" is somewhat subjective. If it's necessary, do it right - If not, don't do it at all. > Perhaps we have a different circle of friends, because we are finally > getting to the point where I can *start* recommending Linux as a desktop > to my friends. :) I'm afraid to - Gnome, et. al. are still too unstable and slow, IMO. I was showing someone at work my Gnome 2 installation on Solaris. It had just finished installing, so I logged out and then back into Gnome. Or at least, I tried to. I couldn't even log in - nothing but GTK errors on a stock, out of the box install. Needless to say, they weren't too impressed (and neither was I). I removed it shortly thereafter. I'm no huge CDE fan, but at least it works, mostly. > As I mentioned RH8 was whas one of the first to ship Gnome2, which still > had that new factory smell. My guess is that Gnome2.4 is going to look > very nice when it ships in the fall. IF you like the look - Even though I'm at a disadvantage often, I still like the "no handholding" aspect of Unix. It makes you learn more and faster than having the system do everything for you. You gain a much better undetrstanding of what's happening. > As for win98, as has been mentioned in another thread, win98 and linux > arent really comparable at all. Linux is a full-blown and highly > scalable modern OS. Windows 98 is a gussied-up DOS, made usable with a Exactly - And that was my point. The (much newer) Linux is *apparently* much slower than Win98 in terms of GUI response. There's no comparison between the core OSes themselves. > The purpose of making them similar is purely pragmatic. When a tech > support call comes in to RH, they dont want to have two separate > solutions to the same issue. This is also about ease of use, some people In which case they're shooting themselves in the foot. The bottom line is, they ARE two different interface packages and problems often have to be solved different ways. Obscuring which package the user is running is just postponing the inevitable. At some point, tech support is going to _have_ to ask, is it Gnome or KDE. Why not make it easier to determine up front? > get scared by too many options when they are trying to get work done. I > had an IT department head complain to me that the thing he hated most > about linux was that there were too many apps in the menu, and he had no Some people are also scared of the dark, their shadows. tall buildings, etc. I haven't seen any of those items go away recently... :-) You can't cater to the lowest denominator and make progress, IMO. You have to push your users to learn and become more skilled. > idea what any of them did. You have to admit, if youre not a hacker, you > dont want to have a choice of 5 different terminal emulators! Quite possibly, yes - With default setups, I've seen instances where certain console apps ran better in certain terminals than other, for instance. -- -- Len Philpot ><> -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://philpot.org/ -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (alternate email) -- -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
