On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:20:53 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> Even on Fedora I use Cinnamon. On the HP, which is running KDE Neon, I
> can try out KDE. I could probably get used to it, but I don't see any
> advantage over Cinnamon. Again, Mate and Cinnamon are all I've been
> using (regularly)
> for about 16 years now, so I know them pretty well.

I don't do much if any customization so they're mostly all the same to me,
but I prefer some variation of a start menu to the Ubuntu pages of icons
form 'Show Applications'. I've got 4 pages and the organization escapes
me. Order of installation?

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:26:00 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> The advantage of KDE, for me, is in its customization. Unlike Gnome at
> least, changing the icons, cursors or window decorations is rather easy.
> Cinnamon does it well, but it's not as easy as it is in KDE. Also, the
> themes in Cinnamon all look pretty much the same whereas in KDE, you can
> make your desktop look radically different than your neighbour's.
> Additionally, widgets in KDE actually work as they should.

My customization usually stops at finding out how to switch the mouse to
left handed. All the eye candy people spend so much time working on is
lost to me.

On 2024-10-19, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-10-19 à 02 h 20, RonB a écrit :
>> On 2024-10-18, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 07:04:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gnome, in general, has suffered from the "change for change sake" issue.
>>>> But they're the exception, not the rule.
>>>
>>> I use it but my preference is KDE. Even with going to Wayland it hasn't
>>> taken too many weird detours.
>>
>> Even on Fedora I use Cinnamon. On the HP, which is running KDE Neon, I can
>> try out KDE. I could probably get used to it, but I don't see any advantage
>> over Cinnamon. Again, Mate and Cinnamon are all I've been using (regularly)
>> for about 16 years now, so I know them pretty well.
>
> The advantage of KDE, for me, is in its customization. Unlike Gnome at
> least, changing the icons, cursors or window decorations is rather easy.
> Cinnamon does it well, but it's not as easy as it is in KDE. Also, the
> themes in Cinnamon all look pretty much the same whereas in KDE, you can
> make your desktop look radically different than your neighbour's.
> Additionally, widgets in KDE actually work as they should.
>
> There are also effects which often end up being a selling point for new
> users. The included effects are rather nice, but you can even download
> new ones that truly make your desktop feel different. To give you an
> example, my windows minimize the way they did in the early versions of
> Mac OS X (magic lamp) and I set up the opening and closing of windows to
> use a hexagon effect which is similar to what you would see in movies.
> It's all useless and does nothing to "improve productivity and click
> reduction" or whatver that faggot used to say, but it freaks the kids
> out when I share my screen in class.

I consider most of those special effects to be "gimmicks" and, if I did play
around with them in the past, it was years ago and it no longer interests me
— never really interested me much even in the past. But I get your point. On
Reddit I see people often bragging about what their Linux Mint Desktop looks
like when they've customized it pretty heavily. I'm happy for them, but I
really don't have much interest in doing that. My customizations are usually
done to make the desktop work and look the same as it always did. So kind of
the opposite of what the new users are doing.

I guess I'm "stodgy" and set in my ways.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-19, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:26:00 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> The advantage of KDE, for me, is in its customization. Unlike Gnome at
>> least, changing the icons, cursors or window decorations is rather easy.
>> Cinnamon does it well, but it's not as easy as it is in KDE. Also, the
>> themes in Cinnamon all look pretty much the same whereas in KDE, you can
>> make your desktop look radically different than your neighbour's.
>> Additionally, widgets in KDE actually work as they should.
>
> My customization usually stops at finding out how to switch the mouse to
> left handed. All the eye candy people spend so much time working on is
> lost to me.

I usually try to find a nice background image. That's about it.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-19, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:20:53 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> Even on Fedora I use Cinnamon. On the HP, which is running KDE Neon, I
>> can try out KDE. I could probably get used to it, but I don't see any
>> advantage over Cinnamon. Again, Mate and Cinnamon are all I've been
>> using (regularly)
>> for about 16 years now, so I know them pretty well.
>
> I don't do much if any customization so they're mostly all the same to me,
> but I prefer some variation of a start menu to the Ubuntu pages of icons
> form 'Show Applications'. I've got 4 pages and the organization escapes
> me. Order of installation?

I don't use Ubuntu normally, but I've set up a server to make a testbed for
the newest Moodle application (for my wife's online classes). I don't know
how to order the icons, but I have done an Internet search for how to make
them smaller, which allows me to get all mine on one screen. If I remember
right, you have to go into config file with a text editor to do it. (It's
been a while.) I'm going to have reinstall Ubuntu because I went with the
newest LTS version and Moodle really doesn't support it. So I want to go
back an LTS version.

BTW, yes, I think it is "order of installation" by default. Sorry for
rambling and missing the main question.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

Le 2024-10-20 à 02 h 40, RonB a écrit :
> On 2024-10-19, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> Le 2024-10-19 à 02 h 20, RonB a écrit :
>>> On 2024-10-18, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 07:04:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gnome, in general, has suffered from the "change for change sake" issue.
>>>>> But they're the exception, not the rule.
>>>>
>>>> I use it but my preference is KDE. Even with going to Wayland it hasn't
>>>> taken too many weird detours.
>>>
>>> Even on Fedora I use Cinnamon. On the HP, which is running KDE Neon, I can
>>> try out KDE. I could probably get used to it, but I don't see any advantage
>>> over Cinnamon. Again, Mate and Cinnamon are all I've been using (regularly)
>>> for about 16 years now, so I know them pretty well.
>>
>> The advantage of KDE, for me, is in its customization. Unlike Gnome at
>> least, changing the icons, cursors or window decorations is rather easy.
>> Cinnamon does it well, but it's not as easy as it is in KDE. Also, the
>> themes in Cinnamon all look pretty much the same whereas in KDE, you can
>> make your desktop look radically different than your neighbour's.
>> Additionally, widgets in KDE actually work as they should.
>>
>> There are also effects which often end up being a selling point for new
>> users. The included effects are rather nice, but you can even download
>> new ones that truly make your desktop feel different. To give you an
>> example, my windows minimize the way they did in the early versions of
>> Mac OS X (magic lamp) and I set up the opening and closing of windows to
>> use a hexagon effect which is similar to what you would see in movies.
>> It's all useless and does nothing to "improve productivity and click
>> reduction" or whatver that faggot used to say, but it freaks the kids
>> out when I share my screen in class.
>
> I consider most of those special effects to be "gimmicks" and, if I did play
> around with them in the past, it was years ago and it no longer interests me
> — never really interested me much even in the past. But I get your point. On
> Reddit I see people often bragging about what their Linux Mint Desktop looks
> like when they've customized it pretty heavily. I'm happy for them, but I
> really don't have much interest in doing that. My customizations are usually
> done to make the desktop work and look the same as it always did. So kind of
> the opposite of what the new users are doing.
>
> I guess I'm "stodgy" and set in my ways.

Those effects really do nothing to improve the experience, but they look
neat. A lot of why I enabled them in the first place, other than to have
a unique desktop, is to get my students interested. A lot of them are
dirt poor to the point that I have to give them a pencil to work with
during the class. If they own a computer, it's usually some very old one
running Windows 7 at best. I figure that if they like what they see,
they'll ask about it and be shocked to find out that it would run on
their old set-up.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 06:40:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I consider most of those special effects to be "gimmicks" and, if I did
> play around with them in the past, it was years ago and it no longer
> interests me — never really interested me much even in the past. But I
> get your point. On Reddit I see people often bragging about what their
> Linux Mint Desktop looks like when they've customized it pretty heavily.
> I'm happy for them, but I really don't have much interest in doing that.
> My customizations are usually done to make the desktop work and look the
> same as it always did. So kind of the opposite of what the new users are
> doing.

Those Reddit posts do puzzle me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/1fmo3r2/monthly_screenshot_thread/

The Fedora subreddit isn't quite as bad possible because of the different
spins.

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 07:29:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Those effects really do nothing to improve the experience, but they look
> neat.

Funny how they were considered cool back when Microsoft was touting them
as a wonderful new feature of Windows Vista. Then when Vista turned out to
be such a resource hog (for this and other reasons), suddenly they began
trying to persuade everybody that translucency and shadows and 3D effects
weren’t so cool after all.

They’re just as “cool” as they always were. And Linux does them more
slickly and efficiently than anybody else.

On 2024-10-20 8:10 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 07:29:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Those effects really do nothing to improve the experience, but they look
>> neat.
>
> Funny how they were considered cool back when Microsoft was touting them
> as a wonderful new feature of Windows Vista. Then when Vista turned out to
> be such a resource hog (for this and other reasons), suddenly they began
> trying to persuade everybody that translucency and shadows and 3D effects
> weren’t so cool after all.
>
> They’re just as “cool” as they always were. And Linux does them more
> slickly and efficiently than anybody else.

Agreed. The way KDE implements them is particularly impressive.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 07:29:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Those effects really do nothing to improve the experience, but they look
>> neat.
>
> Funny how they were considered cool back when Microsoft was touting them
> as a wonderful new feature of Windows Vista. Then when Vista turned out to
> be such a resource hog (for this and other reasons), suddenly they began
> trying to persuade everybody that translucency and shadows and 3D effects
> weren’t so cool after all.
>
> They’re just as “cool” as they always were. And Linux does them more
> slickly and efficiently than anybody else.

If you have picom (a fork of compton a fork of xcompmgr...), just
do

$ man picom

to see just how configurable it is. (There's also the picom-conf GUI).

And imagine if it were Registry settings :-D

[I'm forgetting what the spinning cube desktop was called. Dang.]

--
Two men came before Nasrudin when he was magistrate. The first man said,
"This man has bitten my ear -- I demand compensation." The second man said,
"He bit it himself." Nasrudin withdrew to his chambers, and spent an hour
trying to bite his own ear. He succeeded only in falling over and bruising
his forehead. Returning to the courtroom, Nasrudin pronounced, "Examine the
man whose ear was bitten. If his forehead is bruised, he did it himself and
the case is dismissed. If his forehead is not bruised, the other man did it
and must pay three silver pieces."

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote at 10:45 this Monday (GMT):
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 07:29:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Those effects really do nothing to improve the experience, but they look
>>> neat.
>>
>> Funny how they were considered cool back when Microsoft was touting them
>> as a wonderful new feature of Windows Vista. Then when Vista turned out to
>> be such a resource hog (for this and other reasons), suddenly they began
>> trying to persuade everybody that translucency and shadows and 3D effects
>> weren’t so cool after all.
>>
>> They’re just as “cool” as they always were. And Linux does them more
>> slickly and efficiently than anybody else.
>
> If you have picom (a fork of compton a fork of xcompmgr...), just
> do
>
> $ man picom
>
> to see just how configurable it is. (There's also the picom-conf GUI).
>
> And imagine if it were Registry settings :-D
>
> [I'm forgetting what the spinning cube desktop was called. Dang.]

Oh, neat. I use picom mostly for window transparancy, and it's pretty
solid. Unfortunately, it seems like the debian repository doesn have
picom-conf.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote at 10:45 this Monday (GMT):
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 07:29:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those effects really do nothing to improve the experience, but they look
>>>> neat.
>>>
>>> Funny how they were considered cool back when Microsoft was touting them
>>> as a wonderful new feature of Windows Vista. Then when Vista turned out to
>>> be such a resource hog (for this and other reasons), suddenly they began
>>> trying to persuade everybody that translucency and shadows and 3D effects
>>> weren’t so cool after all.
>>>
>>> They’re just as “cool” as they always were. And Linux does them more
>>> slickly and efficiently than anybody else.
>>
>> If you have picom (a fork of compton a fork of xcompmgr...), just
>> do
>>
>> $ man picom
>>
>> to see just how configurable it is. (There's also the picom-conf GUI).
>>
>> And imagine if it were Registry settings :-D
>>
>> [I'm forgetting what the spinning cube desktop was called. Dang.]
>
> Oh, neat. I use picom mostly for window transparancy, and it's pretty
> solid. Unfortunately, it seems like the debian repository doesn have
> picom-conf.

It's in Debian Testing (trixie). And it's not in Arch. :-(

Probably can get it from some git repo and build it yourself....

--
You must know that a man can have only one invulnerable loyalty, loyalty
to his own concept of the obligations of manhood. All other loyalties
are merely deputies of that one.
-- Nero Wolfe

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote at 16:32 this Monday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote at 10:45 this Monday (GMT):
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 07:29:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Those effects really do nothing to improve the experience, but they look
>>>>> neat.
>>>>
>>>> Funny how they were considered cool back when Microsoft was touting them
>>>> as a wonderful new feature of Windows Vista. Then when Vista turned out to
>>>> be such a resource hog (for this and other reasons), suddenly they began
>>>> trying to persuade everybody that translucency and shadows and 3D effects
>>>> weren’t so cool after all.
>>>>
>>>> They’re just as “cool” as they always were. And Linux does them more
>>>> slickly and efficiently than anybody else.
>>>
>>> If you have picom (a fork of compton a fork of xcompmgr...), just
>>> do
>>>
>>> $ man picom
>>>
>>> to see just how configurable it is. (There's also the picom-conf GUI).
>>>
>>> And imagine if it were Registry settings :-D
>>>
>>> [I'm forgetting what the spinning cube desktop was called. Dang.]
>>
>> Oh, neat. I use picom mostly for window transparancy, and it's pretty
>> solid. Unfortunately, it seems like the debian repository doesn have
>> picom-conf.
>
> It's in Debian Testing (trixie). And it's not in Arch. :-(
>
> Probably can get it from some git repo and build it yourself....

It's fine. I haven't touched the picom config in quite a while.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom