Re: [SLE] Re: GNOME vs KDE Redoux
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/ba86f283d614d2cd9b6116140eaddded.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Saturday 06 May 2006 07:05 pm, Doug McGarrett wrote:
Towards that end - I'd say KDE, GNOME and SUSE have all done a great job in attempting to reach the goal. I think we all have benefited by the "competition" between the major desktops in the world, KDE, Macintosh, Gnome and - to some extent - Windows.
There really isn't anything wrong with Windows (XP) except the tight control M/S has over it, and its desire to make bunches of money. Anyone who uses it would have to admit that it does the job very well, and it runs most routines much faster than SuSE.
FWIW, I support Windows users for a living. It's amazing the garbage they have to put up with, that simply doesn't occur with other operating systems. Anyone who has hands on experience with other operating systems, would never claim that Windows compares favourably with the others. It is simply crap, top to bottom. If you think it's so good, try supporting it for a while and then compare it with your experiences with Linux or OS/2 or...
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/9c6dd5d02b6268ddce65c31248b42967.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
If you think it's so good, try supporting it for a while and then compare it with your experiences with Linux or OS/2 or...
The fact that you dislike Windows XP is your personal choice. It doesn't means however, that XP is bad. In fact, I like it very much and use it *together* with SUSE Linux 10.0. This means that I would like to see more XP features in SUSE Linux next-version. In particular, I want a good KDE Task Manager instead of KSysGuard crap. I hope it will be replaced in KDE 4.
In fact, it was the pathetic "downgrade" from Win2K to XP that caused me to jump ship over to Linux, in spite of some serious pain
...and WindowsXP (pro) has the same or more features than Windows 2000 (pro) in every aspect. So I really don't understand people that are saying they worked well with 2000 but hate XP. Since I know both very well, I can do feature-for-feature comparison.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/ba86f283d614d2cd9b6116140eaddded.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Alexey Eremenko wrote:
If you think it's so good, try supporting it for a while and then compare it with your experiences with Linux or OS/2 or...
The fact that you dislike Windows XP is your personal choice.
It's not just that I dislike it. I have to deal with the problems it creates, every day at work. I have also supported OS/2 and it has nowhere near the problems Windows does. I'm the one who has to tell a user that the computer is so messed up, that it has to be reimaged. I'm the one who has to try and figure out why it's so slow lately. I'm the one who has to tell someone that he just lost a lot of his work, because when Windows crashed, it took out most of his documents etc. It's not just dislike. It's called "experience".
It doesn't means however, that XP is bad. In fact, I like it very much and use it *together* with SUSE Linux 10.0. This means that I would like to see more XP features in SUSE Linux next-version. In particular, I want a good KDE Task Manager instead of KSysGuard crap. I hope it will be replaced in KDE 4.
In fact, it was the pathetic "downgrade" from Win2K to XP that caused me to jump ship over to Linux, in spite of some serious pain
...and WindowsXP (pro) has the same or more features than Windows 2000 (pro) in every aspect. So I really don't understand people that are saying they worked well with 2000 but hate XP. Since I know both very well, I can do feature-for-feature comparison.
The desktop in XP can be far more annoying than W2000.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/23400181d97b4023e12de2b0171e96ac.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 16:10 -0400, James Knott wrote:
It's not just that I dislike it. I have to deal with the problems it creates, every day at work. I have also supported OS/2 and it has nowhere near the problems Windows does. I'm the one who has to tell a user that the computer is so messed up, that it has to be reimaged. I'm the one who has to try and figure out why it's so slow lately. I'm the one who has to tell someone that he just lost a lot of his work, because when Windows crashed, it took out most of his documents etc. It's not just dislike. It's called "experience".
Give a clueless user a Linux desktop, and then let him work as root. He'll mess it up in no time. The vast majority of the day to day windows problems (I know, I do the same support you mention) would be avoided if users were not given full Administrator privileges. Case in point: Linux server with the following: samba set up as domain controller with roaming profiles, communigate pro for mail (plugin for Outlook), bind, dhcp, squid. No virus scanning on either samba, communigate or squid. Desktops: all WindowsXP Pro with Office2k3 and a variety of programs, varying from user to user. Norman antivirus installed on all the desktops. No Firefox anywhere. Now, the users don't have admin or "power user" privileges on any machines. It's been five months, and even though NormanAV doesn't update itself automatically by default, I haven't had a single call to attend to an unstable or virus/malware infested machine. See, most stupid things users do to mess up the system, doesn't work if they're not admins or power users. Most viruses/malware assume they'll have admin privileges, and fail to get themselves into such a machine. User's documents are stored on the server, mail sits in Communigate. If they manage to mess up their profile somehow, all I have to do is log them out, log into the box as administrator, delete the offending profile, delete everything from their profile on the server *except* "My Documents" and "Desktop," and log them back in. All they lose is program settings, and this took all of 1 minute. No reload or re-image. This is such a basic setup, yet so effective. If you're using a Windows domain controller you can protect users even further with policies. Now, take the above setup, add a transparent virus scanning proxy (endian firewall does this), disable NAT, add virus scanning to samba (samba-vscan - very effective), add some virus scanning to Communigate (there are several options). Unless hardware breaks, Windows won't crash often. Now put all desktops, the server, and the switches on a UPS each, and even during a power outage, you'll have a pretty stable network. Also from experience... Hans
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/ba86f283d614d2cd9b6116140eaddded.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hans du Plooy wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 16:10 -0400, James Knott wrote:
It's not just that I dislike it. I have to deal with the problems it creates, every day at work. I have also supported OS/2 and it has nowhere near the problems Windows does. I'm the one who has to tell a user that the computer is so messed up, that it has to be reimaged. I'm the one who has to try and figure out why it's so slow lately. I'm the one who has to tell someone that he just lost a lot of his work, because when Windows crashed, it took out most of his documents etc. It's not just dislike. It's called "experience".
Give a clueless user a Linux desktop, and then let him work as root. He'll mess it up in no time. The vast majority of the day to day windows problems (I know, I do the same support you mention) would be avoided if users were not given full Administrator privileges.
Most users do not have admin privs. They have to show a business need to get admin rights. Also, admin rights don't cause BSOD that results in the loss of data.
participants (3)
-
Alexey Eremenko
-
Hans du Plooy
-
James Knott