gui musings - Slackware

This is a discussion on gui musings - Slackware ; On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:33:31 GMT, Rhonda Moffat found a keyboard and typed: >So we have these recommendations to make. > >1. installation routines should be gui based as much as possible. Please no. Let it be text based. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 90

Thread: gui musings

  1. Re: gui musings

    On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:33:31 GMT, Rhonda Moffat
    found a keyboard and typed:



    >So we have these recommendations to make.
    >
    >1. installation routines should be gui based as much as possible.


    Please no. Let it be text based. Perhaps an option for the MSWindows
    users who come to linux to start the installation in a window like
    environment.

    >
    >2. new software should be gui based as much as possible and older
    > programs that are still used extensively should be rewritten.
    >gui based front ends, or even back-ends, are not acceptable. The
    >underlying principles of gui program construction can only be
    >applied when the gui is fully integrated into the application.


    Please no. We use Slackware for servers. Not to play games or watch
    video. Did you ever manage Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 servers. I
    have, and still do.. Long live Slackware for the text based
    installation and text based programs.

    >
    >3. gcc, debug, and the other programming tools, should be wrapped
    >in a solid, and standard, gui environment and all the hooks and
    >libraries needed to write X Window programs should be featured
    >front and center. We have to make it as easy to write an X program
    >as it is to write a bash program.


    Why? We don't ever install X on Linux servers. It takes time to
    install it, it takes a whole lot of disk space and we never use it.
    Maybe you want Patrick to build Slackware for Dummies? (that is
    Slackware for former MSWindow users who cannot type or think.)

    >
    >4. when people come to this ng looking for advice, they should be
    >shown the modern way of the gui, and not the old-fashioned bash
    >shell way of doing things.


    I know I'm repeating myself. But we only use bash.

    >
    >Remember, as long as people think that linux is all about the CLI,
    >they will stay away because for them it is too difficult to use.
    >They will stay away because the CLI appears primitive and
    >unprofessional. And they will stay away because most
    >unsophisticated users find themselves far more comfortable sitting
    >down in front of a bitmapped display, rather than the ancient
    >console mode.


    Slackware will start in textmode. But most others don't. They all fire
    up some sort of windows environment and after the install they start
    up with the KDE or Gnome. That's the most important reason for us to
    use Slackware. When you want to use Linux for servers, you don't want
    to use any GUI. Everything you can and will do with the machine can be
    controlled using only the command line. Maybe this is why Slackware is
    perhaps the most stable and reliable Linux version aviable.



  2. Re: gui musings

    Charles Collette wrote:
    > Slackware will start in textmode. But most others don't. They all fire
    > up some sort of windows environment and after the install they start
    > up with the KDE or Gnome. That's the most important reason for us to
    > use Slackware. When you want to use Linux for servers, you don't want
    > to use any GUI. Everything you can and will do with the machine can be
    > controlled using only the command line. Maybe this is why Slackware is
    > perhaps the most stable and reliable Linux version aviable.



    i use it to play games, surf the internet, program, and have a samba
    server running on it
    yet my system is a workstation and not a bare-bone server is there
    anything wrong to that?
    but i concur i want a damn text-based install it's fast as hell,
    intuitive and it doesn't give me crap
    like those buggy ubuntu and suse installs do



  3. Re: gui musings

    Charles Collette wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:33:31 GMT, Rhonda Moffat
    > found a keyboard and typed:


    >> 1. installation routines should be gui based as much as
    >> possible.


    > Please no. Let it be text based. Perhaps an option for the
    > MSWindows users who come to linux to start the installation in a
    > window like environment.


    Again, we aren't talking strictly linux installation. We are
    talking primarily about application installation within linux, as
    this is usually the only installation a user will perform.

    >> 2. new software should be gui based as much as possible and
    >> older programs that are still used extensively should be
    >> rewritten. gui based front ends, or even back-ends, are not
    >> acceptable. The underlying principles of gui program
    >> construction can only be applied when the gui is fully
    >> integrated into the application.

    >
    > Please no. We use Slackware for servers. Not to play games or
    > watch video. Did you ever manage Windows 2000 and Windows 2003
    > servers. I have, and still do.. Long live Slackware for the text
    > based installation and text based programs.


    Slackware, and other linux distros, will never be popular until you
    can watch all the videos and play all the games. We are talking
    about making linux, and slackware, more appealing for users, not
    admins.

    >> 3. gcc, debug, and the other programming tools, should be
    >> wrapped in a solid, and standard, gui environment and all the
    >> hooks and libraries needed to write X Window programs should
    >> be featured front and center. We have to make it as easy to
    >> write an X program as it is to write a bash program.

    >
    > Why? We don't ever install X on Linux servers. It takes time to
    > install it, it takes a whole lot of disk space and we never use
    > it. Maybe you want Patrick to build Slackware for Dummies? (that
    > is Slackware for former MSWindow users who cannot type or
    > think.)


    We're not talking about servers. You clipped away the preface to
    this article in which we made it clear that we are hoping that
    linux will change to accommodate more users. One of the reasons
    that OS/2 and unix are disappearing is because they only appealed
    to admins, not users. And one of the reasons they appealed more to
    admins was the strong, CLI based shells.

    >> 4. when people come to this ng looking for advice, they should
    >> be shown the modern way of the gui, and not the old-fashioned
    >> bash shell way of doing things.

    >
    > I know I'm repeating myself. But we only use bash.


    Who is "we?"

    >> Remember, as long as people think that linux is all about the
    >> CLI, they will stay away because for them it is too difficult
    >> to use. They will stay away because the CLI appears primitive
    >> and unprofessional. And they will stay away because most
    >> unsophisticated users find themselves far more comfortable
    >> sitting down in front of a bitmapped display, rather than the
    >> ancient console mode.

    >
    > Slackware will start in textmode. But most others don't. They
    > all fire


    It is trivial to start either distro in either mode.

    > up some sort of windows environment and after the install they
    > start up with the KDE or Gnome. That's the most important reason
    > for us to use Slackware.


    You can't change the default environment?

    > When you want to use Linux for servers, you don't want to use
    > any GUI. Everything you can and will do with the machine can be
    > controlled using only the command line. Maybe this is why
    > Slackware is perhaps the most stable and reliable Linux version
    > aviable.


    The most stable and reliable is debian. Or at least it was the
    last time we heard opinions on this stuff. We don't really keep
    track since slack is reliable enough for us. But you can remove X
    and all the X programs from any linux distro, if you want. It's
    not hard to do.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  4. Re: gui musings

    Charles Collette wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > Slackware will start in textmode. But most others don't. They all
    > fire up some sort of windows environment and after the install
    > they start up with the KDE or Gnome. That's the most important
    > reason for us to use Slackware. When you want to use Linux for
    > servers, you don't want to use any GUI. Everything you can and
    > will do with the machine can be controlled using only the command
    > line. Maybe this is why Slackware is perhaps the most stable and
    > reliable Linux version aviable.


    And you can always write a complex gui monstrosity to run a
    text-based (CLI interfaced) program. In some cases it might even
    not be a monstrosity.

    --



    cbfalconer at maineline dot net


    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: gui musings

    On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:47:21 +0000, Roland Morrison wrote:

    >> I know I'm repeating myself. But we only use bash.

    >
    > Who is "we?"


    Certainly some President or Editor :-)

    $ fortune -m editorial
    %% (fortunes)
    Only presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to
    use the editorial "we."

  6. Re: gui musings

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

    loki harfagr wrote:
    > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:47:21 +0000, Roland Morrison wrote:
    >
    >>> I know I'm repeating myself. But we only use bash.

    >>
    >> Who is "we?"

    >
    > Certainly some President or Editor :-)
    >
    > $ fortune -m editorial
    > %% (fortunes)
    > Only presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to
    > use the editorial "we."


    In rm's case, it is definitely the latter of the 3.

    BL.
    - --
    Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyketto@sbcglobal.net
    Unix Systems Administrator, | tyketto@ozemail.com.au
    Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
    PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGhA8XyBkZmuMZ8L8RAv2BAJ9EGGClKEYKUMKq5pW5bM GY/01FhwCgwkxB
    62MQhwwUwrBRIuBqEOMUr2E=
    =Kw6Q
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  7. Re: gui musings

    On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:32:29 +0200, goarilla wrote:

    > i use it to play games, surf the internet, program, and have a samba
    > server running on it
    > yet my system is a workstation and not a bare-bone server is there
    > anything wrong to that?


    Same here. For a while there I had to boot 'doze if I wanted to use the
    mike while playing UT2004 online, but I finally found I needed a three
    line rc file to enable the mike.

    I also use Slack to fix problems involving "locked" files in W2K.

    > but i concur i want a damn text-based install it's fast as hell, intuitive
    > and it doesn't give me crap like those buggy ubuntu and suse installs do


    IMO, there is not a better scheme to install Linux. The only item I
    might add is a page or two of text to explain what /dev/hda6 is, e.g.,
    and a note about configuring X. Then I'd place that file like so...

    /README

    So the newbie could stumble across it if he needs to.

    IMO, if you have trouble installing Slack you're too damn stupid to use
    ANY Linux distro.

    As far as need for slick, pretty GUI's go...It's a damn computer not a
    Supermodel.

    --
    Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
    Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
    Replace borg with net


  8. Re: gui musings

    loki harfagr wrote:
    > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:47:21 +0000, Roland Morrison wrote:
    >
    >>> I know I'm repeating myself. But we only use bash.

    >> Who is "we?"


    Did we actually say "I?"

    > Certainly some President or Editor :-)


    > $ fortune -m editorial
    > %% (fortunes)
    > Only presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to
    > use the editorial "we."


    The tapeworm's name is +Cibahole+, a real pain in the ass.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  9. Re: gui musings

    On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:47:21 GMT, Roland Morrison
    wrote:

    >Charles Collette wrote:
    >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:33:31 GMT, Rhonda Moffat
    >> found a keyboard and typed:

    >
    >>> 1. installation routines should be gui based as much as
    >>> possible.

    >
    >> Please no. Let it be text based. Perhaps an option for the
    >> MSWindows users who come to linux to start the installation in a
    >> window like environment.

    >
    >Again, we aren't talking strictly linux installation. We are
    >talking primarily about application installation within linux, as
    >this is usually the only installation a user will perform.


    If so, most MS users would still use MSDOS.... Or do you think they
    upgrade to new windows versions only when they buy a new computer with
    windows pre-installed?
    >
    >>> 2. new software should be gui based as much as possible and
    >>> older programs that are still used extensively should be
    >>> rewritten. gui based front ends, or even back-ends, are not
    >>> acceptable. The underlying principles of gui program
    >>> construction can only be applied when the gui is fully
    >>> integrated into the application.

    >>
    >> Please no. We use Slackware for servers. Not to play games or
    >> watch video. Did you ever manage Windows 2000 and Windows 2003
    >> servers. I have, and still do.. Long live Slackware for the text
    >> based installation and text based programs.

    >
    >Slackware, and other linux distros, will never be popular until you
    >can watch all the videos and play all the games. We are talking
    >about making linux, and slackware, more appealing for users, not
    >admins.
    >

    Please let others do this. I must admit using Linux is not always user
    friendly. But let Slackware the way it is, so we (our and other
    companys) can use it to run Linux based servers. Others (Debian,
    Ubunti) are trying hard to make it so you can only use their distro in
    a window environment.

    >>> 3. gcc, debug, and the other programming tools, should be
    >>> wrapped in a solid, and standard, gui environment and all the
    >>> hooks and libraries needed to write X Window programs should
    >>> be featured front and center. We have to make it as easy to
    >>> write an X program as it is to write a bash program.

    >>
    >> Why? We don't ever install X on Linux servers. It takes time to
    >> install it, it takes a whole lot of disk space and we never use
    >> it. Maybe you want Patrick to build Slackware for Dummies? (that
    >> is Slackware for former MSWindow users who cannot type or
    >> think.)

    >
    >We're not talking about servers. You clipped away the preface to
    >this article in which we made it clear that we are hoping that
    >linux will change to accommodate more users. One of the reasons
    >that OS/2 and unix are disappearing is because they only appealed
    >to admins, not users. And one of the reasons they appealed more to
    >admins was the strong, CLI based shells.

    OS/2 is disappearing. Nothing wrong with that. Unix maybe also. But
    Linux is not. Start up your web-browser go to google and see for
    yourself. The amount of sites dealing with Linux are growing each
    year.
    >
    >>> 4. when people come to this ng looking for advice, they should
    >>> be shown the modern way of the gui, and not the old-fashioned
    >>> bash shell way of doing things.

    If they come here, they most likely are using bash also. They are
    running Slackware you know. If someone needs to know somethings about
    the X-server, KDE or Gnome, well there are other newsgroups for that.

    >>
    >> I know I'm repeating myself. But we only use bash.

    >
    >Who is "we?"


    We is a group of admins, programmers and the like at out office.
    >
    >>> Remember, as long as people think that linux is all about the
    >>> CLI, they will stay away because for them it is too difficult
    >>> to use. They will stay away because the CLI appears primitive
    >>> and unprofessional. And they will stay away because most
    >>> unsophisticated users find themselves far more comfortable
    >>> sitting down in front of a bitmapped display, rather than the
    >>> ancient console mode.

    >>
    >> Slackware will start in textmode. But most others don't. They
    >> all fire

    >
    >It is trivial to start either distro in either mode.
    >
    >> up some sort of windows environment and after the install they
    >> start up with the KDE or Gnome. That's the most important reason
    >> for us to use Slackware.

    >
    >You can't change the default environment?


    Oh yes, you can. But why should you spend time disableing things it
    should not install in the first place. During install most other
    distro's don't let you chooce to use text-mode and if they offer it,
    you first have to read manuals on how to activate it. No thanks,
    please give me Slackware and keep it the way it is.

    >
    >> When you want to use Linux for servers, you don't want to use
    >> any GUI. Everything you can and will do with the machine can be
    >> controlled using only the command line. Maybe this is why
    >> Slackware is perhaps the most stable and reliable Linux version
    >> aviable.

    >
    >The most stable and reliable is debian. Or at least it was the
    >last time we heard opinions on this stuff. We don't really keep
    >track since slack is reliable enough for us. But you can remove X
    >and all the X programs from any linux distro, if you want. It's
    >not hard to do.


    The most stable and reliable might have been debian. But that was some
    time ago. Like ubunti, more and more crap is going in and more and
    more bugs pop-up.

    >
    >cordially, as always,


    Would by nice if you realy mean it.
    >
    >rm



  10. Re: gui musings

    Charles Collette wrote:
    > wrote:


    >> Again, we aren't talking strictly linux installation. We are
    >> talking primarily about application installation within linux, as
    >> this is usually the only installation a user will perform.

    >
    > If so, most MS users would still use MSDOS.... Or do you think they
    > upgrade to new windows versions only when they buy a new computer with
    > windows pre-installed?


    It is our personal experience that all windoze users bring their
    machines over to our house when they want their windoze upgraded.
    But if you are saying that there are more users who actually do
    their own updates, then you are making our point for us. It is
    hardly the case that most of them could perform a slackware install.

    >> Slackware, and other linux distros, will never be popular until you
    >> can watch all the videos and play all the games. We are talking
    >> about making linux, and slackware, more appealing for users, not
    >> admins.


    > Please let others do this. I must admit using Linux is not always user
    > friendly. But let Slackware the way it is, so we (our and other
    > companys) can use it to run Linux based servers. Others (Debian,
    > Ubunti) are trying hard to make it so you can only use their distro in
    > a window environment.


    We were speaking generically about linux. Slackware is as
    slackware does and public opinion has never been instrumental in
    slackware's distribution policies.

    >> We're not talking about servers. You clipped away the preface to
    >> this article in which we made it clear that we are hoping that
    >> linux will change to accommodate more users. One of the reasons
    >> that OS/2 and unix are disappearing is because they only appealed
    >> to admins, not users. And one of the reasons they appealed more to
    >> admins was the strong, CLI based shells.


    > OS/2 is disappearing. Nothing wrong with that. Unix maybe also. But
    > Linux is not. Start up your web-browser go to google and see for
    > yourself. The amount of sites dealing with Linux are growing each
    > year.


    Linux isn't growing nearly as fast as it could be, and if M$ ever
    comes out with a killer OS, as they keep promising, everyone will
    forget about linux in a hurry. Linux is only capable of evolving
    incrementally, using the same basic core. But M$ has the ability
    to throw everything out and start over and if they ever do that and
    come up with a winning formula, then it will be lights out for linux.

    It wasn't linux that put OS/2 and unix on the backburner. It was
    M$ and if things unfold the way they want, linux will join OS/2 and
    unix in the PC museums.

    >>> I know I'm repeating myself. But we only use bash.


    We know we didn't say "I." You did.

    >> Who is "we?"


    > We is a group of admins, programmers and the like at out office.


    That would be you, mom and the dog?

    >> You can't change the default environment?


    > Oh yes, you can. But why should you spend time disableing things it
    > should not install in the first place. During install most other
    > distro's don't let you chooce to use text-mode and if they offer it,
    > you first have to read manuals on how to activate it. No thanks,
    > please give me Slackware and keep it the way it is.


    It takes seconds to disable the gui from starting up at boot time.
    If distros thought that anyone was actually demanding startup in
    the shell, they would have given users a choice at installation
    time. The reason that slackware doesn't come up with a gui is
    because you have to setup the gui yourself.

    >> The most stable and reliable is debian. Or at least it was the
    >> last time we heard opinions on this stuff. We don't really keep
    >> track since slack is reliable enough for us. But you can remove X
    >> and all the X programs from any linux distro, if you want. It's
    >> not hard to do.

    >
    > The most stable and reliable might have been debian. But that was some
    > time ago. Like ubunti, more and more crap is going in and more and
    > more bugs pop-up.


    As we said, we don't keep track. But isn't there a super stable
    version of Debian?

    >> cordially, as always,

    >
    > Would by nice if you realy mean it.


    Wouldn't say it, if we didn't mean it.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  11. Re: gui musings

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

    Roland Morrison wrote:
    > loki harfagr wrote:
    >
    >> Certainly some President or Editor :-)

    >
    >> $ fortune -m editorial
    >> %% (fortunes)
    >> Only presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to
    >> use the editorial "we."

    >
    > The tapeworm's name is +Cibahole+, a real pain in the ass.
    >


    So following this logic, you have +Cibahole+ up your ass.

    BL.
    - --
    Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyketto@sbcglobal.net
    Unix Systems Administrator, | tyketto@ozemail.com.au
    Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
    PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGhDayyBkZmuMZ8L8RArLJAKCth1rqmYmxdMFgVRg8Kp 43itShXQCgv5OH
    u5/undpeJOk89Tq5W5ebd8k=
    =uNH6
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  12. Re: gui musings

    On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:23:18 GMT, Roland Morrison
    wrote:

    >Charles Collette wrote:
    >> wrote:


    <>

    >It wasn't linux that put OS/2 and unix on the backburner. It was
    >M$

    and it was not windows either. It was the, some would say, highly
    questionable, if not illegal, marketing plan that Microsoft used to
    push their vision of what a computer should be able to do. As for
    Unix the reason that Unix lost it following was the self-defeating
    marketing, and the number of different "versions" of Unix that
    lead to it's downfall.
    As for OS/2, the fact that Microsoft undercut the price of OS/2 so
    that Windows was about 1/4 the price (which has changed over
    time until now Microsoft now costs MORE than OS/2 did) may have
    a greater part to play in it's acceptance the anything microsoft
    did, that is other that steal everything windows is based on.

    << Another Large Snippage >>

    As for your rant on GUI vs. CLi. All a GUI does is hide the CLI and
    make it into SOMEONE ELSE'S vision of what a computer should
    look like.
    >
    >cordially, as always,
    >
    >rm


    Althiom

  13. Re: gui musings

    Althiom wrote:

    you are responding to that which shall not be named...it is a troll...it cannot be cured...please do
    not feed the troll.

  14. Re: gui musings

    Althiom trolled:
    > wrote:
    >>Charles Collette wrote:
    >>> wrote:


    > <>


    >>It wasn't linux that put OS/2 and unix on the backburner. It was
    >>M$


    > and it was not windows either. It was the, some would say, highly
    > questionable, if not illegal, marketing plan that Microsoft used to
    > push their vision of what a computer should be able to do. As for
    > Unix the reason that Unix lost it following was the self-defeating
    > marketing, and the number of different "versions" of Unix that
    > lead to it's downfall.


    The reason that unix lost was because PC hardware emerged as serious
    competition to the minicomputers that unix, but for DEC, almost
    monopolized.

    And we're not interested in any conspiracy paranoia about M$.
    Before they came along, everybody used to say the same thing about
    IBM. And AT&T. And ITT. And the beat goes on.

    > As for OS/2, the fact that Microsoft undercut the price of OS/2 so
    > that Windows was about 1/4 the price (which has changed over
    > time until now Microsoft now costs MORE than OS/2 did) may have
    > a greater part to play in it's acceptance the anything microsoft
    > did, that is other that steal everything windows is based on.


    IBM pretty much abandoned OS/2. Warp 4 was the last OS that we
    actually ordered and paid for. We loved it. But IBM didn't do
    enough to make it easy for others to write programs for it, and
    while it ran 16 bit windoze better than windoze itself and it ran
    dos better than MSDOS, it didn't run 32 bit windoze and IBM let it
    go. You still see versions of it around but nobody takes it
    seriously as a desktop anymore.

    > << Another Large Snippage >>


    > As for your rant on GUI vs. CLi. All a GUI does is hide the CLI and
    > make it into SOMEONE ELSE'S vision of what a computer should
    > look like.


    And you just exposed your own ignorance with that statement. All
    shells are somebody's vision of how things should be. It's just
    that the gui visions are better than the old-fashioned CLI vision.

    What some of you can't seem to get through your heads is that CLI
    based shells such as bash are not linux. You are not being disloyal
    to linux when you admit that the bash shell simply isn't good enough
    anymore. You are not being disloyal to linux when your system comes
    up in KDE.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  15. Re: gui musings

    the_bmac trolled:
    > Althiom wrote:
    >


    > you are responding to that which shall not be named...it is a
    > troll...it cannot be cured...please do not feed the troll.


    This bmac fellow crawls out once in a while to bitch about trolls.
    It's been rumoured that his real identity is Phat Phuck Macon Bacon.

    http://www.guymacon.com

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  16. Re: gui musings

    On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:33:52 GMT, wrote:

    << Large Snippage>>

    >> As for your rant on GUI vs. CLi. All a GUI does is hide the CLI and
    >> make it into SOMEONE ELSE'S vision of what a computer should
    >> look like.

    >
    >And you just exposed your own ignorance with that statement. All
    >shells are somebody's vision of how things should be. It's just
    >that the gui visions are better than the old-fashioned CLI vision.


    In your opinion. But then opinions are like assholes, everyone has
    one.

    >
    >What some of you can't seem to get through your heads is that CLI
    >based shells such as bash are not linux. You are not being disloyal
    >to linux when you admit that the bash shell simply isn't good enough
    >anymore. You are not being disloyal to linux when your system comes
    >up in KDE.


    By the same token, the way that one interfaces with Linux is NOT
    Linux, either. And if memory serves that was the starting point of
    this whole discussion.. The point of contention here is not so much
    pertaining to Linux as to how a person tells Linux what to do. You
    espouse the benefits of a graphical interface, others espouse the use
    of a command line interface. In reality, neither is wholly correct
    nor are the two sides entirely incorrect ( nor as definitive as you
    apparently think they are). When it comes to computers, as of this
    date there is no best interface, just that one that works the best for
    the individual.

    Althiom

  17. Re: gui musings

    On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:44:17 -0400, Althiom wrote:

    >>And you just exposed your own ignorance with that statement. All
    >>shells are somebody's vision of how things should be. It's just
    >>that the gui visions are better than the old-fashioned CLI vision.


    > In your opinion. But then opinions are like assholes, everyone has
    > one.


    And the troll, "rm", is one of the bigger ones you'll see.

    > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783


    Oh, and looks like you're a good-sized one, yourself.



    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  18. Re: gui musings

    On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:13:16 -0500, Dan C
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783

    >
    >Oh, and looks like you're a good-sized one, yourself.


    And why is this, because I happen to like the way forte agent does
    e-mail??

    You are just as 'off base' as RM.

    Althiom

  19. Re: gui musings

    On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:16:55 -0400, Althiom wrote:

    >>> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783


    >>Oh, and looks like you're a good-sized one, yourself.


    > And why is this, because I happen to like the way forte agent does
    > e-mail??


    This isn't email. Welcome to Usenet, n00b.

    > You are just as 'off base' as RM.


    Har. Bugger off, Win-droid.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  20. Re: gui musings

    Althiom wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > In your opinion. But then opinions are like assholes, everyone has
    > one.


    Not necessarily so, after an iliectomy.

    --



    cbfalconer at maineline dot net



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast