[News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Wine 1.1.1 Released] ,----[ Quote ] | The Wine development release 1.1.1 is now available. | | What's new in this release (see below for details): | - Fixes for Photoshop CS3 and Office ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

  1. [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    [Wine 1.1.1 Released]

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The Wine development release 1.1.1 is now available.
    |
    | What's new in this release (see below for details):
    | - Fixes for Photoshop CS3 and Office 2007 installers.
    | - More progress on gdiplus.
    | - Support for Unicode files in regedit.
    | - Improved video playback.
    | - Many Richedit fixes and improvements.
    | - Various bug fixes.
    `----

    http://www.winehq.org/?announce=1.1.1

    A new way to use Linux.

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | I downloaded his project, a virtual desktop, residing on my windows XP
    | partition, signed up as a user, and am now testing everything to see how it
    | works. You sign on to a Linux desktop, use its programs, save the data, which
    | resides onsite, or you can save it locally. It is still in its early stages
    | and there is not every program that you might want, or need. There are
    | different levels of subscriptions, so I can see a use for individuals, and
    | even small business operators.
    `----

    http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,...334184b,00.htm


    Recent:

    Wine 1.0 Review

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | As a conclusion: for those who really need Windows applications, Wine is a
    | very good solution. The official website includes an applications database,
    | with testing results for each of them and how well they perform.
    `----

    http://vivapinkfloyd.blogspot.com/20...10-review.html


    Related:

    The making of Wine (how to make Windows apps merrier with Linux)

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Enterprises badly want alternatives to
    | Windows. Desktop Linux has come a long way since 1999, too. and (who knew?)
    | the Mac has become the ultra chic, must-have PC. The enterprise has its
    | alternatives - if it can only get those mission critical Windows apps to work
    | flawlessly. Wine, in its commercial form, has been doing so for years.
    |
    | So, in 2008, the 1.0 version will hit the streets and the timing could not be
    | more perfect. White admits that not every Windows application will work
    | flawlessly on Wine, but many a critical one for the enterprise has been
    | specifically optimized.
    `----

    http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/26915
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkh48wgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4LMACgpLnUxf3ivS HnQrEfTL1A/fCJ
    i6AAmgLQB8XpZSi9H4nb00/nGQkTFzK0
    =m5CK
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:08:08 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > [Wine 1.1.1 Released]


    Wow!!!
    It took them 15 years to get to V1.0 and now a couple of weeks later we
    have 1.1.1.....

    What a joke....

    Wine is just more Linux slopware....



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:46:57 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:08:08 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> [Wine 1.1.1 Released]

    >
    > Wow!!!
    > It took them 15 years to get to V1.0 and now a couple of weeks later we
    > have 1.1.1.....
    >
    > What a joke....
    >
    > Wine is just more Linux slopware....


    Fine. Don't use it.


    --
    Rick

  4. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    "Rick" stated in post
    -KmdnfFqs4PDyeTVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 6:03 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:46:57 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:08:08 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> [Wine 1.1.1 Released]

    >>
    >> Wow!!!
    >> It took them 15 years to get to V1.0 and now a couple of weeks later we
    >> have 1.1.1.....
    >>
    >> What a joke....
    >>
    >> Wine is just more Linux slopware....

    >
    > Fine. Don't use it.
    >

    Great advocacy!

    I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that answer!


    --
    I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.





  5. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    Snit wrote:
    > "Rick" stated in post


    >> Fine. Don't use it.
    >>

    > Great advocacy!
    >
    > I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that
    > answer!


    "Don't like it? Don't use it." literally is (p)Rick's best attempt at Linux
    advocacy.




  6. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:08:08 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> [Wine 1.1.1 Released]

    >
    > Wow!!!
    > It took them 15 years to get to V1.0 and now a couple of weeks later
    > we have 1.1.1.....
    >
    > What a joke....
    >
    > Wine is just more Linux slopware...


    Even after v1.0: "Wine is still under development, and it is not yet
    suitable for general use."
    http://www.winehq.org/site/about

    Best kualitee!



  7. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    "DFS" stated in post
    6pdek.289$t32.240@bignews3.bellsouth.net on 7/12/08 7:06 PM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >> "Rick" stated in post

    >
    >>> Fine. Don't use it.
    >>>

    >> Great advocacy!
    >>
    >> I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that
    >> answer!

    >
    > "Don't like it? Don't use it." literally is (p)Rick's best attempt at Linux
    > advocacy.


    That and knee-jerk denials of his flip flops even in posts where he *quotes*
    the very flip flops being referred to. Oh, and his feigning of ignorance...
    or later claiming he knew what he claimed to not know...

    --
    If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
    Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)






  8. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:06:51 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Snit wrote:
    >> "Rick" stated in post

    >
    >>> Fine. Don't use it.
    >>>

    >> Great advocacy!
    >>
    >> I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that
    >> answer!

    >
    > "Don't like it? Don't use it." literally is (p)Rick's best attempt at
    > Linux advocacy.


    There is no need to advocate Linux/OSS to you, Dumb ****ing ****, since
    you irrationally hate it.



    --
    Rick

  9. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:20:05 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "DFS" stated in post
    > 6pdek.289$t32.240@bignews3.bellsouth.net on 7/12/08 7:06 PM:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>> "Rick" stated in post

    >>
    >>>> Fine. Don't use it.
    >>>>
    >>> Great advocacy!
    >>>
    >>> I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that
    >>> answer!

    >>
    >> "Don't like it? Don't use it." literally is (p)Rick's best attempt at
    >> Linux advocacy.

    >
    > That and knee-jerk denials of his flip flops even in posts where he
    > *quotes* the very flip flops being referred to. Oh, and his feigning of
    > ignorance... or later claiming he knew what he claimed to not know...


    You should resume your therapy.



    --
    Rick

  10. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    "Rick" stated in post
    LqydnfjzAfU79-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:38 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:06:51 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>> "Rick" stated in post

    >>
    >>>> Fine. Don't use it.
    >>>>
    >>> Great advocacy!
    >>>
    >>> I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that
    >>> answer!

    >>
    >> "Don't like it? Don't use it." literally is (p)Rick's best attempt at
    >> Linux advocacy.

    >
    > There is no need to advocate Linux/OSS to you, Dumb ****ing ****, since
    > you irrationally hate it.
    >
    >

    Great advocacy, Rick!

    LOL!


    --
    Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
    conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.


  11. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    "Rick" stated in post
    LqydnfvzAfVX9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:39 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:20:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "DFS" stated in post
    >> 6pdek.289$t32.240@bignews3.bellsouth.net on 7/12/08 7:06 PM:
    >>
    >>> Snit wrote:
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>
    >>>>> Fine. Don't use it.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Great advocacy!
    >>>>
    >>>> I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that
    >>>> answer!
    >>>
    >>> "Don't like it? Don't use it." literally is (p)Rick's best attempt at
    >>> Linux advocacy.

    >>
    >> That and knee-jerk denials of his flip flops even in posts where he
    >> *quotes* the very flip flops being referred to. Oh, and his feigning of
    >> ignorance... or later claiming he knew what he claimed to not know...

    >
    > You should resume your therapy.


    And Rick freaks out *again*.

    Oh well... maybe next time you can actually stick to a topic and not just
    lash out with grade school insults.


    --
    Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
    --Albert Einstein


  12. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:02:22 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > LqydnfvzAfVX9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:39 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:20:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "DFS" stated in post
    >>> 6pdek.289$t32.240@bignews3.bellsouth.net on 7/12/08 7:06 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Fine. Don't use it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Great advocacy!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that
    >>>>> answer!
    >>>>
    >>>> "Don't like it? Don't use it." literally is (p)Rick's best attempt
    >>>> at Linux advocacy.
    >>>
    >>> That and knee-jerk denials of his flip flops even in posts where he
    >>> *quotes* the very flip flops being referred to. Oh, and his feigning
    >>> of ignorance... or later claiming he knew what he claimed to not
    >>> know...

    >>
    >> You should resume your therapy.

    >
    > And Rick freaks out *again*.
    >
    > Oh well... maybe next time you can actually stick to a topic and not
    > just lash out with grade school insults.


    You insult people, and then whine when they try to let others know what
    kind of person you are. You reap what you sow.


    --
    Rick

  13. Re: [News] Wine Reaches 1.1.1, GNU/Linux Runs in Windows

    "Rick" stated in post
    LqydnfXzAfU36uTVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 8:34 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:02:22 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> LqydnfvzAfVX9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:39 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:20:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "DFS" stated in post
    >>>> 6pdek.289$t32.240@bignews3.bellsouth.net on 7/12/08 7:06 PM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Fine. Don't use it.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Great advocacy!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that
    >>>>>> answer!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Don't like it? Don't use it." literally is (p)Rick's best attempt
    >>>>> at Linux advocacy.
    >>>>
    >>>> That and knee-jerk denials of his flip flops even in posts where he
    >>>> *quotes* the very flip flops being referred to. Oh, and his feigning
    >>>> of ignorance... or later claiming he knew what he claimed to not
    >>>> know...
    >>>
    >>> You should resume your therapy.

    >>
    >> And Rick freaks out *again*.
    >>
    >> Oh well... maybe next time you can actually stick to a topic and not
    >> just lash out with grade school insults.

    >
    > You insult people, and then whine when they try to let others know what
    > kind of person you are. You reap what you sow.


    The topic I brought up are your knee-jerk denials of your flip flops... even
    in posts where your flip flops are clearly quoted. I also noted your
    frequent tactic of feigning ignorance... which, ironically, you pretend to
    know nothing about.

    These are just facts about you. Sure, they are not flattering but I can
    *easily* back them up. Would you like me to post some clear flip flops of
    yours? Here are some:


    Rick: agreeing that the fractured UI of PCLOS is not a good thing for users:

    Rick:
    I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.

    Rick:
    Actually my view is not so different from usability experts.
    It does enhance usability to have menus and controls in the
    same places across applications. The more uniform or
    consistent that is, the better for the user. I have said this
    many times before. I am not coming around to your point of
    view.

    Rick:
    I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across
    an interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.

    Rick trying to defend the fractured nature of PCLOS and other such UIs:

    Rick:
    Why should he argue in favor of UI inconsistency? The KDE
    team doesn't seem to think it is a good idea. The Gnome team
    doesn't seemto think it is a good idea. The studies you keep
    posting seem to say it isn't a good idea. Why should he
    support it?

    Snit:
    I have merely pointed out that desktop Linux has a fractured
    UI and have been very clear about the effects it has.
    Rick:
    I disagree with your statement. I have repeatedly told you
    that.

    Snit:
    and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the
    risk of lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a
    desktop Linux solution might meet someone's *needs* but it,
    generally, will not meet them as well as other solutions.
    Rick:
    I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.


    Rick agreeing the PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is a fractured set of multiple
    UIs

    Snit:
    The fractured UI present in every desktop distro -
    a combo of KDE, Gnome and others...
    Rick:
    That's at least 3 UIs.

    Rick:
    Which UI would that be?
    Snit:
    The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of
    KDE, Gnome and others... there are differences, of course, in
    the different distros in details, but they all share that
    trait...
    Rick:
    That's at least 4 UIs.

    Snit:
    If you think it is merely an opinion and not a solid fact
    then point to the desktop Linux distro that does not have a
    UI with a fractured combo of KDE, Gnome, and others... or
    otherwise is not quite inconsistent.
    Rick:
    Your example is not one UI, it is a least 4 UIs.

    Rick trying to defend the fractured desktop Linux UI:

    Rick:
    Since they [KDE/Gnome] performed as designed they are not
    fractured.

    And, of course, Rick, you repeatedly whined you did not like the term
    "fractured" but you were not able to think of a better term to describe the
    schizophrenic nature of the desktop Linux UI.


    --
    "If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson




  14. Re: Michael Glasser lies again.

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:49:04 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > LqydnfXzAfU36uTVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 8:34 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:02:22 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> LqydnfvzAfVX9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:39 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:20:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "DFS" stated in post
    >>>>> 6pdek.289$t32.240@bignews3.bellsouth.net on 7/12/08 7:06 PM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Fine. Don't use it.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Great advocacy!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I am just wowwed. Man. I bet you converted 10 people with that
    >>>>>>> answer!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Don't like it? Don't use it." literally is (p)Rick's best attempt
    >>>>>> at Linux advocacy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That and knee-jerk denials of his flip flops even in posts where he
    >>>>> *quotes* the very flip flops being referred to. Oh, and his
    >>>>> feigning of ignorance... or later claiming he knew what he claimed
    >>>>> to not know...
    >>>>
    >>>> You should resume your therapy.
    >>>
    >>> And Rick freaks out *again*.
    >>>
    >>> Oh well... maybe next time you can actually stick to a topic and not
    >>> just lash out with grade school insults.

    >>
    >> You insult people, and then whine when they try to let others know what
    >> kind of person you are. You reap what you sow.

    >
    > The topic I brought up are your knee-jerk denials of your flip flops...


    Translation: you are lying again. You reap what you sow.

    > even in posts where your flip flops are clearly quoted. I also noted
    > your frequent tactic of feigning ignorance... which, ironically, you
    > pretend to know nothing about.


    You have a little procedure going where you accuse me of ignorance, or
    feigning ignorance. There is no way to answer the accusation because it
    is flawed. Do you still beat your wife?

    >
    > These are just facts about you. Sure, they are not flattering but I can
    > *easily* back them up. Would you like me to post some clear flip flops
    > of yours?


    They are lies, as I will AGAIN point out.

    Here are some:
    >
    >
    > Rick: agreeing that the fractured UI of PCLOS is not a good thing for
    > users:


    Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    PCLOS is fractured.

    >
    > Rick:
    > I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
    >
    > Rick:
    > Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It does
    > enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same places
    > across applications. The more uniform or consistent that is, the
    > better for the user. I have said this many times before. I am not
    > coming around to your point of view.
    >
    > Rick:
    > I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
    > interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
    >
    > Rick trying to defend the fractured nature of PCLOS and other such UIs:


    Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    PCLOS is fractured.

    >
    > Rick:
    > Why should he argue in favor of UI inconsistency? The KDE team
    > doesn't seem to think it is a good idea. The Gnome team doesn't
    > seemto think it is a good idea. The studies you keep posting seem to
    > say it isn't a good idea. Why should he support it?
    >
    > Snit:
    > I have merely pointed out that desktop Linux has a fractured UI and
    > have been very clear about the effects it has.
    > Rick:
    > I disagree with your statement. I have repeatedly told you that.
    >
    > Snit:
    > and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk of
    > lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop Linux
    > solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, generally, will not
    > meet them as well as other solutions.
    > Rick:
    > I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
    >
    >
    > Rick agreeing the PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is a fractured set of
    > multiple UIs


    Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    PCLOS is fractured.


    >
    > Snit:
    > The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    > Gnome and others...
    > Rick:
    > That's at least 3 UIs.
    >
    > Rick:
    > Which UI would that be?
    > Snit:
    > The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    > Gnome and others... there are differences, of course, in the
    > different distros in details, but they all share that trait...
    > Rick:
    > That's at least 4 UIs.
    >
    > Snit:
    > If you think it is merely an opinion and not a solid fact then point
    > to the desktop Linux distro that does not have a UI with a fractured
    > combo of KDE, Gnome, and others... or otherwise is not quite
    > inconsistent.
    > Rick:
    > Your example is not one UI, it is a least 4 UIs.
    >
    > Rick trying to defend the fractured desktop Linux UI:


    Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    PCLOS is fractured.

    >
    > Rick:
    > Since they [KDE/Gnome] performed as designed they are not fractured.
    >
    > And, of course, Rick, you repeatedly whined you did not like the term
    > "fractured" but you were not able to think of a better term to describe
    > the schizophrenic nature of the desktop Linux UI.


    Since there is no "the" desktop Linux UI, it cannot be schizophrenic. And
    it is hard to imagine how software can be schizophrenic. You, however,
    probably are.

    And now...

    There are windowing environments and there are applications that are
    written for the specific environments. The environments are cross
    platform, so that the environment and app written for will will generally
    look the same regardless or hardware architecture or underlying operating
    system. Apps written for a specific environment are native to that
    specific environment.

    Distros offer the ability to use different Windowing environments. They
    usually have a default environment that is installed unless the user
    chooses to over ride the default. That is called user choice, not
    fractured UI. Each UI is consistent within itself. A user is free to use
    applications not native to the default windowing environment. That is
    called user choice, not a fractured UI.Each environment is consistent
    within it self.

    Each windowing environment is consistent with itself. Users are free to
    use "non-native" applications if they wish. I am not familiar with
    Windows alternative environments, except for VMs, so will not comment.
    Apple, however, initially included OS 9 with OS X, and so by your
    definition, it
    seems, fractured its UI. Aqua and Classic were included for a long time,
    and so, by your definition, it seems, fractured its UI. Even now, Apple
    bundles X with Leopard, and so, by you definition, fractures its UI.
    Except, you are wrong. It is called user choice. Each environment is
    consistent within it self.

    Multiple UI environments have been a staple in computing since there were
    computers. Apple //s had them. DOS machines had them. Macs have them now.
    Not only are there multiple windowing environments for whatever native OS
    a person is using, VMs allow foreign OS to run side by side with the
    "native" OS. And, there are "emulators" such as Wine that allow "non-
    native" apps to run. You can even run Linux in a text environment... no
    GUI.

    Having the ability to run non-native apps is not having a fractured UI,
    it is the freedom to run non-native apps.

    And yes, I expect you to continue to dishonestly and selectively quote my
    words.

    Since you continue to spread lies about me, I will continue to tie your
    lies to your words.
    --
    Rick

  15. Re: Rick lies again.

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnVfx74MlAuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:24 PM:

    ....
    >> The topic I brought up are your knee-jerk denials of your flip flops...

    >
    > Translation: you are lying again. You reap what you sow.
    >
    >> even in posts where your flip flops are clearly quoted. I also noted
    >> your frequent tactic of feigning ignorance... which, ironically, you
    >> pretend to know nothing about.

    >
    > You have a little procedure going where you accuse me of ignorance, or
    > feigning ignorance. There is no way to answer the accusation because it
    > is flawed. Do you still beat your wife?
    >
    >>
    >> These are just facts about you. Sure, they are not flattering but I can
    >> *easily* back them up. Would you like me to post some clear flip flops
    >> of yours?

    >
    > They are lies, as I will AGAIN point out.
    >
    > Here are some:
    >>
    >>
    >> Rick: agreeing that the fractured UI of PCLOS is not a good thing for
    >> users:

    >
    > Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    > PCLOS is fractured.
    >
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It does
    >> enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same places
    >> across applications. The more uniform or consistent that is, the
    >> better for the user. I have said this many times before. I am not
    >> coming around to your point of view.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
    >> interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
    >>
    >> Rick trying to defend the fractured nature of PCLOS and other such UIs:

    >
    > Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    > PCLOS is fractured.
    >
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Why should he argue in favor of UI inconsistency? The KDE team
    >> doesn't seem to think it is a good idea. The Gnome team doesn't
    >> seemto think it is a good idea. The studies you keep posting seem to
    >> say it isn't a good idea. Why should he support it?
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> I have merely pointed out that desktop Linux has a fractured UI and
    >> have been very clear about the effects it has.
    >> Rick:
    >> I disagree with your statement. I have repeatedly told you that.
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk of
    >> lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop Linux
    >> solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, generally, will not
    >> meet them as well as other solutions.
    >> Rick:
    >> I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
    >>
    >>
    >> Rick agreeing the PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is a fractured set of
    >> multiple UIs

    >
    > Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    > PCLOS is fractured.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >> Gnome and others...
    >> Rick:
    >> That's at least 3 UIs.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Which UI would that be?
    >> Snit:
    >> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >> Gnome and others... there are differences, of course, in the
    >> different distros in details, but they all share that trait...
    >> Rick:
    >> That's at least 4 UIs.
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> If you think it is merely an opinion and not a solid fact then point
    >> to the desktop Linux distro that does not have a UI with a fractured
    >> combo of KDE, Gnome, and others... or otherwise is not quite
    >> inconsistent.
    >> Rick:
    >> Your example is not one UI, it is a least 4 UIs.
    >>
    >> Rick trying to defend the fractured desktop Linux UI:

    >
    > Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    > PCLOS is fractured.
    >
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Since they [KDE/Gnome] performed as designed they are not fractured.
    >>
    >> And, of course, Rick, you repeatedly whined you did not like the term
    >> "fractured" but you were not able to think of a better term to describe
    >> the schizophrenic nature of the desktop Linux UI.

    >
    > Since there is no "the" desktop Linux UI, it cannot be schizophrenic. And
    > it is hard to imagine how software can be schizophrenic. You, however,
    > probably are.
    >
    > And now...
    >
    > There are windowing environments and there are applications that are
    > written for the specific environments. The environments are cross
    > platform, so that the environment and app written for will will generally
    > look the same regardless or hardware architecture or underlying operating
    > system. Apps written for a specific environment are native to that
    > specific environment.
    >
    > Distros offer the ability to use different Windowing environments. They
    > usually have a default environment that is installed unless the user
    > chooses to over ride the default. That is called user choice, not
    > fractured UI. Each UI is consistent within itself. A user is free to use
    > applications not native to the default windowing environment. That is
    > called user choice, not a fractured UI.Each environment is consistent
    > within it self.
    >
    > Each windowing environment is consistent with itself. Users are free to
    > use "non-native" applications if they wish. I am not familiar with
    > Windows alternative environments, except for VMs, so will not comment.
    > Apple, however, initially included OS 9 with OS X, and so by your
    > definition, it
    > seems, fractured its UI. Aqua and Classic were included for a long time,
    > and so, by your definition, it seems, fractured its UI. Even now, Apple
    > bundles X with Leopard, and so, by you definition, fractures its UI.
    > Except, you are wrong. It is called user choice. Each environment is
    > consistent within it self.
    >
    > Multiple UI environments have been a staple in computing since there were
    > computers. Apple //s had them. DOS machines had them. Macs have them now.
    > Not only are there multiple windowing environments for whatever native OS
    > a person is using, VMs allow foreign OS to run side by side with the
    > "native" OS. And, there are "emulators" such as Wine that allow "non-
    > native" apps to run. You can even run Linux in a text environment... no
    > GUI.
    >
    > Having the ability to run non-native apps is not having a fractured UI,
    > it is the freedom to run non-native apps.
    >
    > And yes, I expect you to continue to dishonestly and selectively quote my
    > words.
    >
    > Since you continue to spread lies about me, I will continue to tie your
    > lies to your words.


    Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then attach
    your lies to my name.

    That is beyond pathetic of you.

    I proved - yes, Rick, proved - that you flip flop like a fish out of water.
    You lie and deny... OK, that is a part of the COLA culture... I do not
    approve but it is expected from you... but when you then tie your lies to my
    name... wow... you are clearly showing even you know you are way, way over
    your head.

    That is right, Rick - you have made it clear you do not believe your own BS.


    --
    Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
    Feel free to ask for the recipe.




  16. Re: Rick lies again.

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:45:37 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnVfx74MlAuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:24 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >>> The topic I brought up are your knee-jerk denials of your flip
    >>> flops...

    >>
    >> Translation: you are lying again. You reap what you sow.
    >>
    >>> even in posts where your flip flops are clearly quoted. I also noted
    >>> your frequent tactic of feigning ignorance... which, ironically, you
    >>> pretend to know nothing about.

    >>
    >> You have a little procedure going where you accuse me of ignorance, or
    >> feigning ignorance. There is no way to answer the accusation because it
    >> is flawed. Do you still beat your wife?
    >>
    >>
    >>> These are just facts about you. Sure, they are not flattering but I
    >>> can *easily* back them up. Would you like me to post some clear flip
    >>> flops of yours?

    >>
    >> They are lies, as I will AGAIN point out.
    >>
    >> Here are some:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Rick: agreeing that the fractured UI of PCLOS is not a good thing for
    >>> users:

    >>
    >> Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    >> PCLOS is fractured.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
    >>>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It
    >>> does enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same
    >>> places across applications. The more uniform or consistent that
    >>> is, the better for the user. I have said this many times before. I
    >>> am not coming around to your point of view.
    >>>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
    >>> interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
    >>>
    >>> Rick trying to defend the fractured nature of PCLOS and other such
    >>> UIs:

    >>
    >> Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    >> PCLOS is fractured.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Why should he argue in favor of UI inconsistency? The KDE team
    >>> doesn't seem to think it is a good idea. The Gnome team doesn't
    >>> seemto think it is a good idea. The studies you keep posting seem
    >>> to say it isn't a good idea. Why should he support it?
    >>>
    >>> Snit:
    >>> I have merely pointed out that desktop Linux has a fractured UI
    >>> and have been very clear about the effects it has.
    >>> Rick:
    >>> I disagree with your statement. I have repeatedly told you that.
    >>>
    >>> Snit:
    >>> and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk
    >>> of lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop
    >>> Linux solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, generally,
    >>> will not meet them as well as other solutions.
    >>> Rick:
    >>> I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Rick agreeing the PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is a fractured set of
    >>> multiple UIs

    >>
    >> Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    >> PCLOS is fractured.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Snit:
    >>> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >>> Gnome and others...
    >>> Rick:
    >>> That's at least 3 UIs.
    >>>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Which UI would that be?
    >>> Snit:
    >>> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >>> Gnome and others... there are differences, of course, in the
    >>> different distros in details, but they all share that trait...
    >>> Rick:
    >>> That's at least 4 UIs.
    >>>
    >>> Snit:
    >>> If you think it is merely an opinion and not a solid fact then
    >>> point to the desktop Linux distro that does not have a UI with a
    >>> fractured combo of KDE, Gnome, and others... or otherwise is not
    >>> quite inconsistent.
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Your example is not one UI, it is a least 4 UIs.
    >>>
    >>> Rick trying to defend the fractured desktop Linux UI:

    >>
    >> Your statement is a lie. I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of
    >> PCLOS is fractured.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Since they [KDE/Gnome] performed as designed they are not
    >>> fractured.
    >>>
    >>> And, of course, Rick, you repeatedly whined you did not like the term
    >>> "fractured" but you were not able to think of a better term to
    >>> describe the schizophrenic nature of the desktop Linux UI.

    >>
    >> Since there is no "the" desktop Linux UI, it cannot be schizophrenic.
    >> And it is hard to imagine how software can be schizophrenic. You,
    >> however, probably are.
    >>
    >> And now...
    >>
    >> There are windowing environments and there are applications that are
    >> written for the specific environments. The environments are cross
    >> platform, so that the environment and app written for will will
    >> generally look the same regardless or hardware architecture or
    >> underlying operating system. Apps written for a specific environment
    >> are native to that specific environment.
    >>
    >> Distros offer the ability to use different Windowing environments. They
    >> usually have a default environment that is installed unless the user
    >> chooses to over ride the default. That is called user choice, not
    >> fractured UI. Each UI is consistent within itself. A user is free to
    >> use applications not native to the default windowing environment. That
    >> is called user choice, not a fractured UI.Each environment is
    >> consistent within it self.
    >>
    >> Each windowing environment is consistent with itself. Users are free to
    >> use "non-native" applications if they wish. I am not familiar with
    >> Windows alternative environments, except for VMs, so will not comment.
    >> Apple, however, initially included OS 9 with OS X, and so by your
    >> definition, it
    >> seems, fractured its UI. Aqua and Classic were included for a long
    >> time, and so, by your definition, it seems, fractured its UI. Even now,
    >> Apple bundles X with Leopard, and so, by you definition, fractures its
    >> UI. Except, you are wrong. It is called user choice. Each environment
    >> is consistent within it self.
    >>
    >> Multiple UI environments have been a staple in computing since there
    >> were computers. Apple //s had them. DOS machines had them. Macs have
    >> them now. Not only are there multiple windowing environments for
    >> whatever native OS a person is using, VMs allow foreign OS to run side
    >> by side with the "native" OS. And, there are "emulators" such as Wine
    >> that allow "non- native" apps to run. You can even run Linux in a text
    >> environment... no GUI.
    >>
    >> Having the ability to run non-native apps is not having a fractured UI,
    >> it is the freedom to run non-native apps.
    >>
    >> And yes, I expect you to continue to dishonestly and selectively quote
    >> my words.
    >>
    >> Since you continue to spread lies about me, I will continue to tie your
    >> lies to your words.

    >
    > Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    > attach your lies to my name.
    >
    > That is beyond pathetic of you.
    >
    > I proved - yes, Rick, proved - that you flip flop like a fish out of
    > water. You lie and deny... OK, that is a part of the COLA culture... I
    > do not approve but it is expected from you... but when you then tie your
    > lies to my name... wow... you are clearly showing even you know you are
    > way, way over your head.
    >
    > That is right, Rick - you have made it clear you do not believe your own
    > BS.


    Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    attach your lies to my name.

    That is beyond pathetic of you.

    --
    Rick

  17. Re: Rick lies again.

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnUjx74MAauTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:39 AM:

    >> Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    >> attach your lies to my name.
    >>
    >> That is beyond pathetic of you.
    >>
    >> I proved - yes, Rick, proved - that you flip flop like a fish out of
    >> water. You lie and deny... OK, that is a part of the COLA culture... I
    >> do not approve but it is expected from you... but when you then tie your
    >> lies to my name... wow... you are clearly showing even you know you are
    >> way, way over your head.
    >>
    >> That is right, Rick - you have made it clear you do not believe your own
    >> BS.

    >
    > Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    > attach your lies to my name.
    >
    > That is beyond pathetic of you.


    You cannot "debunk" the facts my quotes *from* you are 100% correct.


    --
    Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472


  18. Re: Rick lies again.

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:46:59 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnUjx74MAauTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:39 AM:
    >
    >>> Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    >>> attach your lies to my name.
    >>>
    >>> That is beyond pathetic of you.
    >>>
    >>> I proved - yes, Rick, proved - that you flip flop like a fish out of
    >>> water. You lie and deny... OK, that is a part of the COLA culture... I
    >>> do not approve but it is expected from you... but when you then tie
    >>> your lies to my name... wow... you are clearly showing even you know
    >>> you are way, way over your head.
    >>>
    >>> That is right, Rick - you have made it clear you do not believe your
    >>> own BS.

    >>
    >> Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    >> attach your lies to my name.
    >>
    >> That is beyond pathetic of you.

    >
    > You cannot "debunk" the facts my quotes *from* you are 100% correct.


    You lies using exact youtes from people. You do it by selectively
    quoting, and then misrepresenting the quotes.


    --
    Rick

  19. Re: Rick lies again.

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnX_x74NIoefVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 10:35 AM:

    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:46:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> VaWdnUjx74MAauTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:39 AM:
    >>
    >>>> Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    >>>> attach your lies to my name.
    >>>>
    >>>> That is beyond pathetic of you.
    >>>>
    >>>> I proved - yes, Rick, proved - that you flip flop like a fish out of
    >>>> water. You lie and deny... OK, that is a part of the COLA culture... I
    >>>> do not approve but it is expected from you... but when you then tie
    >>>> your lies to my name... wow... you are clearly showing even you know
    >>>> you are way, way over your head.
    >>>>
    >>>> That is right, Rick - you have made it clear you do not believe your
    >>>> own BS.
    >>>
    >>> Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    >>> attach your lies to my name.
    >>>
    >>> That is beyond pathetic of you.

    >>
    >> You cannot "debunk" the facts my quotes *from* you are 100% correct.

    >
    > You lies using exact youtes from people. You do it by selectively
    > quoting, and then misrepresenting the quotes.
    >

    There is nothing misrepresented about the quotes I used from you. The only
    place you pretend they are misrepresenting you is to argue with the use of
    the word "fragmented" but then you refuse to use *any* word for the
    concept... in other words you play idiotic semantic games. Here are the
    quotes. Again:

    Rick: agreeing that the fractured UI of PCLOS is not a good thing for users:

    Rick:
    I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.

    Rick:
    Actually my view is not so different from usability experts.
    It does enhance usability to have menus and controls in the
    same places across applications. The more uniform or
    consistent that is, the better for the user. I have said this
    many times before. I am not coming around to your point of
    view.

    Rick:
    I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across
    an interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.

    Rick trying to defend the fractured nature of PCLOS and other such UIs:

    Rick:
    Why should he argue in favor of UI inconsistency? The KDE
    team doesn't seem to think it is a good idea. The Gnome team
    doesn't seemto think it is a good idea. The studies you keep
    posting seem to say it isn't a good idea. Why should he
    support it?

    Snit:
    I have merely pointed out that desktop Linux has a fractured
    UI and have been very clear about the effects it has.
    Rick:
    I disagree with your statement. I have repeatedly told you
    that.

    Snit:
    and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the
    risk of lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a
    desktop Linux solution might meet someone's *needs* but it,
    generally, will not meet them as well as other solutions.
    Rick:
    I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.


    Rick agreeing the PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is a fractured set of multiple
    UIs

    Snit:
    The fractured UI present in every desktop distro -
    a combo of KDE, Gnome and others...
    Rick:
    That's at least 3 UIs.

    Rick:
    Which UI would that be?
    Snit:
    The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of
    KDE, Gnome and others... there are differences, of course, in
    the different distros in details, but they all share that
    trait...
    Rick:
    That's at least 4 UIs.

    Snit:
    If you think it is merely an opinion and not a solid fact
    then point to the desktop Linux distro that does not have a
    UI with a fractured combo of KDE, Gnome, and others... or
    otherwise is not quite inconsistent.
    Rick:
    Your example is not one UI, it is a least 4 UIs.

    Rick trying to defend the fractured desktop Linux UI:

    Rick:
    Since they [KDE/Gnome] performed as designed they are not
    fractured.

    And, of course, Rick, you repeatedly whined you did not like the term
    "fractured" but you were not able to think of a better term to describe the
    schizophrenic nature of the desktop Linux UI.


    --
    Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
    slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
    imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal


  20. Re: Snit lies again.

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnXnx74NN4efVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 3:08 PM:

    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:07:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> VaWdnX_x74NIoefVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 10:35 AM:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:46:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> VaWdnUjx74MAauTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:39 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    >>>>>> attach your lies to my name.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That is beyond pathetic of you.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I proved - yes, Rick, proved - that you flip flop like a fish out of
    >>>>>> water. You lie and deny... OK, that is a part of the COLA culture...
    >>>>>> I do not approve but it is expected from you... but when you then
    >>>>>> tie your lies to my name... wow... you are clearly showing even you
    >>>>>> know you are way, way over your head.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That is right, Rick - you have made it clear you do not believe your
    >>>>>> own BS.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Dude... you cut and paste the same debunked BS of yours... and then
    >>>>> attach your lies to my name.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That is beyond pathetic of you.
    >>>>
    >>>> You cannot "debunk" the facts my quotes *from* you are 100% correct.
    >>>
    >>> You lies using exact youtes from people. You do it by selectively
    >>> quoting, and then misrepresenting the quotes.
    >>>

    >> There is nothing misrepresented about the quotes I used from you. The
    >> only place you pretend they are misrepresenting you is to argue with the
    >> use of the word "fragmented" but then you refuse to use *any* word for
    >> the concept... in other words you play idiotic semantic games. Here are
    >> the quotes. Again:
    >>
    >> Rick: agreeing that the fractured UI of PCLOS is not a good thing for
    >> users:

    >
    > That is a lie. You are a liar. I have never agreed with you the 'the" UI
    > of PCLOS is fractured.


    You have played semantic games with the word "fractured", Rick, but I
    *quote* you agreeing.

    >> Rick:
    >> I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.


    See: you agreed that a consistent (non-fractured) UI is important.

    >> Rick:
    >> Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It does
    >> enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same places
    >> across applications. The more uniform or consistent that is, the
    >> better for the user. I have said this many times before. I am not
    >> coming around to your point of view.


    See: you clearly described, in that quote, some of the clear downsides for
    the fracturing found on Linux desktops!

    >> Rick:
    >> I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
    >> interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.


    Consistency across an interface... in other words a non-fractured UI. Again
    you agree.

    *Exactly* as I said. And you denied.

    We have been over this - you flip flop and play semantic games... and are
    completely unable to defend your actions so you act in immature and
    reprehensible ways.

    >> Rick trying to defend the fractured nature of PCLOS and other such UIs:
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Why should he argue in favor of UI inconsistency? The KDE team
    >> doesn't seem to think it is a good idea. The Gnome team doesn't
    >> seemto think it is a good idea. The studies you keep posting seem to
    >> say it isn't a good idea. Why should he support it?
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> I have merely pointed out that desktop Linux has a fractured UI and
    >> have been very clear about the effects it has.
    >> Rick:
    >> I disagree with your statement. I have repeatedly told you that.
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk of
    >> lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop Linux
    >> solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, generally, will not
    >> meet them as well as other solutions.
    >> Rick:
    >> I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
    >>
    >>
    >> Rick agreeing the PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is a fractured set of
    >> multiple UIs

    >
    > That is a lie. You are a liar.I have never agreed with you that 'the'
    > PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is fractured.


    Well, other than in the quotes where I proved you did... sigh. See how you
    just flat out deny your own words.

    >> Snit:
    >> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >> Gnome and others...
    >> Rick:
    >> That's at least 3 UIs.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Which UI would that be?
    >> Snit:
    >> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >> Gnome and others... there are differences, of course, in the
    >> different distros in details, but they all share that trait...
    >> Rick:
    >> That's at least 4 UIs.
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> If you think it is merely an opinion and not a solid fact then point
    >> to the desktop Linux distro that does not have a UI with a fractured
    >> combo of KDE, Gnome, and others... or otherwise is not quite
    >> inconsistent.
    >> Rick:
    >> Your example is not one UI, it is a least 4 UIs.
    >>
    >> Rick trying to defend the fractured desktop Linux UI:

    >
    > I since I do not agree with you that the deskto UI is fractured, there is
    > nothing to defend. Another lie from you, Michael.


    You have repeatedly talked about the fracturing... as I quoted. Again,
    Rick, you are simply lying.

    >> Rick:
    >> Since they [KDE/Gnome] performed as designed they are not fractured.
    >>
    >> And, of course, Rick, you repeatedly whined you did not like the term
    >> "fractured" but you were not able to think of a better term to describe
    >> the schizophrenic nature of the desktop Linux UI.

    >
    > How can software, especially non-AI, be schizophrenic?


    Your ability to understand what you read is, frankly, very, very poor.

    --
    God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?




+ Reply to Thread