On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:27:48 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <v39693$1ird9$2@dont-email.me>:

> 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.
>
> 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.

One SGI innovation was a demonstration file manager, which was
featured in the movie _Jurassic Park_.

https://blog.adafruit.com/2024/02/06/fsn-the-irix-3d-file-system-tool-from-jurassic-park-arttuesday-vintagecomputing-jurassicpark-whoopsie/

https://tinyurl.com/fsn-adafruit

BTW, listed in the copyright notices for the CDE on the HP9000 for
HP/UX 10 was ... Microsoft.

And when we first saw Windows 95, our consensus was that it looked like Motif.

--
-v

Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>On 2024-05-30 1:45 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2024 07:50:09 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You really wish that were true, don’t you? Comparing an inflexible UI
>> baked into a proprietary OS, with the range of customizable options
>> available in Open Source, and trying to say that some option from the
>> latter doesn’t look as good as you like, therefore none of them could be
>> good?
>>
>> Go on, keep trying to find some standard of comparison, back and back and
>> back in the dim dark days of Windows, that is low enough to make XP look
>> good by comparison, why don’t you?
>
>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.

Win2000 wasn't as advanced a UI, actually, as Mint 21.3 Cinnamon, but
it's not radically different, and that's why I like Cinnamon so much.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it, GNOME is a very attractive UI but
less functional to me. Tweaking the classic Win95 taskbar/start menu
interface is, to me, the best thing to do.

--
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.

Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> 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.

Heh. My desktop has no Start menu. It does have a task bar as a useful way to
see what is running on all my virtual desktops (which I can switch by
Super-Alt-L or Super-Alt-H).

My current fluxbox them on this workstation is "Lemonspace" with simple and
minimal window decoration, which I can remove using Super-D. My other
workstation currently has a Maclike title bar for each window. I have a choice
of hundreds of fluxbox themes.

It has one Conky panel at the left to show time, date, cpu activity, memory and
disk usage, volume, battery status, and upload/download rates.

It has a Conky panel at the top to show the current tune playing via MPD.

I can tailor the look of Gtk and Qt apps.

That's what I like. But you do you.

--
Q: Why is Poland just like the United States?
A: In the United States you can't buy anything for zlotys and in
Poland you can't either, while in the U.S. you can get whatever
you want for dollars, just as you can in Poland.
-- being told in Poland, 1987

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> 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.

Now I've heard everything... Windows looking like a Porsche :-D

> 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.

That is to say... Windowblinds!

I'm glad you agree with my assessment of Windows :-).

--
Your heart is pure, and your mind clear, and your soul devout.

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> 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.

There is no single Linux desktop. There is a near-infinite variety, from tiling
window managers to fancy-pants wm's.

--
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
-- John Milton

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.)

--
April 1
This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other three
hundred and sixty-four.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

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. And most people's hands are glued to the
mouse, which is also less efficient (again, in my opinion).

--
[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 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.

It's not like you can't open two windows without the tiling feature. I do
that sometimes with a Trelby document and its PDF file beside it. Obviously
my computer usage is different from yours, so choice is good. Personally I
like to do my own "setting up" instead allowing the OS to decide what should
go where. I've never much cared for an OS or application that wants to
"think" for me. One of the main reason I hated Word way back in the days
when I actually had to use at work.

--
[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

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

>> 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.
>
>Heh. My desktop has no Start menu. It does have a task bar as a useful way to
>see what is running on all my virtual desktops (which I can switch by
>Super-Alt-L or Super-Alt-H).
>
>My current fluxbox them on this workstation is "Lemonspace" with simple and
>minimal window decoration, which I can remove using Super-D. My other
>workstation currently has a Maclike title bar for each window. I have a choice
>of hundreds of fluxbox themes.
>
>It has one Conky panel at the left to show time, date, cpu activity, memory and
>disk usage, volume, battery status, and upload/download rates.
>
>It has a Conky panel at the top to show the current tune playing via MPD.
>
>I can tailor the look of Gtk and Qt apps.
>
>That's what I like. But you do you.

When I installed Win8 in 2012 (the intro $40 upgrade, since I had Win7
it was in-place, but it could do a clean install on top of Vista and
XP, too, albeit many of those machines didn't have the hardware to run
8), the first thing I did was put Classic Shell on for the start menu,
and then it kept the 9x through 7 general UI. 10 restored the start
menu concept, but oddly, 11 really improves upon it. But to be
honest, Cinnamon's start menu is virtually as good, and alleviates
running the bloat of recent Win11 builds (the initial release of 11
wasn't substantially different in that way than the then-current 10,
but that sure changed in a hurry, thanks M$).

--
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, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> 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.

As you know, I like to use "trailing edge" hardware. Of course I don't play
games, or I might feel differently.

--
[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, 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.

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?

--
[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, 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.

--
[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 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.

> 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.)

--
[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 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.

--
[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 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.

Okay. I'm beginning to understand this is ongoing "discussion" between you
and Lawrence. I'll try to butt out of it now.

--
[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 7:05 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-05-29 9:08 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, it’s an advanced power-user feature. As I mentioned before, it was
>>> introduced in OSF Motif/CDE in the early/mid 1990s sometime, and has been
>>> commonplace in *nix systems ever since.
>>>
>>> You know, the kind of systems that are “workstations”, not just
>>> “desktops”.
>>
>> The suggestion here is that Linux allows you to do work whereas Windows
>> and Mac are just toys.
>
> A strawman!
>
>> Meanwhile, people who high-paying jobs and workplaces are almost always using
>> Windows. I wonder why that is. What is the point of producing _workstations_
>> that no one who _works_ wants to station in their home?
>
> :-D
>
> "Why is everyone using the Company-mandated setup?"
>
> "Only people using the Company-manddated setup want to _work_!"
>
> I would have kvelled to be able to use my productive Linux setup at work.
> And now I can, as I am now "The Company".

And that is fine, and I am glad that your choice was Linux. However,
Lawrence is arguing that Linux succeeded as a desktop over Windows
because it is used by nobody as a workstation. How his mind works is
truly a mystery.

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

On 2024-05-30 7:11 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> <snippage>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Opinions are like assholes... everyone has one.

What if you identify as asshole-challenged? I'm sure that's one of the
letters in the homosexual alphabet by now.

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

On 2024-05-30 7:27 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> 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.
>
> Now I've heard everything... Windows looking like a Porsche :-D
>
>> 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.
>
> That is to say... Windowblinds!

Ask any of the Windows users here whether they use Windowblinds.

> 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.

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

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.

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

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.

> And most people's hands are glued to the
> mouse, which is also less efficient (again, in my opinion).

I agree here. There are certain things which absolutely need to be done
with a keyboard.

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

On 2024-05-30 7:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It's not like you can't open two windows without the tiling feature. I do
> that sometimes with a Trelby document and its PDF file beside it. Obviously
> my computer usage is different from yours, so choice is good. Personally I
> like to do my own "setting up" instead allowing the OS to decide what should
> go where. I've never much cared for an OS or application that wants to
> "think" for me. One of the main reason I hated Word way back in the days
> when I actually had to use at work.

In this case, Windows is not doing any kind of thinking for the user; it
is merely responding to the user's request to have one application take
half of the screen while the other open one takes the other.

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

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.

>> 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.

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

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.

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

On 5/30/2024 7:18 AM, Joel wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't it feel nice to state facts
>> rather than pull information out of your own ass?
>
>
> You mean how you claim trans people are mentally ill,

No doubt about that whatsoever.

Your "trans gf" getting sexually excited by buttfucking you proves he
still feels, thinks and acts like a degenerate male.

> You're the type of person that leads people to be
> anti-Caucasian, even though that's too generalizing, but it sure fits
> you.

I've seen it a million times on the YouTube channel 'Indisputable wif
"Doctor" Rashad Richey': jigaboos hate to be disscrimminalisionatnasted
against and judged by the actions of other blacks, but they sure don't
mind doing it to Whitey.

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!