On 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 10:51 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-05-30 7:47 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Less efficient, in my opinion.
>>>
>>> Tell yourself that a lot of people see minimizing an application to be
>>> more efficient because it ends up consuming less power, CPU and RAM than
>>> one that's constantly open in a virtual desktop.
>>
>> Minimizing a window generally doesn't cause the application to use less CPU or
>> memory. Same with an application not visible because it's in another virtual
>> desktop. Also depends what the application does in the background vs
>> updating an open window.
>>
>> Besides, I think Ron means it's more efficient for his workflow.
>
> No, I am right. <https://shorturl.at/iByNk>
>
> It might be different in Linux, but that would only explain why battery
> life is so poor on a Linux machine as compared to Windows on the same
> hardware.

Which happens to NOT be true on my laptops. Windows always runs hotter and
louder on the same machine — resulting in poorer battery life. I'm guessing
the case is different for you because you play Windows games and, since they
have to be emulated, Linux has to do more to get them working on your
hardware.

That's the problem with generalizations, they're often wrong.

--
[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 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 7:32 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The hardware comes first. The OS adapts to it (or the hardware developers
>> write the OS-specific drivers for it.)
>
> Generally, I wouldn't be worried that drivers for the hardware used on
> Linux-minded laptops would be available. However, I wouldn't be
> surprised if I faced the same kind of issues using Windows on a Linux
> machine that I had using Linux on a Windows machine. Problems waking
> from sleep, graphical errors and things of the sort are very likely to
> happen.

I don't think that's going to be a problem. "Linux computers" are just
standard computers that use components that are well-supported by Linux.
(Like Intel WiFi cards vs Broadcom WiFi cards, for example.) Of course the
component manufacturers are going to support Windows on their hardware.

--
[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 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 4:07 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 08:55:21 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> Generally, I wouldn't be worried that drivers for the hardware used on
>>> Linux-minded laptops would be available. However, I wouldn't be
>>> surprised if I faced the same kind of issues using Windows on a Linux
>>> machine that I had using Linux on a Windows machine. Problems waking
>>> from sleep, graphical errors and things of the sort are very likely to
>>> happen.
>>
>> The oddity I see with my Acer laptop with an open WSL session is Hyper-V
>> crashes if it sleeps. It will hibernate with no problem and the couple of
>> seconds difference in startup isn't a problem.
>
> I think that there are a number of issues with the way Windows 11
> sleeps. I'm not sure what they changed from 10, especially since they
> both use Modern Standby by default, but it seems to be fairly chaotic
> for hardware.

I think Microsoft has lost interest in trouble shooting hardware drivers. I
think their money (and time) is being spent on developing AI crap. It
definitely seems to be their priority.

Even SoftMaker is touting AI for their newest office suite. They advertise
it as a "feature," to me it simply means I'll never upgrade to a newer
version.

--
[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 2024-05-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:00:04 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> I feel the same. A desktop should be simple and direct and stay out of
>> your way after you've started the application. I've been using basically
>> the same desktop design for about 25 years. Why do I need something new
>> and "innovative?" Just for the novelty of it?
>
> Novelty sells. My brain focuses on information not presentation. Many
> times I'll go to a website to find a thrilling, innovative redesign --
> with the same information that was always there.

Yep. I've always been more substance over surface. But, as you say,
"surface" sells. (Just not to me.)

--
[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 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 8:10 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> You keep saying this, but what is the supposed "significant difference"
>> between XP, Windows 2000, Windows 7, Windows 10 or 11 compared to Cinnamon,
>> Xfce (the way LM sets it up) or Mate? Personally I like Cinnamon (or Mate or
>> Xfce) more than its Windows counterparts, but I'm curious as to what you're
>> seeing that I don't see.
>
> Pure aesthetics, the point D'Oilveiro was pointing at. He was trying in
> vain to insult Windows by poking at how it looked (through XP) and then
> continued mocking Windows 2000. Meanwhile, both operating systems from
> the turn of the century still look better than the typical Linux
> desktop. I'm only talking about the looks.

I don't agree. I prefer Cinnamon's look over Windows. Not that it's that
huge of a deal to me.

>>> 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.
>>
>> I'm not a fan of Ubuntu, originally because of Unity and then the Gnome 3
>> desktop — now I'm also not crazy about its use of Snaps. I'm also not a fan
>> of moving my furniture around, just so my house "looks different." If you
>> like Gnome 3, that's great. (I do have Ubuntu installed on a computer and I
>> can get around on it, but I don't really like it. Choice is good.)
>
> I'm not necessarily a fan of GNOME 3, but I became one because of how
> much hate it used to get at the beginning for trying to change the way
> people use their computers. People resistant change and GNOME, so I went
> out of my way to use it and figure out how it worked when it was
> released. I think that many of its ideas are smart ones.

That's what turned me completely off on Gnome 3. Basically their mindset was
"We've decided that you SHOULD do it our way — even if you don't want to."
In Windows you would have had to take or leave it (see Windows 8). In Linux
I just moved to Linux Mint. Problem solved.

As for changing for the sake of changing, that never was "my thing."

One of the really big problems for Gnome 3 (at the beginning) was that there
was no easy customization. Customization tweaks would be created and then
abandoned when a newer versions of Gnome 3 came out. You really would have
to go to terminal and tweak configuration files a lot if you wanted to make
changes in you desktop. So Linux Mint developed Cinnamon. Gnome 3 in the
background, with an easily customized desktop in the foreground. We could
have it "our way" instead of being forced into learning the "new way" Gnome
developers decided we HAD to adopt to. To me it was developer hubris. I
don't like being pushed into something I don't want to do. I find an
alternative instead. (I think it's the Irish in me.)

--
[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 2024-05-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:04:13 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> I'm not necessarily a fan of GNOME 3, but I became one because of how
>> much hate it used to get at the beginning for trying to change the way
>> people use their computers. People resistant change and GNOME, so I went
>> out of my way to use it and figure out how it worked when it was
>> released. I think that many of its ideas are smart ones.
>
> Like Metro I think most of its ideas are aimed toward people more
> acclimated to tablets and smartphones.

I think you're right. That was definitely the object of Unity and Windows 8.
And they were both rejected by the public. To me a computer is completely
different than a smartphone or a tablet. I don't want them all to work the
same.

My younger brother, when he worked for Xircomm was sent to Redmond to try to
convince Microsoft to simplify their Windows phone software (they were
trying to cram a desktop OS into an earlier Windows phone — at least that was
the view of his bosses). Microsoft didn't want to hear it. Hubris again.
"It's our way, or the highway." It turned out to be the "highway" for
Windows phones. Ditto for Windows 8 and Unity.

--
[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 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 5:17 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 09:04:13 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not necessarily a fan of GNOME 3, but I became one because of how
>>> much hate it used to get at the beginning for trying to change the way
>>> people use their computers. People resistant change and GNOME, so I went
>>> out of my way to use it and figure out how it worked when it was
>>> released. I think that many of its ideas are smart ones.
>>
>> Like Metro I think most of its ideas are aimed toward people more
>> acclimated to tablets and smartphones.
>
> They were, but many of the ideas translate to the desktop as well.

Not so much, in my opinion. To me a computer relies on a keyboard, a
smartphone doesn't. Which is probably why I don't like smartphones much. I
would still be using my Blackberry Q10 phone (with a real keyboard) if it
was supported by any of the providers. It's also why I don't carry my
smartphone with me much. I prefer my flip phone, except when I'm playing
pinochle at home on the Pixel.

--
[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 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 9:32 a.m., DFS wrote:
>> On 5/30/2024 6:46 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-30 2:27 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:02:14 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Spoken like someone who's never used Windows 2000. That version of
>>>>> Windows was spectacular ...
>>>>
>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>>>
>>>> The best looking, and functioning, GUIs of the 1990s were the Unix
>>>> workstations. That is the heritage that Linux comes from. Windows was a
>>>> toy by comparison.
>>>
>>> A ridiculous lie.
>>>
>>>> For example, SGI were the pioneers of real-time 3D interfaces, back when
>>>> it took fiendishly expensive hardware to do such things. Again, today’s
>>>> real-time effects on *nix build on that heritage.
>>>>
>>>> I already mentioned multiple desktops from the OSF crowd. Sun did
>>>> tear-off
>>>> menus. Note also other innovations like focus-follows-mouse, taskbarless
>>>> desktops, cut/copy/paste in terminal windows, and the Compose key as
>>>> a far
>>>> more mnemonic way of typing non-ASCII characters than the clumsy Windows
>>>> alt-character-code rigmarole.
>>>
>>> All features no one other than neck-bearded fat asses who sit at their
>>> computer at stare at a top instance would care about.
>>
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> and User-Agent: Betterbird (Windows)
>>
>> You're back!
>
> I'm not "back," I'm in Windows mostly because of the media I've
> purchased through the Windows store. As for Betterbird, everything else
> just sucks as a newsreader, and I'm not willing to sacrifice
> functionality because the news servers I use can't get their act
> together to produce a working server.

How is usenet-news working out for you?

--
[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 2024-05-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:02:56 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-29, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> My younger brother, who's been a Windows' programmer for a long time
>> now,
>> hated to see Windows 2000 go away. I don't know anything about NT, never
>> used it. I guess I was using XP at that time.
>
> Originally there was going to be a NT 5.0 in 1998 but when the release was
> pushed to Dec 1999 they decided Windows 2000 sounded cool, particularly
> with the Y2K bug.
>
> XP was built on the NT 5.1 kernel. We're now up to NT 10.0. MS jumped
> from 6.3 to 10.0. Sometimes I think they like to confuse people :) SQL
> Server is the same but at least they didn't skip numbers. SQL Server 2022
> identifies as 16.x.
>
> It's interesting Windows 10, Windows 11, and the related server editions
> all are the NT 10.0 kernel.

I've basically lost track of Windows and its current releases. For example,
I had no idea the NT kernel was still around or at 10.0. I guess the old
Windows 95, 98, XP line ended with Me. (Another OS release Microsoft would
probably like to forget.)

--
[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 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 8:14 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-29 5:36 p.m., DFS wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2024 7:35 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Which version of Windows?
>>>>
>>>> What's your source?
>>>
>>> He would be correct if he were referring to Windows 7 or 8.1. However,
>>> if a person downloads an ISO of Windows 10 or 11 directly from Microsoft
>>> today, as they should, the installation and all recent updates will take
>>> no more than an hour.
>>
>> Where a Linux install and complete update (including apps) now takes about
>> 20-25 minutes with relatively fast Internet service.
>
> Nobody is claiming that Linux isn't better in that respect. However, the
> reason it takes so little time is because people aren't using an ISO
> from four years ago to install Linux and then update, which is what
> they're usually doing with Windows. Even with Linux, doing such a thing
> would be a nightmare to update.

It's more than that. Linux is just much more efficient when upgrading then
is Windows with its multiple boots. Even you've got to admit that the way
Windows updates is a joke. (At least I think you would admit it. Supposedly
one of the improvements in Windows 12 (is that now jettisoned?) was going to
be a better update "experience." I guess they figured hitting your thumb
with a carpenter's hammer would "nicer" than hitting it with a sledge
hammer.)

--
[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 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 6:00 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 05:41:10 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 02:25:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> At least the downloading is in the background from what I remember.
>>>
>>> And then the updating itself renders your machine unusable, because
>>> Windows cannot update files that are currently in use, like Linux can.
>>
>> In my private hell I have one Windows 11 machine on the Insiders channel.
>> It hasn't been able to install the 'update' since March. I'm not the only
>> one and quite a few people are pissed. worst case I'll have to do a clean
>> install in July.
>
> I "love" when updates refuse to install whether you go through Windows
> Update or try to install them manually. It happened all the time in 10.

It happens (or happened) on my wife's desktop computer. Run it once, run it
twice, run it three times and, for some reason it would "take" after the
other failures. Windows is a mystery to me. One that I don't want to
explore.

--
[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 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 11:26 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-05-30 7:27 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> <brevsnip>
>>>
>>>> I'm glad you agree with my assessment of Windows :-).
>>>
>>> I agree only that while being a lot more functional than Windows for
>>> much of its existence, Linux still looks like a Pontiac Sunfire.
>>
>> "Linux" has all kinds of looks:
>>
>> - Plain text-only terminal screen with multiple virtual consoles.
>> Can also run tmux or GNU screen to get multiple consoles and
>> panes.
>
> That's only for real men like Larry Pietraskiewicz though. I can't
> imagine how strong the smell of testosterone must be in his mother's
> basement!
>
>> - Generic old-style GUI with something like TWM.
> >
>> - Manual and dynamic tiling window managers like i3 or Sway, DWM or
>> AwesomeWM.
>> - Simple-looking overlapping window managers like OpenBox or FluxBox.
>> They can be customized with other components for the taskbar, slot,
>> etc.
>> - Desktop built for kids: Sugar (started with the OLPC, has
>> a GTK+ theme engine as well)
>> - The whole gamut of desktops: Lxde, Xfce, GNOME, Cinnamon, Mate,
>> KDE.
>>
>> Not to mention all the theming engines available, along with icon sets, mouse
>> cursors, stand-alone menus and taskbars.
>>
>> So no, there's no single look to "Linux".
>
> You're right, except that every one of those environments still manages
> to look worse than Windows 2000 did, hence my point. What's the point of
> not eating a delicious banana when the alternative is an unlimited
> supply of rotten apples?

Again, you're personal taste. I completely disagree with you.

--
[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 Fri, 31 May 2024 04:36:59 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> Yep. I've always been more substance over surface. But, as you say,
> "surface" sells. (Just not to me.)

Speaking of which, I'm getting daily spam from M$ trying to sell me the
new Surface.

On Fri, 31 May 2024 05:07:45 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I've basically lost track of Windows and its current releases. For
> example,
> I had no idea the NT kernel was still around or at 10.0. I guess the old
> Windows 95, 98, XP line ended with Me. (Another OS release Microsoft
> would probably like to forget.)

Yeah, 95, 98, and ME were the last 'consumer' releases, or I should say
the last that didn't use the NT kernel, and NT 4.0 was the last
'enterprise' version that came up was a splash screen that explicitly said
NT.

It took Outlook Express, which had nothing in common with Outlook, a
little longer to die. I think XP was the last of it.

On 2024-05-30 10:26 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2024 18:17:01 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-30 4:03 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:43:42 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I implore you to take a screenshot of a current Linux Mint desktop and
>>>> one of a default Windows 2000 installation. Then, ask _strangers_, not
>>>> zealots like yourself who probably pray to a photo of Stallman, what
>>>> they think is prettier.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't want a stranger looking at me like I were a total idiot.
>>> Prettier? They're frigging computer desktop. Do you really think people
>>> wander through BestBuy looking for the prettiest desktop?
>>
>> Honestly? Yes.
>
> You must know some very strange people.

These aren't people I know; these are people I've merely observed. If
you want to sell a machine at Best Buy, the physical machine needs to
look nice and what's on the screen needs to dazzle the potential client.
A beige box with a CRT monitor whose specifications are awesome will not
impress people the way a pretty MacBook with the magic lamp effect might.

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

On 2024-05-30 10:35 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2024 18:37:35 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> I "love" when updates refuse to install whether you go through Windows
>> Update or try to install them manually. It happened all the time in 10.
>
> "what to do when Windows Update stops at 0%?" The state this one is in is
> really annoying since it will download and install the version with
> several restarts before saying 'Only fooling! Restoring your old system."
> with more restarts and so forth.

I am not denying this at all. In Windows 10, a system I truly despise,
it would pull this kind of crap even if you went out of your way to keep
your system clean, maintained, SFCed, DISMed and so on. Whereas I
routinely removed Windows 7 in favour of Linux for moral reasons, I
removed Windows 10 in favour of Linux because the former would truly
drain my patience. 11 mostly works right.

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

On 2024-05-30 11:50 p.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-30 10:51 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-05-30 7:47 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Less efficient, in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Tell yourself that a lot of people see minimizing an application to be
>>>> more efficient because it ends up consuming less power, CPU and RAM than
>>>> one that's constantly open in a virtual desktop.
>>>
>>> Minimizing a window generally doesn't cause the application to use less CPU or
>>> memory. Same with an application not visible because it's in another virtual
>>> desktop. Also depends what the application does in the background vs
>>> updating an open window.
>>>
>>> Besides, I think Ron means it's more efficient for his workflow.
>>
>> No, I am right. <https://shorturl.at/iByNk>
>>
>> It might be different in Linux, but that would only explain why battery
>> life is so poor on a Linux machine as compared to Windows on the same
>> hardware.
>
> Which happens to NOT be true on my laptops. Windows always runs hotter and
> louder on the same machine — resulting in poorer battery life. I'm guessing
> the case is different for you because you play Windows games and, since they
> have to be emulated, Linux has to do more to get them working on your
> hardware.
>
> That's the problem with generalizations, they're often wrong.

It's not about the games at all and not even my own experience. Other
people with Windows hardware have demonstrated that their machines don't
run for as long once they install Windows. I've tested a few Linux
environments so far myself and can't replicate what they've experience.
In fact, Linux seems to be better than what I'm used to in its default
form or with tlp, but I've admittedly not used it for long enough to
produce a fair assessment.

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

On 2024-05-31 12:31 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-30 7:32 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The hardware comes first. The OS adapts to it (or the hardware developers
>>> write the OS-specific drivers for it.)
>>
>> Generally, I wouldn't be worried that drivers for the hardware used on
>> Linux-minded laptops would be available. However, I wouldn't be
>> surprised if I faced the same kind of issues using Windows on a Linux
>> machine that I had using Linux on a Windows machine. Problems waking
>> from sleep, graphical errors and things of the sort are very likely to
>> happen.
>
> I don't think that's going to be a problem. "Linux computers" are just
> standard computers that use components that are well-supported by Linux.
> (Like Intel WiFi cards vs Broadcom WiFi cards, for example.) Of course the
> component manufacturers are going to support Windows on their hardware.

Yeah, Windows should technically support that hardware without issue.
Those tend not to have encrypted signatures in them (like my fingerprint
reader does) preventing them from being used properly.

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

On 2024-05-31 12:35 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-30 4:07 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 08:55:21 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Generally, I wouldn't be worried that drivers for the hardware used on
>>>> Linux-minded laptops would be available. However, I wouldn't be
>>>> surprised if I faced the same kind of issues using Windows on a Linux
>>>> machine that I had using Linux on a Windows machine. Problems waking
>>>> from sleep, graphical errors and things of the sort are very likely to
>>>> happen.
>>>
>>> The oddity I see with my Acer laptop with an open WSL session is Hyper-V
>>> crashes if it sleeps. It will hibernate with no problem and the couple of
>>> seconds difference in startup isn't a problem.
>>
>> I think that there are a number of issues with the way Windows 11
>> sleeps. I'm not sure what they changed from 10, especially since they
>> both use Modern Standby by default, but it seems to be fairly chaotic
>> for hardware.
>
> I think Microsoft has lost interest in trouble shooting hardware drivers. I
> think their money (and time) is being spent on developing AI crap. It
> definitely seems to be their priority.
>
> Even SoftMaker is touting AI for their newest office suite. They advertise
> it as a "feature," to me it simply means I'll never upgrade to a newer
> version.

Funny that you should mention office suites. I was curious about what
Catholicism believes about current technology and how it views
proprietary and open-source software. Officially, the stance is that
Catholicism has no issue with proprietary software but that it must
resist closed formats entirely since these would be at odds with
allowing people to freely obtain knowledge in whatever form. As such,
only LibreOffice, or an office suite using OpenDocument by default,
respects the faith. Perhaps you would want to take this into
consideration if, like me, your faith is becoming increasingly important.

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

On 2024-05-31 12:51 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-30 8:10 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You keep saying this, but what is the supposed "significant difference"
>>> between XP, Windows 2000, Windows 7, Windows 10 or 11 compared to Cinnamon,
>>> Xfce (the way LM sets it up) or Mate? Personally I like Cinnamon (or Mate or
>>> Xfce) more than its Windows counterparts, but I'm curious as to what you're
>>> seeing that I don't see.
>>
>> Pure aesthetics, the point D'Oilveiro was pointing at. He was trying in
>> vain to insult Windows by poking at how it looked (through XP) and then
>> continued mocking Windows 2000. Meanwhile, both operating systems from
>> the turn of the century still look better than the typical Linux
>> desktop. I'm only talking about the looks.
>
> I don't agree. I prefer Cinnamon's look over Windows. Not that it's that
> huge of a deal to me.
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan of Ubuntu, originally because of Unity and then the Gnome 3
>>> desktop — now I'm also not crazy about its use of Snaps. I'm also not a fan
>>> of moving my furniture around, just so my house "looks different." If you
>>> like Gnome 3, that's great. (I do have Ubuntu installed on a computer and I
>>> can get around on it, but I don't really like it. Choice is good.)
>>
>> I'm not necessarily a fan of GNOME 3, but I became one because of how
>> much hate it used to get at the beginning for trying to change the way
>> people use their computers. People resistant change and GNOME, so I went
>> out of my way to use it and figure out how it worked when it was
>> released. I think that many of its ideas are smart ones.
>
> That's what turned me completely off on Gnome 3. Basically their mindset was
> "We've decided that you SHOULD do it our way — even if you don't want to."
> In Windows you would have had to take or leave it (see Windows 8). In Linux
> I just moved to Linux Mint. Problem solved.
>
> As for changing for the sake of changing, that never was "my thing."
>
> One of the really big problems for Gnome 3 (at the beginning) was that there
> was no easy customization. Customization tweaks would be created and then
> abandoned when a newer versions of Gnome 3 came out. You really would have
> to go to terminal and tweak configuration files a lot if you wanted to make
> changes in you desktop. So Linux Mint developed Cinnamon. Gnome 3 in the
> background, with an easily customized desktop in the foreground. We could
> have it "our way" instead of being forced into learning the "new way" Gnome
> developers decided we HAD to adopt to. To me it was developer hubris. I
> don't like being pushed into something I don't want to do. I find an
> alternative instead. (I think it's the Irish in me.)

GNOME 3 was a response to a problem nobody had. Cinnamon was the
solution to the problem caused by GNOME responding to those imaginary
original complaints. I don't find it particularly pretty, but I have to
admit that Cinnamon does everything it needs to do right.

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

On 2024-05-31 1:04 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-30 9:32 a.m., DFS wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2024 6:46 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-30 2:27 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:02:14 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Spoken like someone who's never used Windows 2000. That version of
>>>>>> Windows was spectacular ...
>>>>>
>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> The best looking, and functioning, GUIs of the 1990s were the Unix
>>>>> workstations. That is the heritage that Linux comes from. Windows was a
>>>>> toy by comparison.
>>>>
>>>> A ridiculous lie.
>>>>
>>>>> For example, SGI were the pioneers of real-time 3D interfaces, back when
>>>>> it took fiendishly expensive hardware to do such things. Again, today’s
>>>>> real-time effects on *nix build on that heritage.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already mentioned multiple desktops from the OSF crowd. Sun did
>>>>> tear-off
>>>>> menus. Note also other innovations like focus-follows-mouse, taskbarless
>>>>> desktops, cut/copy/paste in terminal windows, and the Compose key as
>>>>> a far
>>>>> more mnemonic way of typing non-ASCII characters than the clumsy Windows
>>>>> alt-character-code rigmarole.
>>>>
>>>> All features no one other than neck-bearded fat asses who sit at their
>>>> computer at stare at a top instance would care about.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> and User-Agent: Betterbird (Windows)
>>>
>>> You're back!
>>
>> I'm not "back," I'm in Windows mostly because of the media I've
>> purchased through the Windows store. As for Betterbird, everything else
>> just sucks as a newsreader, and I'm not willing to sacrifice
>> functionality because the news servers I use can't get their act
>> together to produce a working server.
>
> How is usenet-news working out for you?

As long as you don't mind your connection to the server being insecure,
it works great. Blocknews, for its part, is a disaster whether you're
using SSL or not.

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

rbowman wrote:

>On Fri, 31 May 2024 04:36:59 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> Yep. I've always been more substance over surface. But, as you say,
>> "surface" sells. (Just not to me.)
>
>Speaking of which, I'm getting daily spam from M$ trying to sell me the
>new Surface.

Google wants me to upgrade my phone to an 8a. Only $200! So cheap
that I was tempted, but my 3a XL works just fine.

--
"In COLA if you do not use Linux only the herd goes after you..." -
some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-30 4:29 p.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-05-30 10:51 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-05-30 7:47 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Less efficient, in my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell yourself that a lot of people see minimizing an application to be
>>>>> more efficient because it ends up consuming less power, CPU and RAM than
>>>>> one that's constantly open in a virtual desktop.
>>>>
>>>> Minimizing a window generally doesn't cause the application to use less CPU or
>>>> memory. Same with an application not visible because it's in another virtual
>>>> desktop. Also depends what the application does in the background vs
>>>> updating an open window.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, I think Ron means it's more efficient for his workflow.
>>>
>>> No, I am right. <https://shorturl.at/iByNk>
>>
>> That's for Windows.
>
> And I was referring to Windows.
>
>>> It might be different in Linux, but that would only explain why battery
>>> life is so poor on a Linux machine as compared to Windows on the same
>>> hardware.
>>
>> You are resurfacing news from years ago.
>>
>> As I noted, my Lenovo Flex running Linux can last 13 hours or so (if I just let
>> it sit there doing nothing).
>>
>> Some more anecdotal information:
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/10kenc2/i_searched_the_internet_about_battery_life_on/
>>
>> You seem to be sour about some things.
>
> With tlp, you can get some decent additional battery life in Linux, but
> you're still looking at less than Windows. Anyone who's claimed that
> they get more in Linux has so far been unwilling to show any kind of proof.

There are way too many uses cases, even in Windows, to "prove" that one is more
power-efficient than the other. Differences in hardware drivers, power
supplies, desktop paradigms, power tuning, the amount of network traffic. The
best one could do is provide a probability distribution for each OS, and see
which one has the higher mean value. That's a lot of data-taking. And there
will be considerable overlap in the probability distributions.

In my case, it's a non-issue. One one laptop, the battery is crapped out, so it
is plugged in all the time. On the other laptop, it lasts a long time unless I
am compiling code over and over; it is quite satisfactory.

Finally, it is a non-issue for me because I have no intention of running
Windows except in a VM. (That might change later if I go to a dual boot on my
next laptop purchase so that I can test my cross-platform C/C++ code on
a real Windows.)

--
Tell the truth or trump--but get the trick.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

RonB wrote:

>>> Like Metro I think most of its ideas are aimed toward people more
>>> acclimated to tablets and smartphones.
>>
>> They were, but many of the ideas translate to the desktop as well.
>
>Not so much, in my opinion. To me a computer relies on a keyboard, a
>smartphone doesn't.

They are completely different tools. Only a fool could have thought
that people would embrace touch screens on desktop computers.

--
"MS invests more in R&D than most others put together you clueless
idiot." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:02:56 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-29, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> My younger brother, who's been a Windows' programmer for a long time
>> now,
>> hated to see Windows 2000 go away. I don't know anything about NT, never
>> used it. I guess I was using XP at that time.
>
> Originally there was going to be a NT 5.0 in 1998 but when the release was
> pushed to Dec 1999 they decided Windows 2000 sounded cool, particularly
> with the Y2K bug.
>
> XP was built on the NT 5.1 kernel. We're now up to NT 10.0. MS jumped
> from 6.3 to 10.0. Sometimes I think they like to confuse people :)

Yeah, like skipping "Windows Nein!" :-D

--
Tuesday is the Wednesday of the rest of your life.