On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 08:56 -0400, George Stoianov wrote:

and no matter how many review I read I think it is at least 10 sorry 500 no sorry 1000 better than what MS Windows is and will ever be, because of the way it is made. MS is getting to fat and too lazy to adapt and change and why should they make the other people change.

The problem with Win32/.NET has never been the OS and its core design. Microsoft stole good code and lured some of the greatest architects in the late '80s and early '90s. [ Although Google has stolen several of them in the last few years -- which wasn't surprising ] The problem is that their own application division utterly _ignores_ the Win32 and, subsequently, .NET APIs. Everything from embedding DLLs for IE that bypass Win32 security in the mid-'90s to breaking other NT subsystems, MAC, RBAC, etc... because "Chicago" (MS-DOS 7.x aka Windows 9x) was the application focus, NT/Win32 has become a bastard of hacks and security violations from its original design. .NET/"Longhorn" is just a 1:1 repeat of Win32/"Cairo" -- Vaporware, 0% actual usage of the _sound_ API, etc... Especially the fact that you can't install a security fix without _breaking_ several other security issues. This is the "clusterfsck integration" of how Windows is designed -- whereas UNIX is "piecemeal." It's why TCO is a nightmare with Windows servers, unlike UNIX. NT/Win32 was supposed to be more "piecemeal," like UNIX, but that reality _died_ the second Gates gave the "thumbs up" to "Chicago" in 1994 -- and NT then became Chicago's "bitch." One of the reasons my MS SQL servers at a Fortune 100 company didn't get hit by SQL Slammer in January 2003 was because I actually read the Hotfix release notes of 2 different, latter Hotfixes for MS SQL that _blindly_uninstalled_ the fix from months earlier that would have prevented SQL Slammer. In other words, "staying current" with the _latest_ patches _caused_ you to actually be hit by SQL Slammer! Unfortunately, about a dozen and a half Windows infrastructure team members did not know this. So it took down my Fortune 100 company for 3 days! Not only that, but half of Microsoft went down too! The portions of Microsoft that didn't go down were _not_ feed by Microsoft's own QA/patch release, but by Altiris -- who caught and mitigated the issue in their streamed patches. In the conference call with Microsoft the next week, they were blaming people for not "keeping current." I saved a lot of butts by showing how 2 newer patches actually "unpatched" MS SQL, and my Fortune 100 company really gave Microsoft an earful for _not_ being honest -- and "passing the buck" on to their professionals and partners. I have repeatedly exposed how Microsoft does this to its _own_ professionals and partners. And yes, I _have_ seen _many_ people "fired" for buying Microsoft. ;-> Now Microsoft's move to monthly Hotfix roll-ups has addressed _some_ of the "conflicts." But the core, inter-clusterfsck'd dependencies of "poor integration" is still the "root cause" -- something that should have _never_ happened. But most of it, as before, falls on "Chicago." .NET/Longhorn is a joke -- other than "Indigo" (.NET Internet services), _nothing_ .NET is shipping in Longhorn. We already have something like .NET Internet services -- it's called Java. Not surprising, since .NET 1.x code is _directly_ based on Java 1.1 (Microsoft might have lost the trademark, but a judge ruled they were 100% entitled to the last codebase they paid for), and .NET 2.x is largely a refresh of Java 1.4/1.5 code c/o the Microsoft re-license of Java. The _entire_ .NET security model (which is very UNIX-like and powerful) is _utterly_missing_ in Longhorn. We're still stuck with 100% _bastardized_ Win32 (nothing like the original -- a lot of hacks and bypasses designed for MS-DOS 7.x).

Just a brief story: ...Yesterday I had to upgrade a Windows XP by putting on service pack 2 so that I can test something with .NET, so I check the service pack it says 1 I go on MS site and start download it tells me that a policy prevents the pack from being loaded over the web ... cut ...

Microsoft will send you a free SP2 CD if you request one. Microsoft will also let you download it if you prove you have 1 updated XP SP2 system on your network by using a validator program. I know it's easy to "complain" about Microsoft, but in reality, a Windows professional _must_know_ how and where to get the software, legitimately -- even if they make you "jump through hoops." I don't think it's worth it, but when my clients tell me they must use something because they tying themselves to "vendor lock-in" by using the vendor's latest software, I can't do much by warning them, then provide services. And that means I'm a competent Windows professional who _knows_ where to _legally_ get the updates. And I typically _avoid_ those clients that don't have their "heads on straight" when it comes to "mitigating risk." But some of their departments often reality that I'm not only a Linux architect, but I've been deploying NT since the 3.1 alpha (i.e., I was at the largest installed base of the first native NT app 14 years ago), so I get stuck with architecting and integrating NT-based solutions too. Again, Microsoft _does_ provide a way to download the _full_ XP SP2 and _all_ post-SP2 Hotfixes. You just have to use a system that is already updated with its validator. It's _critical_ that if you are a Windows professional that you not only know such -- but it also makes other Windows professionals and even Microsoft itself realize that you have _legitimate_complaints_. Like I did on SQL Slammer at a Fortune 100 company -- I caught Microsoft "red handed," especially on their _lies_ and "passing the buck." I've also exposed serious, base flaws in Exchange 5.5 that were _still_ in Exchange 2003 -- and the on-site Microsoft support at a Fortune 20 client of mine really got an earful when they started playing the "pass the buck" game.

After 2 hours I am ready to now do what I wanted to evaluate a closed source security solution. I spent 5 minutes and I have already found a major problem .... now I have to fill out 10 forms be on 4 conference calls and talk to 5 different people starting with a sales rep ... what the ... to explain to them what the problems. I will probably never get the name of a developer or try to explain in my own words.

Who? Internal? Microsoft? Independent Software Vendor (ISV)? Understand that _some_ proprietary software _does_ have value, especially those that do _not_ use "vendor lock-in" techniques, and actually win on their merits. If it does not, it would _not_ sell. I buy proprietary software all-the-time -- but _only_ those that offer "value." E.g., Adobe/Macromedia is a company that not only promotes open standards, but is very "open" with its own, original, but innovative technology and IP. The problem is that too many people associate "Microsoft" with "proprietary." Microsoft products are _not_ "proprietary" -- that would require them to be compatible with themselves through many versions. Microsoft is the epitome of "Hostageware." Software choice is about mitigating risk -- risk to data in 3+ years. Open Source does _not_ necessarily "reduce" risk. In fact, eccentric Open Source programs can be _worse_ sometimes. You _must_ evaluate software on a _per-project/product_ basis for risk. Don't just assume that by using Microsoft, often a "worst case example" (and "Hostageware") represents "proprietary" and is always worse than open source (especially by using its most shining examples). I discussed these concepts in-detail in my Sys Admin colums back in January and February of 2005 (beware, they were poorly edited -- last second requests from CMP Media).

I hope you are getting what I am trying to say by now. ... this is not nice especially when I can post to a forum like this one and get a response in 15 minutes with detailed instructions from someone who really know my pain ... :). Thank you by the way.

I _agree_ that 99% of Microsoft groups are "people networking" ones. My local ONTPA (Orlando NT Professional Association) is filled with "people networking" types, and the list is _never_ used for technical assistance. But there _are_ support lists out there. E.g., I help run PC_Support: http://lists.leap-cf.org/mailman/listinfo/pc_support It's part of my local LUG's lists (LEAP-CF, Linux Enthusiasts and Professionals of Central Florida). I'm not trying to "promote" the group or this list -- but it's certainly a _better_ list than here for advocacy, comparisons, questions, etc... from some outstanding Windows professionals (who make me look like a noob ;-).

I am not saying Linux is perfect or as a matter of fact that it will ever be, I do not think that "dumming it down" so that everyone can use it will make it better as I do not want what everyone has or want to use :).

One thing is that it's not "dumming down." It's really about _not_ "proliferating _bad_ practices." I find 98% of Windows professionals use _poor_ practices -- or worse yet -- Windows at its foundation is 98% of _poor_ practices and then people "expect" those out of any UNIX. Executable installers is one. Blind associations by extension (instead of file magic) is another. I could go on.

And yes I whine and complain from time to time when I spend hours figuring stuff out and making them work in Linux, but I know if I get so frustrated with anything (like winblows) I can take what I want and make what I want ... and this is freedom.

I use Linux because it is _simple_ and has _lower_ TCO. I can support 10x as many UNIX/Linux systems as NT-based. If Windows was _easier_ to support, I would do so. But 14 years of supporting every NT version has told me otherwise. Now that's just the OS -- people uses applications, not OSes. [ NOTE: I _never_ and _refused_ to support "Chicago"/MSDOS7/Win9x in my _entire_ career -- which is a very long story at many clients. ] On the application front, I don't merely "assume" all Open Source is better. I evaluate TCO, long-term risk to data, etc... This overwhelmingly causes me to look to open source and open standards solutions. But I have implemented much open standards-based "proprietary" software as well. Most of that is due to the _superior_ capability of the software. Some others are due to very "real IP" issues that you can't avoid. The key to being an Open Source advocate is realizing the value proposition of risk and other concerns, and knowing when and how to deal with the real legal IP issues. Especially when you are at a Fortune 20 company on a major Linux integration project and their legal department is considering removing all Linux because of SCO v. IBM. That's when explaining the SCO v. IBM lawsuit, in real legal terms and underlying realities, is crucial.

Even if everyone liked bloody beef (I tried it once to my surprise it was not that bad) I like it well done ;) and that is how I will have it ... thanks to all the OSS developers that make this freedom a reality today :).

Like many "old UNIX wennies," I've been implementing GNU Systems on SunOS (and, subsequently, Solaris) since _before_ Linux. The value proposition of a GNU System is "freedom" (or "libre" as I understand some people don't like the term anymore for various reasons I won't agree/disagree with). But "freedom" does not merely stand on its own. There are other things that are involved. Including real licensing and IP issues. And that comes down to "risk." If I can lessen "risk" to my customer's data by using a non-Open Source solution, then I will do so. Especially if it offers more value in other areas. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

/snip/

But when it comes to Vista, it's gonna be a simple cut case, it's gonna

win,

because people will get Vista, not because it's good or stable. But because it's simply the best piece of crap around. People buy stuff, because of their social status, not because of their need to do so. All the guys will talk about Vista, because it's new, it's fat, it looks great, it's got some nice features ... wether it's bloated or not, isn't relevant.

On the other hand, you've got Linux ... and everything I see on Linux today, with the exception of Xgl and compiz, is a cheap copy of Windows. Back a few years, you'd got enlightenment Window manager. It wasn't stable, it was hard to run, but it was great looking and was a knockout ... because it didn't look like Windows. Take a look at Linux themes ... even the old enlightenment themes are gone. It all looks like Windows, the feel is the same as Windows ... the interface is the same as windows. The same taskbar, the same menu setup, the same icon bar ... it's just windows, with a different look.

No, if Novell wants to make this desktop a success to challenge Windows. They're gonna have to do something, to get the enthusiasts back on track, that made Linux what it is today. The programs are good, and getting better, but they lack a touch of glory.

The Linux developers have realized that the computing community has standardized on a particular GUI, which can be fiddled with, but not really changed. Just like the dashboard on a car, or the controls on a clothes dryer. There's nothing wrong with the M/S Windows GUI. It can be tinkered with, but time has shown that people are satisfied with it. I am. I am disappointed when something says "May I?" after telling the machine to print, or whatever, but that's a minor glitch. Those who would rather not see a Windows-like GUI have alternatives, which have not been very popular, AFAICT. How many questions or notes on the other X-windows GUI's have you seen on this list? The tremendous groundswell against GNOME tells you that the KDE clone of the Windows GUI is what everyone out there wants. And if Linux is ever to become a desktop system, it will have to have the same dashboard, the same shift pattern, as Windows. --dm -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 6/2/2006 -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Sunnudaginn 4 júní 2006 07:51 skrifaði Rajko M:

The same dash board etc, in many cars is not without reason. One needs some data like speed and mileage to see anytime easy. If that would make you looking far from the road it would be dangerous, and that makes all dashboards looking similar. With the gear shifting manufacturers have little more freedom, but no many like to learn totally different system with every new car, so they are pretty much the same too.

The same is with computer software. It doesn't look similar for some irrational reason, but because once layout is determined with how easy is to reach certain function, the other time it will be similar to comply with the way people are used to accomplish the job.

The analogy doesn't really apply. There are new designs in cars that redefine the dashboard all the time. And indeed, cars stay the same because people buy the cars that look alike ... not because it's a standard, but because they know how to find their way around it. But on computers, about 80% of all computer users have a hard time finding their way around it. Ask any customer support, how it is to get a customer to follow straight directions. To a computer guru, who designed his own interface, it may be logical ... but to other users, even young users. They can't find their way around, or have a hard time to ... the biggest problem being, they don't know what they want or need. The only things that can be standard is "a window", with "border". A button, a drop down menu, etc. Their look isn't a standard, and even though it's an eye candy, it is this eye candy that appeals to the taste of users. The feel is also important, as driving a lamborghini and an austin mini, that have similar dashboards, has a totally different feel. You can never be a leader, by following someones lead. You ain't gonna be first, by being second. And you're never going to beat someone, at their own game. And although the dashboards of an Austin Mini, and a Lamborghini may be quite similar, the feel and economy of the vehicle is what makes it appeal to different social groups. And to be quite direct, if you can't see these facts, I'd argue wether you're in the right buisness field. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Rikard Johnels wrote:

Vista may be bloated. Vista may be unstable, Vista may be the worst piece of crap ever to come out or Redmount.. But as we allready know.. People WILL buy it! Because if they DONT, they will look oldfashioned, out of date and lost.. Ppl will automaticly think " Why arent this company using the latest software? Something must be wrong with it. Ill go to their competitor..."

I keep hearing this, but honestly, that has _NEVER_ been the case. Very very few people actually _buy_ windows releases. People get the latest version of windows when they buy a new computer. From what I've heard, the price tag for Vista is gonna be insane, too.

Windows GUI, KDE, OSX, Gnome and a few others all are the same layout. Partially because its what we are used to via windows, and partially due to the fact its easier to handle.

Wha? OSX's guy is based on windows? I had been under the impression that Windows copied Mac, and Mac copied W or whatever the Xerox original implementation was. The reason nobody uses the crazy versions of enlightenment is that they're inneficient. I, too, used one of those crazy themes that looked with the borg had taken over my apps for awhile, but in the end, I dumped it, because it was a waste of screen real estate. My screen, technically, looks much more like NeXTstep, with the bar on the right side vertically. MacOS had the menu at the top, Windows put the menu at the bottom, we now have Gnome putting a menu at the top AND the bottom. But, honestly, there are only so many permutations that are still consistent with usability and utility. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Kenneth Aar wrote:

Søndag 04 juni 2006 20:07, skrev suse@rio.vg:

...

My screen, technically, looks much more like NeXTstep, with the bar on the right side vertically. MacOS had the menu at the top, Windows put the menu at the bottom, we now have Gnome putting a menu at the top AND the bottom. But, honestly, there are only so many permutations that are still consistent with usability and utility.

If you think so, you really have to look at http://symphonyos.com/ if I were Novell/SUSE I would look at this desktop and think what could we do here with GLX and Symphony combined.

Why? What's so different about that desktop? The screenshots look much like every other "experimental" windowing system. Just like the old Enlightenment themes, it has a fatal blind spot: Noboty uses small windows in the middle of the screen. When people actually _use_ their computers, the main app they're using is either maximized to fill the whole screen or tiled. That symphony thing wastes screen real estate. It looks pretty, it demo's pretty, but when it comes down to getting work done on it, it's not so pretty anymore. Just look at this: http://symphonyos.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=54 What advantage does that screen have other KDE/Gnome? Because that's what a real user is looking at 99% of the time. (If it's not the web browser, it's an Office prog, a tiled screen of terminals, a mail app, or image editor or whatever) And that screen shows no app list, no desktop pager, system usage, docked audio player, volume, updates, or quick launch buttons. As a desktop to be gawked at, it's very pretty. Usability? Not so much. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Content-Disposition: inline

Sunnudaginn 4 júní 2006 20:55 skrifaði suse@rio.vg:

...

As a desktop to be gawked at, it's very pretty. Usability? Not so much.

Back in the days, when 640x480 or 800x600 was standard, looking at maximized windows was "maybe" the way to go. I've got a 1440x900 window here, and there are those who have a 1600x1000, or better, where having some Firefox window maximized is a waste of window space. More to the point, it is a waste of the concept of "windowing". Running on maximized windows, is the concept of those who never left the good old MS-DOS days, or consoles. There's only one thing in the window. The rest of us have many windows running, on one screen. We flip between windows ... do one thing in one, and another in the next. Just like now ... what is the point of having KMail maximized in a 1440x900 window? You think I'm gonna see it better with all the useless space that only shows the background color?

More to the point, dual screen is common today ... and even pivoting of

At 01:41 AM 6/5/2006 +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote: the

screen. And a 1900x1200 screens are getting more common as we speak, yeah people are even using 24" monitors ... tiled windows or maximized windows. That's a waste of the windowing technology.

/snip/ What good are multiple windows, if you only see part of the text in each? And what good are multiple windows if you could see all of the text in each, but it is shrunk down to 6 point type? I may have multiple windows "open" but only one will be full-screen, the others will be "behind." Or do you have a 40 inch screen with the same definition as our 19" screens? Even if I could afford such, I don't know where I'd put it! I remember when Windows 3.0 came out, and a few people were trying to use multiple windows all on screen. Now, I don't know anyone who does. Maybe you might stick a weather report down in a corner, but that's about it. BTW--I probably saw dual screen almost as soon as anybody. EEsof made its early Touchstone RF CAD program capable of dual screen. Maybe 1985? We did it at work. Only one engineer liked it. I hated it. I would _never_ do that again. (When HP bought EEsof, they replaced a very useable (1-screen) program with something that was virtually useless, unless you had the unobtainium hi-def 40 inch monitor. I don't know that it exists even today, but it certainly didn't exist 7 years ago. And they wanted twice the price for this NIH junk.) --dm -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 6/2/2006 -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Sunday 04 June 2006 21:03, Doug McGarrett wrote:

What good are multiple windows, if you only see part of the text in each?

Hi Doug, Check out these screenshots: http://www.cehartung.com/docs/preview/ Carl -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Orn E. Hansen wrote:

Sunnudaginn 4 júní 2006 20:55 skrifaði suse@rio.vg:

...

As a desktop to be gawked at, it's very pretty. Usability? Not so much.

Back in the days, when 640x480 or 800x600 was standard, looking at maximized windows was "maybe" the way to go. I've got a 1440x900 window here, and there are those who have a 1600x1000, or better, where having some Firefox window maximized is a waste of window space. More to the point, it is a waste of the concept of "windowing". Running on maximized windows, is the concept of those who never left the good old MS-DOS days, or consoles. There's only one thing in the window. The rest of us have many windows running, on one screen. We flip between windows ... do one thing in one, and another in the next. Just like now ... what is the point of having KMail maximized in a 1440x900 window? You think I'm gonna see it better with all the useless space that only shows the background color?

More to the point, dual screen is common today ... and even pivoting of the screen. And a 1900x1200 screens are getting more common as we speak, yeah people are even using 24" monitors ... tiled windows or maximized windows. That's a waste of the windowing technology.

That's why I said "maximized or tiled". I have one of those 1920x1200 laptops. For firefox, I have firefox and two terminals taking up the screen. Tiled is the _opposite_ of wasted space... Leaving half the screen showing the desktop below is a waste. In my case, I have 6 virtual desktops, two of them are filled with terminal windows, one has Konqueror + 2 terminals, one has firefox + 2 terminals, thunderbird gets it's own, taking up the whole 1920x1200 in three panes (folders, headers, content). The last desktop is used for irregular shaped apps I need, like XMMS or Realplayer or whatever. Multi-head is even more maximize centric. Generally you'll maximize one app on each monitor (or in my case, tiled terminals/gkrell's)... I also load up apps on top of the ones above, as needed. I would certainly not suggest that "tiled is all you'll ever need" or anything like that. However, tile or maximized is the most efficient way to set things up, and the way most people actually use machines. We don't use the machines for the window manager, we use the window manager to manage the apps that we actually use... Virtually every experimental system I'm seen keeps turning that around. They want the window manager to be the center of attention and the actual apps to be almost an afterthought. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Monday 05 June 2006 09:39, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

At work, I often need to have several documents open at a time. Where I work with MS Windows, every day. The "maximized" window concept is a handicap, and the taskbar at the bottom, is like reading the small print in a legal document. Where I find the MS Window concept truly to be a very insufficient way at getting the job done. While being able to tile two windows, would be true advantage at times, it's sadly not applicable.

FYI, if you're really stuck using XP at work, there's a 'Power Toys' "tweak" you can download from M$ that gets you four virtual desktops. I don't have highly accelerated graphics, so switching between them is very slow compared to X (no 'snap') but it gets the job done. Carl -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Monday 05 June 2006 10:33, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

It's useless a big monitor for a SOHO, on the design field: it's necessary.

Hi Alvaro, SOHO users are as diverse as any other base. In fact, it isn't unusual to find them 'juggling' marcom, accounting and crm/sales/support functions with fewer staff. What this says to me is there's a great deal to be gained, particularly by smaller firms, by incorporating multiple virtual high definition desktops... which I define as the ability to view at least two complete print-format or scanned documents on-screen at the same time)... even combined with multi-head functionality, as you've stated, in cases where the user's applications warrant it.

For me, I use MAXIMIZED Windows on Virtual Desktops (six of them).

Just like me, but I've trimmed it down to four (any more usually just go unused. ) I'll definitely jump to multi-head the first time a project requirement justifies it! ;-)

I like the picture of "(Screenshot of a Desktop)^6"

Thanks! It was fun.

But, I noted that your windows are for the same job. I can't mix windows from different tasks.

I'm not clear on what you mean here. Of course I mix and match displayed processes across virtual desktops, but I can only do captures one at a time. :-) I generally use one for the 'reception/marcom area' (IM, VOIP, chat/irc, surfing, efax, e-mail) one for 'admin' (file management, shells & utilities, ftp client, etc.) and two for 'creative' (each split between production & preview/proofreading) which is OK for up to two projects. If I run out of space, I just add another virtual desktop until the workload justifies dropping back to four. Thanks for your comments! Carl -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Monday 05 June 2006 13:29, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

Let me explain better: I use a virtual desktop (VD) for example: Developing, the VD1 just have Developing Application: KDevelop,QTdesigner, Konsole, err... that's it. On VD2 Surfing(TM): Firefox, Mozilla Suite, Thunderbird and XChat. On VD3: Media Playing (not affiliated with Microsoft nor Vista or any combination): MPlayer, VLC, Amarok and AudioOverload. And On, And On, And On... that until the six desktops are full (I left one always free to see my beautiful wallpaper and for GKrellM... in case my Celeron 533MHz reach more than 32Celsius :) )

I don't see the idea of one desktop full of tiled windows, too many information. That can't be processed by a "normal" human (MS users are sub-normal, in most cases. I know, there are people who really know how to use Windows and it's registry (HelpDesk staff?)).

Ah, yes! Much clearer now. I really dislike "full" windows, too... it almost feels claustrophobic when there isn't enough background showing. OTOH, it doesn't bother me when I'm editing source documents. I navigate visually, by structure, as I'm sure you do, too. Under those conditions I actually feel less constrained if I'm working in a "full page" (at least equal to a printed 8.5" x 11") to the left while keeping a preview open to the right. In that mode, when I need a refreshing 'background break' I use the 'show desktop' button. :-) I don't seem to have that 'constrained' feeling if I've got several small apps running on the same desktop. I tend to arrange them so they're not 'crowding' each other and each has plenty of "elbow room." Thanks again for your comments & take care! Carl -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

[ NOTE: This sounds like a good topic for the OT list ;-] On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 17:39 +0200, Rikard Johnels wrote:

Actually, Microsoft and a few others have invested millions of dollars to investigate what GUI is the most effective one. Intuitive, usefullness etc. So no matter WHAT your opinion is on the Microsoft software and ethics, they DO make sure they have SOMETHING on their feet when they start writing their thing...

But they've often been _wrong_ in their "group studies" as well. Microsoft tends to use a lot of money they claim for such studies to actually push "marketing" and _not_ real research. I've personally been involved with one myself in the distant past. ;-> On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 14:07 -0400, suse@rio.vg wrote:

Wha? OSX's guy is based on windows? I had been under the impression that Windows copied Mac, and Mac copied W or whatever the Xerox original implementation was.

X is largely based on Job's NeXTstep, which has influenced most of the pre-GNOME developments, as well as the subsequent Sawmill/Sawfish and, now, Metacity window managers used in GNOME. A lot of these GNOME developers have been paid Red Hat employees -- hence Red Hat's unintentional bias at times (which they _fully_ admit). -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Sunday 04 June 2006 12:18 am, Doug McGarrett wrote:

The Linux developers have realized that the computing community has standardized on a particular GUI, which can be fiddled with, but not really changed.  Just like the dashboard on a car, or the controls on a clothes dryer.  There's nothing wrong with the M/S Windows GUI. It can be tinkered with, but time has shown that people are satisfied with it.  I am.  I am disappointed when something says "May I?" after telling the machine to print, or whatever, but that's a minor glitch. Those who would rather not see a Windows-like GUI have alternatives, which have not been very popular, AFAICT.  How many questions or notes on the other X-windows GUI's have you seen on this list?  The tremendous groundswell against GNOME tells you that the KDE clone of the Windows GUI is what everyone out there wants.  And if Linux is ever to become a desktop system, it will have to have the same dashboard, the same shift pattern, as Windows.

Unfortunately, this IS true. Fred -- Paid purchaser of ALL SuSE Linux releases since 6.x -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Sunnudaginn 4 júní 2006 09:39 skrifaði Ken Hough:

Remains to be seen. From what I've read, it's nowhere near what it's cracked up to be and will lock users in so tightly the pips will squeak. Maybe, just maybe, people will start to see it for what it is.

Well, I haven't tried Vista myself. But from what I can understand from those who have, and are quite neutral even to the eye candy stuff. Vista beta1 was quite unstable, and almost unusable, but as of beta2 it's even more stable than XP. And that is from people, who haven't tried the eye candy stuff.

Cheap! Only in the sense that it's free.

No, as in it's made too look like and copy the feel ...

Hardly the stuff to gain converts!

It's that kind of stuff, that made the converts ... go figure.

Just because things CAN look like MS Windows stuff shouldn't be a problem. Under Linux, they don't NEED to look like MS stuff. You can set up your Linux desktop to look pretty much as you wish, using a choiice of desktop managers. There's far more depth to Linux than in MS Windows.

The fact that it all looks like MS Windows, makes the entire community highly retrospect.

Anyway, is it a bad thing that default setups look somewhat like Bill's offerings? This is likely to encourage more converts than if it was widly different.

People who want to get something else than MS Windows, can be put into several categories. 1. People who find Windows non satisfying. 2. People who don't like Windows look'n'feel. 3. People who want to be able to make their own software and settings. 4. Students and those who are studying, and want something to experiment with. 5. People who can't afford Windows. 6. People who don't like Microsoft and want to make something that is equivalent and want to reduce their marketing share. Personally, I don't think 6 is worth focusing on. And groups 1-3 are certainly not worth ignoring.

If we play only to 'enthusiasts', Linux will remain an enthusiasts OS. We need converts to sweep MS aside. and that will not happen without some familiar encouragement.

Enthusiasts and those with a born genius of some sort, are the ones who have brought us to this place in the universe. We stand on their shoulders, and it should be our goal to ensure there are others like them, for our children to stand on their shoulders. But then, maybe I'm lucky not having any children. Just my 2€ cents worth. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Sunnudaginn 4 júní 2006 17:05 skrifaði Ken Hough:

Yes! But it doesn't alter the point that if Linux is to prosper in the wider world, they need to carry the rest of us with them.

True, I'm not saying that Linux should be radically changed. The concept of having a stable core, to work on is very good. But not at the cost of new ideas and visions.

If you had children, your apparent idealism might have been tempered by a touch of pragmatism.

Bringing children to a world, that balances on the brink of doom ... sounds like irresponsibility to me. :-) -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Sunnudaginn 4 júní 2006 22:35 skrifaði James Knott:

Yep, everyone should stop having kids for a couple of generations, until the problems go away. ;-)

Yeah, I hear ya ... got my vote! :-) -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Bruce Marshall wrote:

Nothing wrong with that.... as long as people are used to it and it is usable.

Take for example file navigation. The file navigation in Firefox is different than Windows. (The one that starts out with HOME DESKTOP FILE SYSTEM... huh?) I think it is due to using GTK or might be QT, I'm not sure) And everyone I've talked to in the Linux world thinks it's abominable.... I certainly do and wish they make it more in line with most GUI programs. I hope they see the light some day.

That's the GNOME system. Gnome has gone the way of Mac. I fully expect to see a special gnome mouse with only one button released at some point. The core gnome developers have gone insane and have been cutting out features and usability in favor of making it more like Macintosh's "easy" system. I don't know whether or not it's easier for new users, but I find it to be "slow and tedious" and the very idea that you would actually remove options entirely (not just put them in an "Advanced" tab, but remove them from the system to be entirely unfathomable. At one time, people would say that Gnome and KDE were essentially doing the same thing. That certainly isn't true any more. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

[ This will be my last off-topic post on this. I recommend finding a Windows support list if anyone wishes to discuss further (I run one such group). Just a suggestion, I'd love to discuss this stuff, but I'm over-staying my welcome on these topics since this is a Linux list. ] On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 12:46 -0700, kai wrote:

Like any idiot would actually use Vista. I tried it just for kicks and laughed so hard at the pathetic nature of Vista. I couldn't believe MS would make an OS worse than XP, but they've managed.

Windows Vista (the client) has implemented 0% .NET in the core. The _only .NET technology in the _entire_ NT6.0/Longhorn line is "Indigo" -- which is for NT6.0/Longhorn server. Indigo is sandboxed .NET Internet (but _not_ ADS, LAN, SMB, etc...) services. The idea is to sandbox off .NET from insecure Win32 internals of NT that have gotten progressive hacked and re-hacked from NT 3.51 "Daytona" on-ward (including ultimately by-passing _most_ security in NT 5.1 XP, which then XP SP2 partially "re-hacked" back to NT 5.0 2000 standards). Yes, Indigo is basically giving us what we already have in Java. ;-> Understand most "Vista technologies" aka "WinFX" is _out_ and quickly becoming _vaporware_. This is a 100% repeat of "Cario" (aka "Consumer NT) then "Cario tecnologies" then 100% _Vaporware_ -- almost year by year (1991-1996, now 2001-2006). This includes Microsoft's own tools division _not_ releasing a "pure" Visual Studio .NET, and still incorporating various "Chicago-era" code -- largely for Visual Studio 6 compatibility. That then results in many other issues. Then Microsoft's own application division throws the .NET development books in the trash ... and that's what we continue to get ... trash! Probably the biggest insight I can give is on Visual Basic. Microsoft complains that they must continue to support the Visual Basic 6 run-time in Vista because of Independent Software Vendors (ISVs). The reality is that Microsoft's _itself_ is still _heavily_ using VB6 code internally. This frustrates most of Microsoft's core architects. Which is why it is not surprising that after a "2nd time" with "Longhorn" ("Cario" being first), that Microsoft's core architects have _fled_ to Google. I have predicted 100% of Microsoft's moves in this regard since 2001 -- not because I'm "smart" -- but because we called it "Cairo" 10 years ago. Just follow the same history. E.g., most people don't realize that WinFS, formerly CarioFS, is actually a set of "bug fixes" to the serious, core issues with how NTFS is designed and intertwined with the NT Security Accounts Manager (SAM) and its in-filesystem Security ID (SID). What was designed to be a more secure filesystem turned into a (pun)self-fsck'ing(pun) base. One of the reasons why Linux can't "safely" write to NTFS is because NT systems can_not_ "safely" write to other NTFS filesystems created by another NT system either! That's where the "NT domain" model comes in NT from LAN Manager -- turns the local SAM of the Registry of the "promoted domain controller" into the "network-wide SAM" (and why all DCs forget their own, local registry SAM). This is _still_ how it works in ADS (despite Microsoft saying otherwise). As a Windows professional, this is _crucial_ to note -- because you _never_ want to write local SAM SIDs to a NTFS filesystem, which _can_ happen on a non-DC file server. Microsoft tried to mitigate this with NT5+ (2000+) Logical Disk Manager (LDM) aka "Dynamic Disc" by reserving sectors for writing key SID info. But that only prevents the filesystem from getting corrupted, it does _not_ mean you won't lose Access Control Entries (ACEs) on files in a NTFS filesystem if you write to it with another NT installation (or other OS) that didn't create the NTFS filesystem. Worse yet is how _no_ NT version offers a "read-only" NTFS mount, which Linux at least does -- although NT 5.1 XP/2003 _will_ refuse to even "see" a NTFS filesystem created with another SAM _unless_ it's in on a LDM volume. This is just one clusterfsck of NT. I was really looking forward to MONAD in NT 6.0 -- a "pure" NT 6.0 environment for parsing, scripting, etc... It was supposed to be the foundation of a new parsing engine for Exchange, SQL, etc... Especially Exchange -- which _all_ versions (including 2003) have a very _broken_ parser that has buffer overflows up the wazzu. I found one in 1999 (and told Microsoft about it then, and got beat to a pulp for doing so and threatened _not_ to report it to CERT) and I can _still_ exploit it in Exchange 2003 (and we did at a Fortune 20 financial company). But MONAD is now a "WinFX technology" and not in Vista. The "Avalon" presentation system in NT 6.0 Longhorn client "Vista" is 0% .NET. It's trying to chuck the Graphical Display Interface (GDI) foundation of NT, which is rather impossible. The GDI wasn't a bad idea in the original NT 3.1 on-ward, but how the GDI was used was the problem. First off, one of Gates' personal, _bone-head_ ideas was that all NT programs _must_ be tied to the GDI. For 3D, the GDI would use OpenGL -- which wasn't a bad idea, but implemented in a way that made it _impossible_ for "Chicago" to use (hence the creation of "Direct DOS Memory Map" aka "DirectMM" then "Direct2D" and the subsequent "Direct'X'" technologies for Windows 95 -- long story). But the fact that the GDI was fixed to hardware would plague NT and cause it to not have "multiuser" capability until Citrix hacked a virtual GDI solution with "MultiWin" (which is the underlying foundation of WinFrame and, subsequently, Terminal Server which is actually built into all NT5+/2000 + versions). The new Windows Graphics Foundations (WGF) is an API that new programs will be written to, while the subsystem handles legacy GDI compatibility. The problem is that WGF 1.x is basically DirectX 9 -- and has seriously _missing_ features -- things that Microsoft normally relies on proprietary extensions from ATI or nVidia for (since DirectX is largely a set of wrappers to hardware, and does not have an Architecture Review Board, ARB, like OpenGL). WGF 2.0 -- based on a more complete and new DirectX 10 -- was supposed to be in Vista -- but is was a serious undertaking to actually attempt to match even base OpenGL in core geometry setup (which is why OpenGL is still used for professional graphics), so WGF 2.0 is now a "WinFX technology." Hence why SuSE Linux 10.1's compiz smacks Vista's Avalon silly on anything less than a 3GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, NV4x/R400 GPU. In conclusion ... The best and most "pure" .NET environment can be found from Novell. It's called Mono and the whole reason why Miguel liked .NET is because it is very "UNIX-like" in security and API. Too bad Microsoft itself isn't using it -- other than for "Indigo." Then again, Digital created NT/Win32, and they didn't use it either. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:37:34 -0400 Mike McMullin wrote:

On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 12:46 -0700, kai wrote:

...

On Friday 02 June 2006 05:03 am, Sjoerd Hiemstra wrote:

...

This article compares installation, features, security, costs and ease of use of OpenSUSE and Vista.

http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT5613250391.html

One of the most remarkable points is that OpenSUSE supports more hardware than Vista at the moment. The first big difference is the system requirements, being substantially lower for OpenSUSE than for the Windows operating system. Because of these and many other points, the author of this comparison sees a much brighter future for OpenSUSE than for Vista.

Like any idiot would actually use Vista. I tried it just for kicks and laughed so hard at the pathetic nature of Vista. I couldn't believe MS would make an OS worse than XP, but they've managed.

/me shakes head at the sheep planning on downgrading to Vista

The article's author cites the new Aero UI as the big ticket selling item. Odd, what's wrong with 2k's UI in an enterprise setting? Do I really need eye candy when setting up boundary curves in my Cam-Software or do I need a fast accessible file system and good cpu performance?

What about the fact that for Enterprise style people, they don't like upgrading hardware? I know for sure some places still run NT because they don't want to upgrade the hardware for 2000 or XP? Does someone who does nothing at work but type up memos and maybe run an email client REALLY need a machine that is capable of running Doom3 just to do this? No. Do I want Microsoft knowing this? No. They don't need to know. Let them set near pysychotic requirements, and let people realise even the newest version of SUSE can still run on older hardware. -Allen

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Allen wrote:

What about the fact that for Enterprise style people, they don't like upgrading hardware? I know for sure some places still run NT because they don't want to upgrade the hardware for 2000 or XP?

Does someone who does nothing at work but type up memos and maybe run an email client REALLY need a machine that is capable of running Doom3 just to do this? No.

Many companies lease computers for 3 years and then replace them with new gear. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com