Beej Jorgensen wrote:

> Tom Newton wrote:
>>But those of us who know Linux rather than knowing KDE, generally
>>prefer to use independent applications.
>
> What do you mean by "independent"? Not dependent on the libs?
>
> -Beej

Heh. I believe you are going to be treated to a large, I say large, mound
of BS.

--
Old Man

"Swagger isn't courage." Lee Iacocca

On 2008-02-11, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
> Tom Newton wrote:
>>But those of us who know Linux rather than knowing KDE, generally
>>prefer to use independent applications.
>
> What do you mean by "independent"? Not dependent on the libs?

Of course! And independent of the kernel too!

:-) He's so bent out of shape at having KDE criticized that he's
gone off the deep end.

Like all technocrats, he wants the average user to be a clueless
appliance operator who must turn to him whenever they have a problem
with their artificial user-interface.

Aun those problems occur all the time, of course, because
artificial user-interfaces like KDE and Gnome simply cannot do
what they claim to do. They just aren't anywhere near as smart as
the average human being.

Or maybe I am being unfair. Maybe he just likes all that colorful
eyecandy and having a free hand for junkfood and drugs and such.

Breaking free of the technocrats is but one of the many good reasons
for learning to run Linux from the command line, ODE: the Other
Desktop Environment.

Other good reasons include:

* The ability to run almost any Linux/Unix OS, whether or not
it has KDE/Gnome/Sawfish... and whether or not it even has X
running.

(Note that I am not talking about running Linux under normal
circumstances without X. I am running X and a window manager
right now. And I use state-of-the-art graphical applications all
the time.)

* Using the massive amounts of system resources (disk space, RAM,
cpu cycles...) that KDE/Gnome require for better purposes.

* Having a much more stable and secure OS -- Unnecessary
complexity contribute heavily to instability and insecurity.

* Spending a LOT less time at system adiministration tasks
over the long run. It's actually easier to learn to run
Linux from the command line than it is to learn an artificial
user-interface like KDE/Gnome. It just _seems_ to be otherwise
because you already know how to use Windows, after which
KDE/Gnome were modeled.

(The technocrats and their corporate backers want you to
believe otherwise, but they LIE.)

And because your system is much simpler, it has fewer problems.


Tom


--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

Old Man wrote:
>Heh. I believe you are going to be treated to a large, I say large,
>mound of BS.

When you're right, you're right.

-Beej

On 2008-02-13, Guy Macon wrote:
>
> Tom Newton wrote:
>
>>These days, there are two kinds of Linux runners.
>>
>>There are the true Linux runners, who want to learn Linux and to
>>share their knowledge with others and/or write-maintain the free,
>>open-source software that makes Linux possible.
>>
>>And there are the false Linux runners who simply want a
>>free operating system and free technical support, who
>>don't care about learning Linux and don't have any intention
>>of doing their fair share of the work needed to maintain
>>Linux. Or of donating to the developers and maintainers of
>>the software they use.
>>
>>They just want to watch videos and listen to music and shop
>>and play video games and engage in mindless chatter with IM
>>and IRC and on web forums, etc.
>>
>>The false Linux runners are destroying Linux,
>
> These days, there are two kinds of airplane users.
>
> There are the true airplane users, who want to learn
> aircraft design to share their knowledge with others
> and/or build the engines and wings that make airpanes
> possible.
>

A bogus analogy. One already presented on this thread.

I am not talking about building anything. Linux has
already been built.

I simply installed Slackware 12.0, with X and a window
manager, and left KDE on the CDs.

But I could have done the same with any distro, some
of which favor Gnome.

The issue here is whether you learn Linux or you learn an
artificial (and incomplete) user-interface like KDE or Gnome.

Whether you become dependent on a bunch of corporate-sponsored
geeks or become self-sufficient.

Whether you are someone involved in the cooperative and
knowledge-based endeavor that resulted in the creation
of Linux and free and open-source software, or you are
just a mindless-consumer-couch-potato looking for
bargain software and bargain technical support.

Once again I am gratified to note that the people who don't like
what I have said here are too lazy to read, not only the thread
they have decide to participate in, but even the article they
are responding to, and apparently can't even understand plain
English.

Of are pretending they can't.

They make my case for me.

Supporters of KDE/Gnome are lazy and dishonest, in general.
And usually quite ignorant of Linux, too. Which is hardly
a surprise.

The main irony here is that it takes about as long to
learn Linux from the command line as it does to learn
KDE or Gnome.

But the command line (CLI) is a complete user-interface,
and KDE/Gnome are not.

And no, I rarely type long commands at the prompt. You don't have
to do that if you know what you are doing. And you can learn what
you are doing in very short order, despite what the technocrats
want you to believe.


Tom

--
calhobbit (at) | Artificial Intelligence:
gmail [DOT] com | When the real thing just won't do.

calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

that ^^^^ must be an experience, I mean using gmail with lynx.

--
Saccagno:horde@emeriss