On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-28 9:17 p.m., DFS wrote:
>> On 5/28/2024 2:50 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-28 9:34 a.m., DFS wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you bought a machine which was designed to run Linux,
>>
>> I didn't know there was such a thing.
>>
>> Does that mean Windows won't run on them?
>
> I'm referring to machines which have things such as Libreboot and where
> the manufacturer ensures that every functionality, such as waking from
> sleep and touchscreen recognition, works as intended. Windows would work
> fine, but it might end up functioning worse on that machine than Linux
> would, much like how Linux doesn't work great on machines designed for
> Windows.

Just buy Dell Latitude laptops and use Linux Mint. Waking from sleep and
touchscreen recognition is automatic with this combination.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-29 1:38 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:19:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:04:39 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 01:55:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because it's [WinXP] a good UI and some stuff still works..from
>>>>>>> what I heard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?? That Fisher-Price toy-style UI was a “good UI”?
>>>>>
>>>>> You could switch it to look mostly like Win2000.
>>>>
>>>> You’re admitting that an even older UI out of the 1990s was
>>>> nicer-looking than XP?
>>>
>>> 2000's UI was a bit enhanced over 9x, actually ...
>>
>> Really?? Now you’re resorting to comparing it with even older, DOS-based
>> Windows to try to make it look good?
>
> Spoken like someone who's never used Windows 2000. That version of
> Windows was spectacular, so Microsoft's decision to base XP on it was a
> smart one. It was stable, fast and it looks better than every Windows
> 95-like Linux desktop environment *to this day*. You're desperately
> trying to bury it, but it is only because you're jealous that a bunch of
> "untalented" programmers managed in 1999 to do something Linux
> developers still can't manage to do twenty-five years later. Not one
> person who looks at a Linux desktop environment today is impressed by
> how it looks. Grab a random, non-technical person from the street and
> show them Linux Mint and Windows 2000 side-by-side, and I promise you
> they would choose to use the latter despite its obsolescence. Switch
> Cinnamon for GNOME and the result would be the same. Your serious
> delusion won't change that fact. None of these people give a flying Snit
> if Mint uses the same kernel as is being used on supercomputers.

I used Windows 2000. It's inferior to Cinnamon, or Mate or Xfce in my
opinion. (Of course these desktops have the advantage of running on top of
Linux.) But I can't quite understand why you run down Linux UIs that look
like the Windows' UI — what is it about Windows 2000's UI that you think is
somehow unique compared to other Windows desktops?

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-28 7:36 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:04:39 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 01:55:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 01:32 this Tuesday
>>>>> (GMT):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2024 23:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought some people still use XP..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for what? Would you entrust mission-critical business operations
>>>>>> to obsolete, unsupported software?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because it's a good UI and some stuff still works..from what I
>>>>> heard.
>>>>
>>>> Really?? That Fisher-Price toy-style UI was a “good UI”?
>>>
>>> You could switch it to look mostly like Win2000.
>>
>> You’re admitting that an even older UI out of the 1990s was nicer-looking
>> than XP?
>
> Yep, you're dense. You're purposefully jumping from one topic to another
> in a vain effort to make Linux look good. For your information, _most_
> Linux distributions still look no better than Windows 2000 did. KDE
> imitates the 2000 look but adds amateur-looking effects and clunky
> widgets, Cinnamon imitates the 2000 look, XFCE poorly imitates the 2000
> look, LXDE/LXQT poorly imitate the 2000 look, and Gnome imitated the
> 2000 look until they decided to switch to 3.
>
> The point here is that if you don't like the Fisher Price look, you
> could use a more familiar one. Moreover, the familiar one in 2000
> released in 1999 _still_ looks better than what you'll get from a Linux
> distribution if aesthetics are that important to you. Lie to yourself as
> much as you wish if you insist on disagreeing.

Basically the Windows interface hasn't changed since the XP (except for the
disaster of Windows 8). Cinnamon, Mate and Xfce may look like Windows (which
is fine with me) but the underlying Linux OS is superior (and so are these
desktops, in my opinion — I use all three of them, but mostly Cinnamon).

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Wed, 29 May 2024 05:49:58 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2024 08:00:16 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-27 9:35 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 May 2024 08:42:54 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I already know that Linux is extremely popular with programmers.
>>>> It's just not popular with most of anyone else.
>>>
>>> Funny, most of the dozens of people I do Linux support for are not
>>> programmers/developers.
>>
>> Good for you. Do you understand the meaning of "most?"
>
> Linux is far more popular with non-programmers/developers than with
> programmers/developers.
>
> Does that answer your question?

I don't know if that's an accurate way to judge. Programmers tend to fix
their own problems. In our shop for the people running Linux IT drops off
a new, bare machine and leaves quickly. If anything the programmers help
others with the little Windows glitches. If IT gets involved it's usually
wipe and reinstall.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 05:25:46 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:

> I've build my Linux systems throughout the years, but this time, I'm old
> enough that I wanted a turnkey Linux workstation. (My time was very
> valuable when I bought it.)
>
> Further, I've already used System76's tech support for one issue, and
> they were very responsive. I don't think I'd get that with NewEgg.

Yeah, I've never went that high end but the thrill, I guess you'd call it,
of building a machine wore off a long time ago for me. Spending the time
to research the current processors, mobos, video cards, and so forth,
slapping them all together, and crossing your fingers when you plug it it
got old.

I do have a nice Antec case that I should fill with something some day :)

On Wed, 29 May 2024 07:52:47 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> How does Cinnamon's decision to revert to looking like Windows 95 make
> Linux desktop environments look good? How does XFCE continuing to poorly
> imitate Windows 95 make Linux environments look good? How does almost
> every desktop environment in Linux using a start button like Windows 95
> demonstrate how innovate Linux developers are?

When you've got a good thing, stick with it. The Ubuntu 22.04 'Show
Applications' buttin is a little too metro for me.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 07:42:40 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On 2024-05-28 6:57 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 17:08:49 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> I've since mapped that functionality to the middle button of my mouse
>>> because I use it all the time.
>>
>> What do you use to paste?
>
> CTRL-V. I don't see why I would need a mouse to paste.

Each to their own. If, for example, ps gives me a list of processes I
want to kill, highlight the pid and paste it on the kill command line with
the middle mouse button seems easier.

Windows is similar although you have to hit CR after highlighting and then
use the left button.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:03:37 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> The point here is that switching desktops is a useless feature for most
> users. Zealots like you swear by them, but most people see nothing wrong
> with just minimizing a window and switching from one application to
> another by using alt-tab. Once again, you completely miss the point
> because of your zealotry.

I'm smelling a little zealotry here too. If I have 4 VSCode instances in
different projects, A Visual Studio session, A bunch of terminals, some of
which have an activated venv, a db2, msbuild, or Anaconda shell, etc etc,
I'd rather not have to figure out the context on one big charlie foxtrot.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 15:31:56 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I used Windows 2000. It's inferior to Cinnamon, or Mate or Xfce in my
> opinion. (Of course these desktops have the advantage of running on top
> of Linux.) But I can't quite understand why you run down Linux UIs that
> look like the Windows' UI — what is it about Windows 2000's UI that you
> think is somehow unique compared to other Windows desktops?

Well 2000 was better than NT 4.0, the king of BSOD.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:10:09 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I once tried, as an experiment, writing an audio player using straight C
> and unions to do "inheritance".
>
> Once was enough.

If you've used C since before they were arguing about how to implement 'c
with classes' you tend to have a different outlook.

> COM... bleh.

No argument there.

On 2024-05-29 3:59 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-28, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-28 2:06 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 08:10:01 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> He started talking to me about virtual desktops and all the rest but the
>>>> response remained the same "virtual desktops, that's neat. How is this
>>>> better than minimizing and alt-tab?" In the end, very little of what
>>>> Linux has introduced has actually helped productivity in any way. I'd
>>>> say that the hot corners is pretty much the only one, but I have no idea
>>>> if that started in Linux.
>>>
>>> That depends on your work flow. I often have several unrelated projects
>>> going at the same time. it's easier to keep track if they are on different
>>> desktops especially if they all are similar. For example working with
>>> several Python venvs, each with a terminal and a VSCode instance, possibly
>>> with a browser instance for documentation.
>>>
>>> That was a feature I always missed on Windows and some of the third party
>>> attempts were unstable. MS finally caught on.
>>>
>>> Rotating cubes, hot corners, and so forth doesn't impress me. If fact when
>>> the mouse cursor drifts a little close to a boundary and I'm suddenly
>>> looking at a desktop with process icons or the window decides to expand
>>> itself to full page I get a bit pissed off.
>>
>> I thought hot corners were the smartest thing until I discovered that
>> the same functionality can be obtained through a three-finger flick
>> upwards on a trackpad. It saves me a lot of time, especially in class.
>> I've since mapped that functionality to the middle button of my mouse
>> because I use it all the time.
>
> I don't know anything about hot corners, but one thing I always turn off is
> tiling and automatic window expansion. When I move my application to the top
> of my screen I don't want it to expand to take up the whole screen.
> Irritating "feature."

To you, but I find it incredibly useful when I have to teach. To give
you an example, I was teaching writing proper introductions and
conclusions to my students today because they don't routinely transfer
what they learned in the first language to the second. I handed them a
paper with instructions, but I wanted them to read the paper and have me
make an example at the same time. I put one PDF on one side and Word on
the other. It allows them to truly understand what each point looks like
so that things don't just remain as theories.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Wed, 29 May 2024 07:42:40 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-28 6:57 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 17:08:49 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've since mapped that functionality to the middle button of my mouse
>>>> because I use it all the time.
>>>
>>> What do you use to paste?
>>
>> CTRL-V. I don't see why I would need a mouse to paste.
>
> Each to their own. If, for example, ps gives me a list of processes I
> want to kill, highlight the pid and paste it on the kill command line with
> the middle mouse button seems easier.

Or use killall and tab completion:

$ killall geon<TAB> ---> $ killall geonkick

> Windows is similar although you have to hit CR after highlighting and then
> use the left button.

--
The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal.
-- Mark Twain

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:10:09 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> I once tried, as an experiment, writing an audio player using straight C
>> and unions to do "inheritance".
>>
>> Once was enough.
>
> If you've used C since before they were arguing about how to implement 'c
> with classes' you tend to have a different outlook.

I started using C (on a PDP-11) around the early 1980's.

I started using C++ (on PCs) around the early 1990's.

In both cases there was a learning curve wherein my code was crappy.

>> COM... bleh.
>
> No argument there.

--
You have a will that can be influenced by all with whom you come in contact.

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-28 7:36 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:04:39 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 01:55:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 01:32 this Tuesday
>>>>> (GMT):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2024 23:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought some people still use XP..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for what? Would you entrust mission-critical business operations
>>>>>> to obsolete, unsupported software?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because it's a good UI and some stuff still works..from what I
>>>>> heard.
>>>>
>>>> Really?? That Fisher-Price toy-style UI was a “good UI”?
>>>
>>> You could switch it to look mostly like Win2000.
>>
>> You’re admitting that an even older UI out of the 1990s was nicer-looking
>> than XP?
>
> Yep, you're dense. You're purposefully jumping from one topic to another
> in a vain effort to make Linux look good. For your information, _most_
> Linux distributions still look no better than Windows 2000 did. KDE
> imitates the 2000 look but adds amateur-looking effects and clunky
> widgets, Cinnamon imitates the 2000 look, XFCE poorly imitates the 2000
> look, LXDE/LXQT poorly imitate the 2000 look, and Gnome imitated the
> 2000 look until they decided to switch to 3.
>
> The point here is that if you don't like the Fisher Price look, you
> could use a more familiar one. Moreover, the familiar one in 2000
> released in 1999 _still_ looks better than what you'll get from a Linux
> distribution if aesthetics are that important to you.

Then explain the existence of Windowblinds. :-)

You can get the Win 2000 look if that makes you tumescent:

https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/comments/tijkr3/plasma_welcome_to_fedora_2000/?rdt=38685

--
Q: Why was Stonehenge abandoned?
A: It wasn't IBM compatible.

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-28 11:49 p.m., vallor wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 23:17:32 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
>> <66569e4b$8$1258331$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> On 5/28/2024 11:12 PM, vallor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 22:26:01 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
>>>> <v363no$viqs$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/28/2024 10:24 PM, vallor wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 21:17:06 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
>>>>>> <66568211$2$8094$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2024 2:50 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-28 9:34 a.m., DFS wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you bought a machine which was designed to run Linux,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't know there was such a thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that mean Windows won't run on them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't want to try to run Windows on this system, unless it was
>>>>>> in a virt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> First, I don't want Microsoft to get its greasy fingers on my EFI.
>>>>
>>>> Second, it probably doesn't have drivers for the custom daughterboard
>>>> that runs the cooling, and I'm not willing to spend the time to chase
>>>> down Windows drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Third...there's no need. The system is perfectly fine with what it
>>>> has,
>>>> and needs nothing that Windows has to offer. If that changed, maybe
>>>> I'd rethink it.
>>>
>>>
>>> What are the exact specs of the hardware?
>> This is the 1.0 version, I have the 1.1 version:
>>
>> https://tech-docs.system76.com/models/thelio-mega-r1.0/README.html
>>
>> With a AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X. 256G of ECC memory.
>>
>> NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti
>>
>> If the daughterboard isn't supported on Windows, all the cooling
>> fans will run full-speed, which would be annoying.
>
> Wow, that'll run the rotating cube marvelously! :P

Heh, I see in aptitude (on Ubuntu) the compiz package, plus some additional
packages like compiz-gnome and compiz-mate.

Not gonna install it, just noting it. "Compiz Reloaded is the result of the
re-unification of the Beryl-project and the community around the Compiz Windows
Manager."

--
Don't tell any big lies today. Small ones can be just as effective.

On 2024-05-29 7:48 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-05-28 9:34 a.m., DFS wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2024 10:24 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-27 9:25 a.m., DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sure that all Linux companies are in tears at the knowledge that
>>>> you won't buy from them.
>>>
>>> I engage in psychological warfare.  I log to Linux sites like System76,
>>> load up a cart with 4 maxed-out systems... then leave.  It kills them!
>>
>> If you bought a machine which was designed to run Linux, rather than
>> install Linux on a machine that originally came with Windows, you might
>> actually enjoy it. I know that I was a big fan of Linux on my
>> AMD-powered Dell laptop back in 2007-2009. I only stopped using Linux
>> because that laptop eventually died, and I replaced it with a Sony Vaio
>> which didn't seem to like the operating system at all.
>
> My Lenovo Flex 14 works great with Linux. The first thing I did after
> I bought it was slick Windows from it.
>
> I've installed Linux on a single-core Acer (it ran Solidworks in a Windows
> VM surprisingly well), a couple of Toshiba laptops, a number of Dell laptops,
> a no-name laptop that came with Windows NT (Red Hat wouldn't work, a bug in K6
> support, but that gave me the impetus to master Debian), an Asus "gaming"
> laptop (it's now my desktop/server, always on), various name-brand and no-name
> desktop boxes....
>
> The Linuxen? Red Hat (the original); Debian Sid; Gentoo; Ubuntu; and Arch.
>
> The main issues I encountered early in my Linux career involved needing to
> build Intel wireless drivers.

For me, there is a greater chance that Linux will run fine on a machine
built for Windows than there is that Windows will run fine on a machine
built for Linux.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 May 2024 07:52:47 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> How does Cinnamon's decision to revert to looking like Windows 95 make
>> Linux desktop environments look good? How does XFCE continuing to poorly
>> imitate Windows 95 make Linux environments look good? How does almost
>> every desktop environment in Linux using a start button like Windows 95
>> demonstrate how innovate Linux developers are?
>
>When you've got a good thing, stick with it. The Ubuntu 22.04 'Show
>Applications' buttin is a little too metro for me.

No one has ever improved on the Win95 type of UI, that I've ever seen,
they might look "cooler", or something, but functional-wise, not
really.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-05-29 8:14 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-05-28 8:42 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny enough, the guy I worked with who was a Linux die-hard also used
>>>> the rotating cube to "convince" me that Linux was better. My only
>>>> response to him was "that's pretty, how is this better than pressing
>>>> alt-tab?"
>>>
>>> Heh. Reminds me of when I bought my Amiga A1000 and was showing it
>>> off to friends. Even non-geek friends were forced to endure many
>>> minutes of watching "cool" graphics demos.
>>>
>>> They were probably thinking along the lines of "Am I supposed to find
>>> this interesting or useful?"
>>
>> Before I bought an IBM PS/1 in 1991, I enjoyed passing by the local
>> Compucentre where they had an Amiga housed on the outside corner of the
>> store showing the bouncy ball and how they could display 4096 colours or
>> whatever. It was impressive in 1988 and was still impressive when I
>> bought another computer in 1991. I often wonder why I didn't just go
>> ahead and buy an Amiga at that point.
>
> I gave OS/2 Warp a spin once when it was cheap. It was pretty interesting.
> Unfortunately Bill Gates was able to outfuck IBM.

I read a few documentaries about that and it seems that IBM was
responsible for screwing itself in that relationship. Whereas Microsoft
just went ahead and produced whatever code they needed, every last
decision needed to be approved by manager after manager after manager in
IBM. Additionally, IBM paid programmers by the line of code, so there
was a lot of time wasted. I'm sure that someone will tell me the
opposite is true, but if you look at how IBM has made itself completely
irrelevant over the last few decades, you know that there is a lot more
truth than lie.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-29 11:23 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-29 1:42 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 08:10:01 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny enough, the guy I worked with who was a Linux die-hard also used
>>>> the rotating cube to "convince" me that Linux was better. My only
>>>> response to him was "that's pretty, how is this better than pressing
>>>> alt-tab?"
>>>
>>> Alt-tab is just for switching windows within a desktop.
>>>
>>> On KDE, I also have keyboard shortcuts for switching desktops.
>>>
>>> (You know about multiple desktops? A feature which the *nix world has had
>>> since the days of OSF Motif/CDE, which Microsoft is now trying to emulate
>>> but still can’t get right?)
>>>
>>> The desktop cube, wobbly windows, disintegrating windows ... that’s all
>>> just bling for inducing Linux-envy among Windows sufferers.
>>
>> The point here is that switching desktops is a useless feature for most
>> users. Zealots like you swear by them, but most people see nothing wrong
>> with just minimizing a window and switching from one application to
>> another by using alt-tab. Once again, you completely miss the point
>> because of your zealotry.
>
> I'm guessing that most people who don't use multiple desktops are ignorant
> about how useful this feature is. This was one of the first things that
> attracted me to Linux when moving over from Windows. Separate desktops for
> separate jobs. I use this feature constantly.

It might be useful for some, but most people won't see a point to them.
If you want one desktop for media consumption, one for gaming and one
for word processing, knock yourself out. Most people will just put the
applications for all three categories in the same desktop and minimize
whatever they're not using.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-29 11:26 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-28 9:17 p.m., DFS wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2024 2:50 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-28 9:34 a.m., DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you bought a machine which was designed to run Linux,
>>>
>>> I didn't know there was such a thing.
>>>
>>> Does that mean Windows won't run on them?
>>
>> I'm referring to machines which have things such as Libreboot and where
>> the manufacturer ensures that every functionality, such as waking from
>> sleep and touchscreen recognition, works as intended. Windows would work
>> fine, but it might end up functioning worse on that machine than Linux
>> would, much like how Linux doesn't work great on machines designed for
>> Windows.
>
> Just buy Dell Latitude laptops and use Linux Mint. Waking from sleep and
> touchscreen recognition is automatic with this combination.

I might actually consider that when it is time to switch this machine
for another. For now, it works right. If and when Windows becomes too
unbearable, I'll put Linux on it and try using it for a few years
longer. I'm in no hurry to switch machines, even for gaming purposes
because there is a ton of old stuff I haven't yet played available for
cheap on GOG. Those old games work great with my GPU and will continue
to work great in 2035.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-29 11:31 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-29 1:38 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:19:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:04:39 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 01:55:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because it's [WinXP] a good UI and some stuff still works..from
>>>>>>>> what I heard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really?? That Fisher-Price toy-style UI was a “good UI”?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could switch it to look mostly like Win2000.
>>>>>
>>>>> You’re admitting that an even older UI out of the 1990s was
>>>>> nicer-looking than XP?
>>>>
>>>> 2000's UI was a bit enhanced over 9x, actually ...
>>>
>>> Really?? Now you’re resorting to comparing it with even older, DOS-based
>>> Windows to try to make it look good?
>>
>> Spoken like someone who's never used Windows 2000. That version of
>> Windows was spectacular, so Microsoft's decision to base XP on it was a
>> smart one. It was stable, fast and it looks better than every Windows
>> 95-like Linux desktop environment *to this day*. You're desperately
>> trying to bury it, but it is only because you're jealous that a bunch of
>> "untalented" programmers managed in 1999 to do something Linux
>> developers still can't manage to do twenty-five years later. Not one
>> person who looks at a Linux desktop environment today is impressed by
>> how it looks. Grab a random, non-technical person from the street and
>> show them Linux Mint and Windows 2000 side-by-side, and I promise you
>> they would choose to use the latter despite its obsolescence. Switch
>> Cinnamon for GNOME and the result would be the same. Your serious
>> delusion won't change that fact. None of these people give a flying Snit
>> if Mint uses the same kernel as is being used on supercomputers.
>
> I used Windows 2000. It's inferior to Cinnamon, or Mate or Xfce in my
> opinion. (Of course these desktops have the advantage of running on top of
> Linux.) But I can't quite understand why you run down Linux UIs that look
> like the Windows' UI — what is it about Windows 2000's UI that you think is
> somehow unique compared to other Windows desktops?

Whether D'Oliveiro wants to admit it or not, Windows 2000 and XP both
looked like professional operating systems when they were released, and
they had a polished look which is often sorely lacking from Linux
desktop environments. Aside from Ubuntu which always manages to make
GNOME look great, the desktop environment of choice in most
distributions always has elements which simply don't look right. It's
still a fantastic environment which allows you to do every job you can
think of and more very effectively, but there is no reason to criticize
the way that any version of Windows has looked when the current crop of
Linux desktop environments don't look better at all.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-29 11:37 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-28 7:36 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:04:39 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 01:55:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 01:32 this Tuesday
>>>>>> (GMT):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2024 23:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought some people still use XP..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But for what? Would you entrust mission-critical business operations
>>>>>>> to obsolete, unsupported software?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because it's a good UI and some stuff still works..from what I
>>>>>> heard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?? That Fisher-Price toy-style UI was a “good UI”?
>>>>
>>>> You could switch it to look mostly like Win2000.
>>>
>>> You’re admitting that an even older UI out of the 1990s was nicer-looking
>>> than XP?
>>
>> Yep, you're dense. You're purposefully jumping from one topic to another
>> in a vain effort to make Linux look good. For your information, _most_
>> Linux distributions still look no better than Windows 2000 did. KDE
>> imitates the 2000 look but adds amateur-looking effects and clunky
>> widgets, Cinnamon imitates the 2000 look, XFCE poorly imitates the 2000
>> look, LXDE/LXQT poorly imitate the 2000 look, and Gnome imitated the
>> 2000 look until they decided to switch to 3.
>>
>> The point here is that if you don't like the Fisher Price look, you
>> could use a more familiar one. Moreover, the familiar one in 2000
>> released in 1999 _still_ looks better than what you'll get from a Linux
>> distribution if aesthetics are that important to you. Lie to yourself as
>> much as you wish if you insist on disagreeing.
>
> Basically the Windows interface hasn't changed since the XP (except for the
> disaster of Windows 8). Cinnamon, Mate and Xfce may look like Windows (which
> is fine with me) but the underlying Linux OS is superior (and so are these
> desktops, in my opinion — I use all three of them, but mostly Cinnamon).

Except that Lawrence was focusing on the way it looked, not the way it
ran. Linux, even then, was a lot more functional than Windows was. You
could do a lot more with any Linux distribution than you could with
Windows, and for free. However, the desktop environments only recently
starting looking like something other than an amateur programmer's wet
dream. I would say that Ubuntu is the group most responsible for
improving the look of the Linux desktop.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-29 12:44 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:03:37 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> The point here is that switching desktops is a useless feature for most
>> users. Zealots like you swear by them, but most people see nothing wrong
>> with just minimizing a window and switching from one application to
>> another by using alt-tab. Once again, you completely miss the point
>> because of your zealotry.
>
> I'm smelling a little zealotry here too. If I have 4 VSCode instances in
> different projects, A Visual Studio session, A bunch of terminals, some of
> which have an activated venv, a db2, msbuild, or Anaconda shell, etc etc,
> I'd rather not have to figure out the context on one big charlie foxtrot.

There are uses for virtual desktops for _some_, but most people won't
adopt them the way they did the Start button. In fact, I find hot
corners to be the most useful innovation in recent GUI, but even that is
not likely to be considered useful by most. Acting like virtual desktops
is some sort of primordial feature that will set the world on fire is
ridiculous. It's been around for decades and the same way people didn't
give a Snit then, they don't give a Snit now. Minimizing and alt-tab is
quite fine with lots of people.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-29 1:49 p.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-05-28 7:36 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:04:39 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 01:55:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 01:32 this Tuesday
>>>>>> (GMT):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2024 23:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought some people still use XP..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But for what? Would you entrust mission-critical business operations
>>>>>>> to obsolete, unsupported software?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because it's a good UI and some stuff still works..from what I
>>>>>> heard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?? That Fisher-Price toy-style UI was a “good UI”?
>>>>
>>>> You could switch it to look mostly like Win2000.
>>>
>>> You’re admitting that an even older UI out of the 1990s was nicer-looking
>>> than XP?
>>
>> Yep, you're dense. You're purposefully jumping from one topic to another
>> in a vain effort to make Linux look good. For your information, _most_
>> Linux distributions still look no better than Windows 2000 did. KDE
>> imitates the 2000 look but adds amateur-looking effects and clunky
>> widgets, Cinnamon imitates the 2000 look, XFCE poorly imitates the 2000
>> look, LXDE/LXQT poorly imitate the 2000 look, and Gnome imitated the
>> 2000 look until they decided to switch to 3.
>>
>> The point here is that if you don't like the Fisher Price look, you
>> could use a more familiar one. Moreover, the familiar one in 2000
>> released in 1999 _still_ looks better than what you'll get from a Linux
>> distribution if aesthetics are that important to you.
>
> Then explain the existence of Windowblinds. :-)
>
> You can get the Win 2000 look if that makes you tumescent:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/comments/tijkr3/plasma_welcome_to_fedora_2000/?rdt=38685

Me: This default Porsche looks prettier than your default Pontiac Sunfire.

You: You can make the Pontiac Sunfire look like a Porsche if you
completely remove the outside and replace it with a Porsche's exterior.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:35 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Tue, 28 May 2024 08:51:50 -0400, Joel wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> According to Microsoft’s own research
>>>>> <https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/02/01/2056211>, a typical Windows
>>>>> PC needs at least eight hours of online time to fully update itself
>>>>> each Patch Tuesday. With a minimum of two hours’
>>>>> uninterrupted connection, just to get started.
>>>>
>>>> It would obviously depend on the speed of one's Internet connection,
>>>> how long it takes to download and install the updates, but the point
>>>> is that you're beginning from a state where the bugs, in the initial
>>>> release and beyond, are resolved.
>>>
>>> The assumption would be that you were already caught up on previous
>>> updates.
>>
>> What exactly do you think Service Pack 3 would do, if not catch you up
>> to all the previous updates to its release?
>
> Regardless of all that, according to Microsoft’s own research, a
> supposedly fully-service-packed Windows installation still requires up to
> 8 hours to get its patches up to date.

In download time or like setting it up completely?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom