f



[News] Making Linux Look Like Windows XP

What is Look XP

,----[ Quote ]
| LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
| WindowsXP look&feel desktop
`----

http://lxp.sourceforge.net/

Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit like
that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government deploys
as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this year).
0
newsgroups3 (79677)
12/13/2006 12:15:35 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

44 Replies
544 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 52

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:15:35 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> What is Look XP
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>| WindowsXP look&feel desktop
> `----
> 
> http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
> 
> Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit like
> that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government deploys
> as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this year).

It's hard to believe that so many people can be so dense.

Yes, it looks superficially a lot like XP, but it doesn't ACT like XP.
What's the point of only doing the job 10% of the way?
0
erik38 (8626)
12/13/2006 12:45:34 AM
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:15:35 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> What is Look XP
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>>| WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>> `----
>> 
>> http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
>> 
>> Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit like
>> that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government deploys
>> as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this year).
>
> It's hard to believe that so many people can be so dense.
>
> Yes, it looks superficially a lot like XP, but it doesn't ACT like XP.
> What's the point of only doing the job 10% of the way?

Because, Erik, choice is good. Its better to be able to choose between
the "real thing" and some half assed wannabe that does 10% of the real
thing. Honestly. Mark Kent and Peter Tröllman told us.
0
qadronhuark (2734)
12/13/2006 12:52:55 AM
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> What is Look XP
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
> `----
> 
> http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
> 
> Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit like
> that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government deploys
> as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this year).

But who needs it? Personally I prefer GNOME or KDE. If I want to use XP
I can simply boot it.


-- 
Andrea   |ASRock K7Upgrade-880, AMD Sempron 2800+, Pentagram QC-80Cu
1024MB DDR-400, Sapphire Radeon 9600 128MB, Samsung SyncMaster 960BF
Seagate 380021A 80GB, WDC 2000JS 200GB, Sony DW-Q28A, ModeCom 350GTF
0
nospam27 (128)
12/13/2006 1:07:08 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:45:34 -0600,
 Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:15:35 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> What is Look XP
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>>| WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>> `----
>> 
>> http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
>> 
>> Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit like
>> that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government deploys
>> as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this year).
>
> It's hard to believe that so many people can be so dense.
>
> Yes, it looks superficially a lot like XP, but it doesn't ACT like XP.
> What's the point of only doing the job 10% of the way?


well, it's made a lot of folks in Redmond, a lot of money. So there's
something going for it. 


Of course, this XP "lookalike" has things like sshfs built in,no
limitiations on the number of logins, or the number of machines you can
install on it. A centralized package management system far in advance of
the MS system. 

110% more like...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFf1XNd90bcYOAWPYRApNCAKDQ1q0A+XTNraC2u69dsK1u6la5+ACfQ8z+
VDK7RSsN4kZqq7jJkantXSk=
=+A5B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done
0
warlock (9522)
12/13/2006 1:22:21 AM
[snips]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:22:21 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

>  Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>> Yes, it looks superficially a lot like XP, but it doesn't ACT like XP.
>> What's the point of only doing the job 10% of the way?
> 
> 
> well, it's made a lot of folks in Redmond, a lot of money. So there's
> something going for it.
> 
> 
> Of course, this XP "lookalike" has things like sshfs built in,no
> limitiations on the number of logins, or the number of machines you can
> install on it. A centralized package management system far in advance of
> the MS system.
> 
> 110% more like...

Amazing, ain't it?  He's whining because the offering does *more* than his
pOS.

The mind boggles.


0
kbjarnason1 (1541)
12/13/2006 2:43:06 AM
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:07:08 +0100, Andrea wrote:

> But who needs it? Personally I prefer GNOME or KDE. If I want to use XP
> I can simply boot it.

I think similarily.

-- 
Johny
PS. I do not read this email, please follow-up to newsgroups only.

0
ohgoojeo (2)
12/13/2006 9:35:51 AM
Kelsey Bjarnason napisał(a):

> 
> The mind boggles.
> 
> 

Linux does NOT need to look like XP.


-- 
Andrea   |ASRock K7Upgrade-880, AMD Sempron 2800+, Pentagram QC-80Cu
1024MB DDR-400, Sapphire Radeon 9600 128MB, Samsung SyncMaster 960BF
Seagate 380021A 80GB, WDC 2000JS 200GB, Sony DW-Q28A, ModeCom 350GTF
0
nospam27 (128)
12/13/2006 9:51:37 AM
__/ [ Andrea ] on Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:51 \__

> Kelsey Bjarnason napisa?(a):
> 
>> 
>> The mind boggles.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Linux does NOT need to look like XP.

Unfortunately, for some people it's a prerequisite. They suspect any
unfamiliar pace.

"Oh, look! XP in olive-flavoured gown... scary stuff."

"OMG!! The Start botton is at the top of the screen."

"Wow! How did you make the panel disappear and reappear?"

I think people were generally taught that computers are some rigid thing.
Imagine yourself applying the same concepts to cars.

"Oh no! This car is red."

"Freaky. This car is so narrow."

"This car has just a single windshield wiper."

I guess it's all about perception. Diversity in computing is assumed to be an
oddity.

-- 
                        ~~ Kind greetings and happy holidays!

Roy S. Schestowitz      |    Othello for free: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com  |    RHAT Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 10:05am  up 55 days 20:19,  8 users,  load average: 1.59, 1.37, 1.30
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
0
newsgroups3 (79677)
12/13/2006 10:10:00 AM
On 2006-12-13, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> posted something concerning:

> What's the point of only doing the job 10% of the way?

I don't know. Maybe Bill or Steve could answer that for you.

-- 
Are you scared of speed? Then try Windows.
0
phydeaux (1064)
12/13/2006 12:09:14 PM
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Andrea ] on Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:51 \__
>
> > Kelsey Bjarnason napisa?(a):
> >
> >>
> >> The mind boggles.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Linux does NOT need to look like XP.
>
> Unfortunately, for some people it's a prerequisite. They suspect any
> unfamiliar pace.


The prerequisite is that it acts like XP, and runs XP software, not
looks like XP. Either you know that this is Linux and not XP, in which
case you probably don't give a crap about it looking like XP, or you
don't know that it's not XP and are fooled by the way it looks. In
which case you would be in for a very nasty surprise.


> "Oh, look! XP in olive-flavoured gown... scary stuff."
>
> "OMG!! The Start botton is at the top of the screen."
>
> "Wow! How did you make the panel disappear and reappear?"
>
> I think people were generally taught that computers are some rigid thing.
> Imagine yourself applying the same concepts to cars.
>
> "Oh no! This car is red."
>
> "Freaky. This car is so narrow."
>
> "This car has just a single windshield wiper."
>
> I guess it's all about perception. Diversity in computing is assumed to be an
> oddity.

All that's different between Linux and XP is appearance?

0
scatnubbs (5405)
12/13/2006 12:30:43 PM
Roy Schestowitz napisał(a):
> __/ [ Andrea ] on Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:51 \__
> 
>> Kelsey Bjarnason napisa?(a):
>>
>>> The mind boggles.
>>>
>>>
>> Linux does NOT need to look like XP.
> 
> Unfortunately, for some people it's a prerequisite. They suspect any
> unfamiliar pace.
> 
> "Oh, look! XP in olive-flavoured gown... scary stuff."
> 
> "OMG!! The Start botton is at the top of the screen."
> 
> "Wow! How did you make the panel disappear and reappear?"
> 
> I think people were generally taught that computers are some rigid thing.
> Imagine yourself applying the same concepts to cars.
> 
> "Oh no! This car is red."
> 
> "Freaky. This car is so narrow."
> 
> "This car has just a single windshield wiper."
> 
> I guess it's all about perception. Diversity in computing is assumed to be an
> oddity.
> 

True, but Linux looking like XP may be more unfamiliar than one with 
standard GNOME or KDE - because looking like something does not make it 
function like sth, which IS even more confusing.

-- 
Andrea   |ASRock K7Upgrade-880, AMD Sempron 2800+, Pentagram QC-80Cu
1024MB DDR-400, Sapphire Radeon 9600 128MB, Samsung SyncMaster 960BF
Seagate 380021A 80GB, WDC 2000JS 200GB, Sony DW-Q28A, ModeCom 350GTF
0
nospam27 (128)
12/13/2006 12:31:25 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
 wrote
on 13 Dec 2006 04:30:43 -0800
<1166013043.279959.152410@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:

[snippage]

>> I guess it's all about perception. Diversity in computing
>> is assumed to be an oddity.
>
> All that's different between Linux and XP is appearance?
>

Of course.  That's why it's more secure.  The solution
for XP's bugs is to make it look like KDE or Gnome.

</sarcasm>

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/13/2006 3:44:15 PM
[snips]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:30:43 -0800, cc wrote:

> The prerequisite is that it acts like XP, and runs XP software, not looks
> like XP.

Then the person with those prerequisites is not too smart.  There's
already an OS that does that: XP.  Feel free to go use it.  The whole
*point* of something different is that it is not, well, the same thing,
that it is, in fact, different.

Not to mention, of course, the secondary bit of stupidity in there, to
wit "needs to run XP apps", rather than "needs to do the same sort of
job".  An OS does *not* need to run MS Office; it simply needs a
functional office suite, capable of doing the job.  Some folks just aren't
smart enough to figure that out, apparently.


0
kbjarnason1 (1541)
12/13/2006 5:27:41 PM
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:30:43 -0800, cc wrote:
>
> > The prerequisite is that it acts like XP, and runs XP software, not looks
> > like XP.
>
> Then the person with those prerequisites is not too smart.  There's
> already an OS that does that: XP.  Feel free to go use it.  The whole
> *point* of something different is that it is not, well, the same thing,
> that it is, in fact, different.

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. A Linux that looks like XP is pretty
much worthless, unless there is a whole horde of Linux users who really
must have the look of XP.

> Not to mention, of course, the secondary bit of stupidity in there, to
> wit "needs to run XP apps", rather than "needs to do the same sort of
> job".  An OS does *not* need to run MS Office; it simply needs a
> functional office suite, capable of doing the job.  Some folks just aren't
> smart enough to figure that out, apparently.

Some people do need XP for legacy support, etc. Some apps may not have
a Linux equivalent. If you're starting out fresh though, you're right,
most would not *need* to run XP apps.

0
scatnubbs (5405)
12/13/2006 5:38:20 PM
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
>  wrote
> on 13 Dec 2006 04:30:43 -0800
> <1166013043.279959.152410@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
> >> I guess it's all about perception. Diversity in computing
> >> is assumed to be an oddity.
> >
> > All that's different between Linux and XP is appearance?
> >
>
> Of course.  That's why it's more secure.  The solution
> for XP's bugs is to make it look like KDE or Gnome.
>
> </sarcasm>

It was a rhetorical question. Roy was comparing Linux and XP by saying
they are two cars with different colors. That's a terrible analogy.

0
scatnubbs (5405)
12/13/2006 5:39:34 PM
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message 
news:12691734.CCgUhsLFtS@schestowitz.com...
> What is Look XP
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
> `----
>
> http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
>
> Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit like
> that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government 
> deploys
> as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this 
> year).

    This is a good thing, IMHO. Not because I want Linux to look like XP (I 
like Gnome a lot), but because it gets rid of one more excuse for people who 
dismiss Linux as too difficult to learn. I don't think these dismissive 
people are maliciously lying, but I think they are simply unable to express 
themselves well, and mistakenly point to Linux looking different from XP as 
the reason for Linux not being any good.

    Now we've removed that barrier and can go a bit deeper, to the real 
issues -- the core issues. I see this project as a step towards improving 
communications. It's more symbolically useful than directly useful.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/13/2006 6:59:08 PM
Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
> news:12691734.CCgUhsLFtS@schestowitz.com...
> > What is Look XP
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
> > | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
> > `----
> >
> > http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit like
> > that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government
> > deploys
> > as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this
> > year).
>
>     This is a good thing, IMHO. Not because I want Linux to look like XP (I
> like Gnome a lot), but because it gets rid of one more excuse for people who
> dismiss Linux as too difficult to learn. I don't think these dismissive
> people are maliciously lying, but I think they are simply unable to express
> themselves well, and mistakenly point to Linux looking different from XP as
> the reason for Linux not being any good.
>
>     Now we've removed that barrier and can go a bit deeper, to the real
> issues -- the core issues. I see this project as a step towards improving
> communications. It's more symbolically useful than directly useful.
>
>     - Oliver

I'd disagree. I think if it looks like XP, the uninformed will expect
it to act like XP, which I think will just make it more difficult to
learn. I can see people saying that Linux is no good because it looks
different from XP, but wouldn't they just say well it looks like XP,
but it doesn't work like XP, so it still sucks?

0
scatnubbs (5405)
12/13/2006 7:16:27 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
 wrote
on 13 Dec 2006 09:39:34 -0800
<1166031574.277737.173830@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
>> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
>>  wrote
>> on 13 Dec 2006 04:30:43 -0800
>> <1166013043.279959.152410@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>:
>> >
>> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> [snippage]
>>
>> >> I guess it's all about perception. Diversity in computing
>> >> is assumed to be an oddity.
>> >
>> > All that's different between Linux and XP is appearance?
>> >
>>
>> Of course.  That's why it's more secure.  The solution
>> for XP's bugs is to make it look like KDE or Gnome.
>>
>> </sarcasm>
>
> It was a rhetorical question. Roy was comparing Linux and XP by saying
> they are two cars with different colors. That's a terrible analogy.
>

More terrible analogies. :-)

Unix: a diesel engine.

Linux:  a diesel engine with a turbocharger.

DOS: a single-wheeled push-cart.

VMS: a turbine.

OpenVMS: a turbine with a removable cowling.

Commodore 64: a Model T.

Windows 3.x: A gasoline-powered horseless carriage which fit
nicely on the push-cart.  Later versions of the push-cart
included clamps.

4DOS: an improved variant of push-cart with multiple
wheels.  Unfortunately, Win3.1 beta included a projection
that made installation of Windows onto this pushcart
very awkward.  The projection was fitted with a hinge in
3.1 to swing out of the way but the damage was done.

GEM: a propeller attachable to the push-cart, which included
a rudimentary form of engine; the intent was to fly, but it
didn't have quite enough power.

DOS Shell: a small two-stroke engine fittable to the push-cart.

IBM PC: a basic Chevy body.  Early models were fitted
with a very basic wind-up rubber band, but had support
for various engines.  Later clones omitted the rubber band.
The interesting thing is how small the early PCs were; the
current ones are the size of houses.

Amiga: A beautifully-styled Duesenberg that wasn't maintained properly.

Atari: A Bugatti that pooped out.

Windows 95: A 74 ford Pinto.  Among other quirks it has
an irritating propensity to turn left in the rightmost
lane, as well as exploding without reason while traveling
at speed.  Many roadways were eventually modified to take
its quirks into account.

Microsoft BOB: A garishly-decorated push-cart carrying a
cast-iron bomb and a cage full of vermin.

OS/2: a highly efficient steam engine.

Windows 98: A 74 ford Pinto with an explosives trailer.
At some point Microsoft claimed the trailer was essential
to the workings of the Pinto.

Windows 98 SE2: The trailer hitch was modified slightly.

Windows Me: The Pinto and trailer are painted a nice shade of pink.

Microsoft Office: A modular carryall bolted to the trunk
of the Pinto.  However, the modules require special tools;
in other revs some of the modules are bolted instead to
the trailer or on top of the explosives in the truck bed.

Windows NT 3.51: A gasoline-powered pickup truck.

Windows NT 4: A pickup truck with an extended cab and
trailer hookup.

Windows 2000: A pickup truck with an extended cab, trailer
hookup, and faired outlines for a smoother ride.

Windows XP: A pickup truck engine with a Pinto body,
and the explosives are now welded onto the bed for the
user's convenience, as opposed to attachable with clamps.

Windows Vista: We're not entirely sure what it is but it
does sport a very nice-looking remote control fuse,
leading into the cab.  There are 6 models, some of
which include Virtual Windshelds(tm).

BeOS: A dead duck.  A pity, since it might have flown;
however, there's an awful lot of hunters out there.

FreeBSD: A heavy-duty log hauler.

HURD: A block with some wheels.  We're not sure when it will be
finished, though it does seem to be able to move.

zOS: A huge, weird-looking undercarriage to which thousands of
diesels and car bodies can be attached.

MacOS: A Wankel rotary Mazda.  Reliable, has some oddities,
but very usable.

MacOSX: The Wankel has been replaced by a more standard diesel.

Red Hat: A diesel Mercedes.

Fedora: A diesel BMW which looks a bit like a Mercedes.

Debian: A diesel van.

Gentoo: A diesel-powered kit car; depending on chassis
and bodywork it can be anything from a small econo to a
heavy-duty hauler.  (There are hints in the portage tree
that the Linux engine can be swapped out for the FreeBSD
variant, but I've not tried it.)

SuSE: A diesel-powered nondescript sedan; lately it appears to be
sporting a vaguely Pinto-shaped body.

Damn Small Linux: A 1/4 scale model diesel.

The user: That poor guy behind the wheel who has to make
sense out of all this.  :-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/13/2006 7:43:51 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
 wrote
on 13 Dec 2006 11:16:27 -0800
<1166037387.558959.67040@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
>> news:12691734.CCgUhsLFtS@schestowitz.com...
>> > What is Look XP
>> >
>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>> > | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>> > | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>> > `----
>> >
>> > http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
>> >
>> > Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit like
>> > that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government
>> > deploys
>> > as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this
>> > year).
>>
>>     This is a good thing, IMHO. Not because I want Linux to look like XP (I
>> like Gnome a lot), but because it gets rid of one more excuse for people who
>> dismiss Linux as too difficult to learn. I don't think these dismissive
>> people are maliciously lying, but I think they are simply unable to express
>> themselves well, and mistakenly point to Linux looking different from XP as
>> the reason for Linux not being any good.
>>
>>     Now we've removed that barrier and can go a bit deeper, to the real
>> issues -- the core issues. I see this project as a step towards improving
>> communications. It's more symbolically useful than directly useful.
>>
>>     - Oliver
>
> I'd disagree. I think if it looks like XP, the uninformed will expect
> it to act like XP, which I think will just make it more difficult to
> learn. I can see people saying that Linux is no good because it looks
> different from XP, but wouldn't they just say well it looks like XP,
> but it doesn't work like XP, so it still sucks?
>

Look includes interaction.  For example, a static picture
of a, say, Unreal Tournament 2004 game does not begin to
convey the complexities of the weaponry (including the
transporter, which can frag an opponent if accurately
tossed).  Ditto for desktops, although one can glean some
info (e.g., Vista screenshots of multiple workspaces --
I'd have to find it, and Google is being reticent again --
shows that the icon bar has all programs).

In short, if Linux is for some reason required to look
like XP it should behave like XP as well.  This might
include a bug-for-bug compatibility list for such things as
"shortcuts", single-click-open/execute for Office (which
could lead to increased local user attack susceptibility),
and a browser that reproduces all of IE's faults.

There are also issues with the file system.  Unless there's
a modification to Linux ext2/3, reiserfs, or jfs that
allows for case-preserving (as opposed to the current
case-sensitive) naming, some users and programs can get
confused.

There are also minor copyright issues.  The Windows Start
menu icon is probably copyrighted and therefore off-limits
(much like the NASA meatball logo, if one reads the
licensing carefully).  Ditto for the 'blue e', unless
the user has actually used something like ies4linux and
is truly using Internet Explorer (on top of WinE).

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux.  Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/13/2006 8:25:55 PM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:j74654-tn4.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> on 13 Dec 2006 11:16:27 -0800
> <1166037387.558959.67040@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12691734.CCgUhsLFtS@schestowitz.com...
>>> > What is Look XP
>>> >
>>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>>> > | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>>> > | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>>> > `----
>>> >
>>> > http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
>>> >
>>> > Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit 
>>> > like
>>> > that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government
>>> > deploys
>>> > as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this
>>> > year).
>>>
>>>     This is a good thing, IMHO. Not because I want Linux to look like XP 
>>> (I
>>> like Gnome a lot), but because it gets rid of one more excuse for people 
>>> who
>>> dismiss Linux as too difficult to learn. I don't think these dismissive
>>> people are maliciously lying, but I think they are simply unable to 
>>> express
>>> themselves well, and mistakenly point to Linux looking different from XP 
>>> as
>>> the reason for Linux not being any good.
>>>
>>>     Now we've removed that barrier and can go a bit deeper, to the real
>>> issues -- the core issues. I see this project as a step towards 
>>> improving
>>> communications. It's more symbolically useful than directly useful.
>>>
>>
>> I'd disagree. I think if it looks like XP, the uninformed will expect
>> it to act like XP, which I think will just make it more difficult to
>> learn. I can see people saying that Linux is no good because it looks
>> different from XP, but wouldn't they just say well it looks like XP,
>> but it doesn't work like XP, so it still sucks?

    Yes, this is exactly my intent. People don't know what they want. They 
*think* they want Linux to look like XP. So we give them a Linux 
distribution which looks like XP. Then they play with it a bit and realize 
that this isn't what they want after all. Instead, they want Linux to *act* 
like XP. And we're progressively getting closer to what it is these people 
*truly* want.

[...]
>
> In short, if Linux is for some reason required to look
> like XP it should behave like XP as well.  This might
> include a bug-for-bug compatibility list for such things as
> "shortcuts", single-click-open/execute for Office (which
> could lead to increased local user attack susceptibility),
> and a browser that reproduces all of IE's faults.
>
> There are also issues with the file system.  Unless there's
> a modification to Linux ext2/3, reiserfs, or jfs that
> allows for case-preserving (as opposed to the current
> case-sensitive) naming, some users and programs can get
> confused.

    You're right. These are all significant issues. We may all agree here 
that ActiveX at worst was a dumb idea and at best was an okay idea but 
poorly executed, but some users *want* their browsers to support ActiveX (if 
only because the use a bank or other financial institution whose website 
requires it). People who want Linux to be "better" than Windows would 
probably consider implementing ActiveX support to be a step backwards, and 
would actively fight it. People who want Linux to be a "replacement" for 
Windows want it to emulate Window's behaviour, poor design decisions and 
all, like you said. This is why I really don't think getting people to 
switch to Linux is as easy as some of the posters here seem to imply, and 
why I'm trying to point out that a lot of the so-called "advocacy" 
techniques I see employed in this newsgroup simply aren't all that 
effective.

    I *want* more people to switch to Linux. Having more people use Linux 
will make my life as a Linux user easier, via the network effect. And since 
I want more people to switch to Linux, I want the people in this newsgroup 
to become more effective advocates, so that they can actually convert more 
people. Unfortunately, when I criticize a person's particular advocacy 
strategy, they seem to interpret it as a criticism of Linux itself, and thus 
label me a troll or a Windows advocate (in the pejorative sense).

    As a recent convert, I'm trying to shed some light on the thought 
process of a typical Windows user, but my advice seems to be largely ignored 
here.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/13/2006 10:29:03 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong@castortech.com>
 wrote
on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:29:03 -0500
<Q8%fh.77638$aJ6.711399@wagner.videotron.net>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
> news:j74654-tn4.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
>> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
>> wrote
>> on 13 Dec 2006 11:16:27 -0800
>> <1166037387.558959.67040@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:12691734.CCgUhsLFtS@schestowitz.com...
>>>> > What is Look XP
>>>> >
>>>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> > | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>>>> > | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>>>> > `----
>>>> >
>>>> > http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
>>>> >
>>>> > Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit 
>>>> > like
>>>> > that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government
>>>> > deploys
>>>> > as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this
>>>> > year).
>>>>
>>>>     This is a good thing, IMHO. Not because I want Linux to look like XP 
>>>> (I
>>>> like Gnome a lot), but because it gets rid of one more excuse for people 
>>>> who
>>>> dismiss Linux as too difficult to learn. I don't think these dismissive
>>>> people are maliciously lying, but I think they are simply unable to 
>>>> express
>>>> themselves well, and mistakenly point to Linux looking different from XP 
>>>> as
>>>> the reason for Linux not being any good.
>>>>
>>>>     Now we've removed that barrier and can go a bit deeper, to the real
>>>> issues -- the core issues. I see this project as a step towards 
>>>> improving
>>>> communications. It's more symbolically useful than directly useful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd disagree. I think if it looks like XP, the uninformed will expect
>>> it to act like XP, which I think will just make it more difficult to
>>> learn. I can see people saying that Linux is no good because it looks
>>> different from XP, but wouldn't they just say well it looks like XP,
>>> but it doesn't work like XP, so it still sucks?
>
>     Yes, this is exactly my intent. People don't know what they want. They 
> *think* they want Linux to look like XP. So we give them a Linux 
> distribution which looks like XP. Then they play with it a bit and realize 
> that this isn't what they want after all. Instead, they want Linux to *act* 
> like XP. And we're progressively getting closer to what it is these people 
> *truly* want.

Careful.  I'm not sure users, Linux or otherwise, want
an XP interface, despite the massive amounts of research
money Microsoft has presumably poured thereinto.  (Did the
research group postulate a search doggie and an animated
paper clip? :-) )

Otherwise, I'd have to agree, and the discussion is of course
colored by what people expect, which of course is XP since for
the most part that's what they've seen, if they're relatively new to
computers.  (Me, I've worked on a number of machines, from old klunky
paper-tape-loaded affairs to modern servers.)

>
> [...]
>>
>> In short, if Linux is for some reason required to look
>> like XP it should behave like XP as well.  This might
>> include a bug-for-bug compatibility list for such things as
>> "shortcuts", single-click-open/execute for Office (which
>> could lead to increased local user attack susceptibility),
>> and a browser that reproduces all of IE's faults.
>>
>> There are also issues with the file system.  Unless there's
>> a modification to Linux ext2/3, reiserfs, or jfs that
>> allows for case-preserving (as opposed to the current
>> case-sensitive) naming, some users and programs can get
>> confused.
>
>     You're right. These are all significant issues. We may all agree here 
> that ActiveX at worst was a dumb idea and at best was an okay idea but 
> poorly executed, but some users *want* their browsers to support ActiveX (if 
> only because the use a bank or other financial institution whose website 
> requires it).

As you've probably already noticed, there are multiple issues here.

- The bank interface wants ActiveX.
- The bank may have subcontracted with a company who likes to develop
  websites which use ActiveX.
- Microsoft may have leaned on the bank (or the subcontractor) to
  use ActiveX.

> People who want Linux to be "better" than Windows would 
> probably consider implementing ActiveX support to be a step backwards, and 
> would actively fight it.

Define "better".  I have problems with such a generalized metric.
(Probably comes from being a software engineer too long. :-) )
After all, ActiveX is a powerful, flexible system (too powerful
and flexible, as it turned out) and exists in more controlled,
limited forms in OpenOffice, Java's JEditorPane, and Web browsers
(applets and Flash).

> People who want Linux to be a "replacement" for 
> Windows want it to emulate Window's behaviour, poor design decisions and 
> all, like you said. This is why I really don't think getting people to 
> switch to Linux is as easy as some of the posters here seem to imply, and 
> why I'm trying to point out that a lot of the so-called "advocacy" 
> techniques I see employed in this newsgroup simply aren't all that 
> effective.

What effectiveness?  We beef here.  Might be useful. :-)

>
>     I *want* more people to switch to Linux.

Why?

> Having more people use Linux 
> will make my life as a Linux user easier, via the network effect.

Too vague.  I'll admit there's a plus in having more Linux users out
there (for starters, support people won't give one funny looks over the
telephone), but other than that, it's far from clear whether we want
more Linux users, more people aware of Linux, or simply more choices
of which one is Linux.

> And since 
> I want more people to switch to Linux, I want the people in this newsgroup 
> to become more effective advocates, so that they can actually convert more 
> people. Unfortunately, when I criticize a person's particular advocacy 
> strategy, they seem to interpret it as a criticism of Linux itself, and thus 
> label me a troll or a Windows advocate (in the pejorative sense).
>
>     As a recent convert, I'm trying to shed some light on the thought 
> process of a typical Windows user, but my advice seems to be largely ignored 
> here.

Try the thought process of a typical *user*, Windows or otherwise, and
you may hit closer to the mark.  It may also depend on the task: one
might play games, browse the Web, compose research papers, or send
messages to relatives.

All these are possible with XP and Linux (as well as with
other solutions).  Sending messages to relatives might not
even require a computer nowadays (there was a specialized
keyboard-like device at one point, though presumably it
flopped; mobiles can send short text messages to each
other, although that's a form of cheating since mobiles
are computers, just not desktop computers).

There is also the issue of working around problems, as exemplified
by the old adage:

Q: "It hurts when I do that."
A: "Don't do that."

It's one of the reasons we *have* separate QA departments. :-)

>
>     - Oliver 
>
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/13/2006 11:01:16 PM
[snips]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:38:20 -0800, cc wrote:

>> Then the person with those prerequisites is not too smart.  There's
>> already an OS that does that: XP.  Feel free to go use it.  The whole
>> *point* of something different is that it is not, well, the same thing,
>> that it is, in fact, different.
> 
> Yeah, I was agreeing with you.

Hence the "the person..." :)

> A Linux that looks like XP is pretty much
> worthless, unless there is a whole horde of Linux users who really must
> have the look of XP.

Hey, if you want an XP theme, etc, fine, go for it.  Why?  Particularly
with the Fisher-Price look of XP?  Dunno.  If you want to, though...


> Some people do need XP for legacy support, etc. Some apps may not have a
> Linux equivalent. If you're starting out fresh though, you're right,
> most would not *need* to run XP apps.

Sure.  There are cases where either sticking with XP, or simply keeping an
XP box or three around makes sense.  Wanting Linux to _be_ XP, however, is
simply retarded.


0
kbjarnason1 (1541)
12/14/2006 12:49:33 AM
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
> What is Look XP
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
> `----

Why?

-- 
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telemark:  If it was easy, they'd call it snowboarding.
0
Paul261 (1126)
12/14/2006 4:07:09 AM
__/ [ Paul Hovnanian P.E. ] on Thursday 14 December 2006 04:07 \__

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> 
>> What is Look XP
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>> `----
> 
> Why?
 
Proof of concept...

OR...

Being able to use Linux at work if the boss doesn't allow anything but win32.

-- 
                        ~~ Kind greetings and happy holidays!

Roy S. Schestowitz      |    chmod a-r *.mbox
http://Schestowitz.com  |  RHAT GNU/Linux   �     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  9:00am  up 56 days 19:14,  7 users,  load average: 0.93, 0.73, 0.80
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
0
newsgroups3 (79677)
12/14/2006 9:01:56 AM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:sad654-eg5.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
> <owong@castortech.com>
>>
>>     Yes, this is exactly my intent. People don't know what they want. 
>> They
>> *think* they want Linux to look like XP. So we give them a Linux
>> distribution which looks like XP. Then they play with it a bit and 
>> realize
>> that this isn't what they want after all. Instead, they want Linux to 
>> *act*
>> like XP. And we're progressively getting closer to what it is these 
>> people
>> *truly* want.
>
> Careful.  I'm not sure users, Linux or otherwise, want
> an XP interface, despite the massive amounts of research
> money Microsoft has presumably poured thereinto.  (Did the
> research group postulate a search doggie and an animated
> paper clip? :-) )

    Right. I'm not saying that users *want* an XP interface. I'm saying that 
they *claim* they want an XP interface. By giving them an XP interface in 
Linux, we either discover that they really did want an XP interface (in 
which case everybody is happy), or else we discover that they didn't really 
want an XP interface, and now we're slightly closer at finding out what it 
is they actually want.

[...]
>>     You're right. These are all significant issues. We may all agree here
>> that ActiveX at worst was a dumb idea and at best was an okay idea but
>> poorly executed, but some users *want* their browsers to support ActiveX 
>> (if
>> only because the use a bank or other financial institution whose website
>> requires it).
>
> As you've probably already noticed, there are multiple issues here.
>
> - The bank interface wants ActiveX.
> - The bank may have subcontracted with a company who likes to develop
>  websites which use ActiveX.
> - Microsoft may have leaned on the bank (or the subcontractor) to
>  use ActiveX.

    Right, but from the user's point of view, I suspect they don't really 
care about any of this, and will just take the path of least resistence. If 
it works on XP, but doesn't work on Linux, then they're going to use XP, 
regardless of whether Microsoft is evil or not.

>
>> People who want Linux to be "better" than Windows would
>> probably consider implementing ActiveX support to be a step backwards, 
>> and
>> would actively fight it.
>
> Define "better". I have problems with such a generalized metric.
> (Probably comes from being a software engineer too long. :-) )


    I didn't want to, as I didn't have the energy, hence the scare quotes, 
to emphasize that I'm being vague about "better". Basically, the people who 
want Linux to be "better" than Windows are the people who think making Linux 
more like Windows would be detrimental to Linux.

> After all, ActiveX is a powerful, flexible system (too powerful
> and flexible, as it turned out) and exists in more controlled,
> limited forms in OpenOffice, Java's JEditorPane, and Web browsers
> (applets and Flash).

    I'm not saying ActiveX is better than Java applets or anything like 
that. In fact, I'm avoiding saying whether anything is better than anything 
else. I'm making speculations about public perception. I'm guessing what 
other people may think is better in a given scenario, without saying what 
*I* think is better.

    I'm saying there's a group of people who want their computers to "just 
work" with their ActiveX using banking site will prefer whatever software 
stack (OS, browser, etc.) which supports ActiveX. I'm also saying there's a 
group of people who think Linux is already better than Windows, and to make 
Linux more like Windows would be to make Linux less good (a step backwards).

    And of course, I'm not saying either of these groups of people are right 
or wrong about their beliefs. This is all opinion, and everybody's entitled 
to one. Personally, I don't like ActiveX, so lack of ActiveX support isn't a 
drawback of Linux in my eyes.

>> People who want Linux to be a "replacement" for
>> Windows want it to emulate Window's behaviour, poor design decisions and
>> all, like you said. This is why I really don't think getting people to
>> switch to Linux is as easy as some of the posters here seem to imply, and
>> why I'm trying to point out that a lot of the so-called "advocacy"
>> techniques I see employed in this newsgroup simply aren't all that
>> effective.
>
> What effectiveness?  We beef here.  Might be useful. :-)

    I guess I sometimes imagine this group as a club for advocates to gather 
and share advocacy strategies. If Roy would stick primarily to pro-Linux 
stories in his [News] posting, that'd be great, because we'd all learn about 
these stories and can use them in our advocacy efforts. For example, I had 
never heard of Amarok or Zimbra before subscribing to this group. But now I 
know of them, and they're really great looking Linux-only programs. I can 
point to them as some of the really cool software that's available for 
Linux.

    I think this demonstrating-the-strength-of-Linux is more effective in 
converting people than telling them "Hey, you know, the Zune really sucks." 
or "Apparently, Microsoft's stock is falling, but they're trying to hide 
it." or "The XBox360 tends to overheat", etc.

>
>>
>>     I *want* more people to switch to Linux.
>
> Why?

Explained in the next sentence.

>
>> Having more people use Linux
>> will make my life as a Linux user easier, via the network effect.
>
> Too vague.  I'll admit there's a plus in having more Linux users out
> there (for starters, support people won't give one funny looks over the
> telephone), but other than that, it's far from clear whether we want
> more Linux users, more people aware of Linux, or simply more choices
> of which one is Linux.

    I'm not speaking about what *we* want. I'm speaking about what *I* want. 
And *I* want more people to switch to Linux. That's clear to me. More people 
aware of Linux sort of automatically comes bundled with more people to 
switch to Linux. As for more choices, I'm open to the idea, but I don't 
expect anything to come along to displace the three big ones (Linux, MacOSX, 
Windows) for the dekstop, so I'm not going to put much effort into 
advocating, say, QNX to home users.

>> And since
>> I want more people to switch to Linux, I want the people in this 
>> newsgroup
>> to become more effective advocates, so that they can actually convert 
>> more
>> people. Unfortunately, when I criticize a person's particular advocacy
>> strategy, they seem to interpret it as a criticism of Linux itself, and 
>> thus
>> label me a troll or a Windows advocate (in the pejorative sense).
>>
>>     As a recent convert, I'm trying to shed some light on the thought
>> process of a typical Windows user, but my advice seems to be largely 
>> ignored
>> here.
>
> Try the thought process of a typical *user*, Windows or otherwise, and
> you may hit closer to the mark.

    Perhaps, but that's not my area of expertise. I'm not sure I have more 
insight than the others on this group about what a typical user, Windows or 
otherwise, might be thinking, but I'm confident I do have more insight on 
what a Windows user is thinking. I try to contribute in the ways that I can.

>  It may also depend on the task: one
> might play games, browse the Web, compose research papers, or send
> messages to relatives.

    I don't know much about the light-gamers, but I suspect Linux is 
adequate (and in fact, better than Windows) in that regard. Windows has 2 
card games, minesweeper, and pinball. Most Linux distributions I know come 
with much more than that, and the Mahjong game is very addictive.

    Browse the web is very good on Linux. There's just the issue of ActiveX 
(which is thorny, as discussed above) and some versions of 
Flash/Shockwave/Something-like-that? I haven't encountered either of these 
issues, which only highlights how minor I think they are: So Linux gets a 
very good grade here, but not a perfect one.

    For research papers, I haven't played with OpenOffice Writer much, but 
last time I did, it didn't feel quite as nice as Microsoft Word. I don't 
have the energy right now to go into a in-depth analysis of the so-called 
"problems" with Writer, though.

    Send messages to relatives is one thing. Typically, there's one "geek" 
in the family, and everyone else is a non-geek. And so sending messages 
tends to fall to the lowest common denominator, which means not using fancy 
features, and just doing plain text. Sending messages to friends is another. 
Geeks tend to have friends who are also geeks, and so you'll see these 
cliques exploiting the full power of their messaging software. There's a lot 
of features in MSN that Gaim hasn't implemented. And so I use GAIM to 
replace AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, etc., but I keep the official MSN client around.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/14/2006 3:33:46 PM
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message 
news:1327484.rghNPSBYN5@schestowitz.com...
> __/ [ Paul Hovnanian P.E. ] on Thursday 14 December 2006 04:07 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> What is Look XP
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>>> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>>> `----
>>
>> Why?
>
> Proof of concept...
>
> OR...
>
> Being able to use Linux at work if the boss doesn't allow anything but 
> win32.

    I'm not sure lying to your boss is such a great idea. Depending on your 
type of work, and the size of the company, (s)he may never find out, but why 
take the risk? Do you really hate Windows enough to risk your job over it?

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/14/2006 3:35:32 PM
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Paul Hovnanian P.E. ] on Thursday 14 December 2006 04:07 \__
>
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >>
> >> What is Look XP
> >>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
> >> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
> >> `----
> >
> > Why?
>
> Proof of concept...
>
> OR...
>

> Being able to use Linux at work if the boss doesn't allow anything but win32.

If a company does happen to have a policy regarding the types of
systems allowed onto the network, they will not be doing a "visual
inspection" to see if you're complying or not. Nobody will walk buy and
say "Hey - that screen looks like..." The folks in IT will be able to
tell what you're running by looking at the packets sent over the
network. Most large IT departments are automatically "notified"
whenever a new/foreign computer is first connected to the network.

0
lqualig (4343)
12/14/2006 3:48:24 PM
__/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Thursday 14 December 2006 15:35 \__

> 
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
> news:1327484.rghNPSBYN5@schestowitz.com...
>> __/ [ Paul Hovnanian P.E. ] on Thursday 14 December 2006 04:07 \__
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What is Look XP
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>>>> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>>>> `----
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Proof of concept...
>>
>> OR...
>>
>> Being able to use Linux at work if the boss doesn't allow anything but
>> win32.
> 
>     I'm not sure lying to your boss is such a great idea. Depending on your
> type of work, and the size of the company, (s)he may never find out, but
> why take the risk? Do you really hate Windows enough to risk your job over
> it?

It was a joke. I should have indicated this somehow, but I didn't (not
deliberately).

-- 
                        ~~ Kind greetings and happy holidays!

Roy S. Schestowitz      | Windows leaves me peckish
http://Schestowitz.com  |     GNU/Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap:  1036184k total,   465804k used,   570380k free,    85256k cached
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
0
newsgroups3 (79677)
12/14/2006 4:14:43 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong@castortech.com>
 wrote
on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:33:46 -0500
<v9egh.5493$qH2.24531@wagner.videotron.net>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
> news:sad654-eg5.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
>> <owong@castortech.com>
>>>
>>>     Yes, this is exactly my intent. People don't know what they want. 
>>> They
>>> *think* they want Linux to look like XP. So we give them a Linux
>>> distribution which looks like XP. Then they play with it a bit and 
>>> realize
>>> that this isn't what they want after all. Instead, they want Linux to 
>>> *act*
>>> like XP. And we're progressively getting closer to what it is these 
>>> people
>>> *truly* want.
>>
>> Careful.  I'm not sure users, Linux or otherwise, want
>> an XP interface, despite the massive amounts of research
>> money Microsoft has presumably poured thereinto.  (Did the
>> research group postulate a search doggie and an animated
>> paper clip? :-) )
>
>     Right. I'm not saying that users *want* an XP interface.
> I'm saying that they *claim* they want an XP interface.
> By giving them an XP interface in Linux, we either discover
> that they really did want an XP interface (in which case
> everybody is happy), or else we discover that they didn't
> really want an XP interface, and now we're slightly closer
> at finding out what it is they actually want.

OK.  How deep does this go?  This is, after all, a multilayer problem.

[1] Click, drag, type.

With Windows (and with most Linux distros), one can click
and drag onto icons and type into text areas and text
fields, as well as arbitrary applications.  There are some
subtleties in various widget sets (e.g., is one required to
drag down a menu which automagically disappears when the
button is released, or can one click on a menu header and
click again to dismiss it?) and there might be some issues
during typing (Linux/X supports input methods which can,
for example, translate romanji or katakana into kanjii;
I don't know the details on that but know they exist).

[2] Program interactions.

With Windows, programs can interrelate using COM.  Dare we
reimplement COM to make these programs happy?

[3] API.

Libraries promise an API (and for the most part deliver).
Programs require an API to run.  (Ideally, these would
match up.)

[4] Kernel traps.

Linux (and Windows, though I'm not quite sure what they
are) implement kernel traps, which allow for penetration of
the user-to-kernel barrier set up by most modern operating
systems.  This penetration can be monitored by the kernel
(if it bothers) and various issues, such as resource
availability, checked.  The two are very different at this
level although I'd have to dig up the Windows details.

[5] Device driver support.

Presumably, with Windows, one simply plugs in the device
and, if it's recognized by Windows, Windows knows where
to download from and autoinstalls the driver for you.
(This method has its problems.)  Or, one downloads the
driver manually and double-clicks.  Such methods won't
quite work in Linux, though with Linux it's usually not
a problem since Linux has most of the drivers anyway.
Ideally, people would be able to incorporate the driver's
source code and recompile, but they'd have to be fairly
sophisticated to understand the concept and execute it.

>
> [...]
>>>     You're right. These are all significant issues. We may all agree here
>>> that ActiveX at worst was a dumb idea and at best was an okay idea but
>>> poorly executed, but some users *want* their browsers to support ActiveX 
>>> (if
>>> only because the use a bank or other financial institution whose website
>>> requires it).
>>
>> As you've probably already noticed, there are multiple issues here.
>>
>> - The bank interface wants ActiveX.
>> - The bank may have subcontracted with a company who likes to develop
>>  websites which use ActiveX.
>> - Microsoft may have leaned on the bank (or the subcontractor) to
>>  use ActiveX.
>
>     Right, but from the user's point of view, I suspect they don't really 
> care about any of this, and will just take the path of least resistence.

That is correct.

> If it works on XP, but doesn't work on Linux, then they're going
> to use XP, regardless of whether Microsoft is evil or not.

Microsoft?  Evil?  You are in error.  Evil is an
eccliastical/religious concept and therefore largely
irrelevant here.  I'm not even sure Microsoft's previous
illegal actions (which have been dealt with, mostly by
settlement) are all that relevant, especially since Win
3.1 beta was way way back in the late 1980's -- the wheels
of justice grind very slowly.

In any event, that user won't be using XP much longer; Vista
is the future, for all computer purchased after 2007-01-30
(presumably).

>
>>
>>> People who want Linux to be "better" than Windows would
>>> probably consider implementing ActiveX support to be a step backwards, 
>>> and
>>> would actively fight it.
>>
>> Define "better". I have problems with such a generalized metric.
>> (Probably comes from being a software engineer too long. :-) )
>
>
>     I didn't want to, as I didn't have the energy, hence the
> scare quotes, to emphasize that I'm being vague about "better".
> Basically, the people who want Linux to be "better" than Windows
> are the people who think making Linux more like Windows would be
> detrimental to Linux.

Well, depends on which parts we emulate.

* Single click for opening/running scripts in emails?  Probably A Bad
  Thing, but possible, especially if we incorporate a WSH interpreter
  and a BAT interpreter.

* CIFS/SMB support?  Possible and already done, though Microsoft can
  change it on a whim.  That's the problem with proprietary protocols
  people come to depend on.

* Document macros?  Already done in some form in OpenOffice.  I'm
  frankly not sure if I like that idea or not.

>
>> After all, ActiveX is a powerful, flexible system (too powerful
>> and flexible, as it turned out) and exists in more controlled,
>> limited forms in OpenOffice, Java's JEditorPane, and Web browsers
>> (applets and Flash).
>
>     I'm not saying ActiveX is better than Java applets or anything like 
> that.

ActiveX is demonstrably better at some things -- e.g., calling
things in the OS.

> In fact, I'm avoiding saying whether anything is better than anything 
> else. I'm making speculations about public perception. I'm guessing what 
> other people may think is better in a given scenario, without saying what 
> *I* think is better.

Ass-u-ming is problematic, as you no doubt already know.
I'll admit I'm not sure where there's been a survey on this
or not, and such a survey is a bit problematic anyway,
since one might answer the question in a number of ways,
some more useful than others.

Q: Which is better, Linux or Windows?

Linux Pedant: Windows, of course, since it offers a
reasonably full solution complete with user interface,
drivers, and utilities, whereas Linux is just the kernel
(albeit an extremely good one).  Had you asked about
Debian, Gentoo, or Fedora I would have answered Debian,
Gentoo, or Fedora since that would be at least be comparing
apples and oranges as opposed to apples and pomegranate
seeds.  Linux is a seed or grain of sand around which
a lustrous pearl grows; Windows is a skeleton.  Worse,
an animated skeleton which might chop one's head off at
exactly the wrong time.  But it *does* move.

Artist: Windows, of course, since it offers Photoshop.
(The details are irrelevant.)

Newbie: Windows, of course, since it came on my 'puter
and I can do all sorts of things with it immediately.
Gosh, it's so cool!

Gamer: Windows, of course, since it has more games.
Sure, I know about Linux OpenGL and I frankly think
that's a better platform from a stability standpoint,
but why would I care about that?  I just reboot.  It does
get annoying when you lose a 14th level Elf with Magic
Sword of Whizbang because of a application error, though.
Damn bugs!  I hope <insert random game version> implements
an autosave.

GameBuilder: I'm not sure I care as long as it runs
<insert random gamebuilding tool here>.  I need to
support multiple platforms like Xbox, Wii, and
PS/[23].

Acamedic: Linux, mostly because it allows me to use TeX.
Oh, I know, I could use Windows for that, too, but TeX
is great for writing scientific papers.

Document Writer: I'll admit I don't know.  I've heard
horror stories about Windows eating 100-page documents
but frankly no one worth his salt writes documents that
way if he can help it, mostly because no one will *read*
such documents.  Both Microsoft Word and OpenOffice are
excellent solutions but you weren't asking about either
of those, and OpenOffice can run on either platform (and
if I understand correctly, so can Microsoft Word, if one
installs WinE or Cedega).

Pointy-Headed-Boss: Windows, of course, since most of my
people find it "intuitive" and easy to use.  I've not tried
it myself, of course -- or asked them, come to think of it,
but it should be obvious.

Microsoft Salesman: Windows, of course, since I'm selling it!
How many should I put you down for?

OEM: Blah.  Build me a disk image, slap it on machine,
pay licensing fee, why should I care?  Maybe with Linux
I get fewer returns, but that might be because I sell
fewer Linux machines.

Freeware Advocate: Linux, of course.  True, there's lots
of freeware on Windows too, but with Linux it's all freeware.
Vive la revolucion!  I guess FreeBSD and HURD could be
somewhere in there, too.  Uh, maybe OpenVMS.

IT Server Manager/Professional: Linux, because it's easier
to manage and doesn't get in the way.

IT Server Manager/Professional #2: Windows, because I'm
more comfortable with it, even if it is a pain, it's a
known pain.

IT Intelligent Boss: Linux, because it allows me to get
more done with less staff.

IT Pointy-Haired Boss: Huh?  They're servers; they're
all alike.  My staff deals with that.  Go ask them.

Linux Hobbyist: Linux, because I happen to like it.

Virus Salesman/Specialist: Linux, because it doesn't
get infected.  But don't tell that to our customers. :-)

Moron: Duh, huh?  Pretty.  Icons.  Clicky clicky.

Grandmother: Ah, my son set this up for me long ago; I'm
not sure I care as long as he writes me back from Chicago
on a regular basis.  YOU HEAR ME SON??  What's a mother to do,
that her son doesn't write to his own mother...ah, kids these
days.  Why, when I was a youngster, we had to -- in the SNOW,
mind you, remember that -- [rest snipped for brevity]

Old-School System user: Hm.  Good question.  Of course
nothing compares to an old <insert random archaic system here>
for usability; those were the days.  Nowadays all of this
pointy pointy clicky clicky.  I might have to go with
Linux if only because I can actually type things in but
how I do miss those <insert even more archaic data format specification>
descriptors; they did everything.

Mac enthusiast:  Huh?  You're not asking about Macintoshes!
This dichotomy sucks.

Child: Does it run Jumpstart?

Troll: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

>
>     I'm saying there's a group of people who want their computers to "just 
> work" with their ActiveX using banking site will prefer whatever software 
> stack (OS, browser, etc.) which supports ActiveX. I'm also saying there's a 
> group of people who think Linux is already better than Windows, and to make 
> Linux more like Windows would be to make Linux less good (a step backwards).
>
>     And of course, I'm not saying either of these groups of people are right 
> or wrong about their beliefs. This is all opinion, and everybody's entitled 
> to one. Personally, I don't like ActiveX, so lack of ActiveX support isn't a 
> drawback of Linux in my eyes.

It is if one can't contact one's bank.

>
>>> People who want Linux to be a "replacement" for
>>> Windows want it to emulate Window's behaviour, poor design decisions and
>>> all, like you said. This is why I really don't think getting people to
>>> switch to Linux is as easy as some of the posters here seem to imply, and
>>> why I'm trying to point out that a lot of the so-called "advocacy"
>>> techniques I see employed in this newsgroup simply aren't all that
>>> effective.
>>
>> What effectiveness?  We beef here.  Might be useful. :-)
>
>     I guess I sometimes imagine this group as a club for advocates to gather 
> and share advocacy strategies. If Roy would stick primarily to pro-Linux 
> stories in his [News] posting, that'd be great, because we'd all learn about 
> these stories and can use them in our advocacy efforts. For example, I had 
> never heard of Amarok or Zimbra before subscribing to this group. But now I 
> know of them, and they're really great looking Linux-only programs. I can 
> point to them as some of the really cool software that's available for 
> Linux.
>
>     I think this demonstrating-the-strength-of-Linux is more effective in 
> converting people than telling them "Hey, you know, the Zune really sucks." 
> or "Apparently, Microsoft's stock is falling, but they're trying to hide 
> it." or "The XBox360 tends to overheat", etc.
>
>>
>>>
>>>     I *want* more people to switch to Linux.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Explained in the next sentence.
>
>>
>>> Having more people use Linux
>>> will make my life as a Linux user easier, via the network effect.
>>
>> Too vague.  I'll admit there's a plus in having more Linux users out
>> there (for starters, support people won't give one funny looks over the
>> telephone), but other than that, it's far from clear whether we want
>> more Linux users, more people aware of Linux, or simply more choices
>> of which one is Linux.
>
>     I'm not speaking about what *we* want. I'm speaking about what *I* want. 

Noted.

> And *I* want more people to switch to Linux. That's clear to me. More people 
> aware of Linux sort of automatically comes bundled with more people to 
> switch to Linux.

Not sure about that.  More people are aware of black widow spiders, too.
:-)  Or perhaps the Slammer bug.

> As for more choices, I'm open to the idea, but I don't 
> expect anything to come along to displace the three big ones (Linux, MacOSX, 
> Windows) for the dekstop, so I'm not going to put much effort into 
> advocating, say, QNX to home users.

Heh. :-)

>
>>> And since
>>> I want more people to switch to Linux, I want the people in this 
>>> newsgroup
>>> to become more effective advocates, so that they can actually convert 
>>> more
>>> people. Unfortunately, when I criticize a person's particular advocacy
>>> strategy, they seem to interpret it as a criticism of Linux itself, and 
>>> thus
>>> label me a troll or a Windows advocate (in the pejorative sense).
>>>
>>>     As a recent convert, I'm trying to shed some light on the thought
>>> process of a typical Windows user, but my advice seems to be largely 
>>> ignored
>>> here.
>>
>> Try the thought process of a typical *user*, Windows or otherwise, and
>> you may hit closer to the mark.
>
>     Perhaps, but that's not my area of expertise. I'm not sure I have more 
> insight than the others on this group about what a typical user, Windows or 
> otherwise, might be thinking, but I'm confident I do have more insight on 
> what a Windows user is thinking. I try to contribute in the ways that I can.
>
>>  It may also depend on the task: one
>> might play games, browse the Web, compose research papers, or send
>> messages to relatives.
>
>     I don't know much about the light-gamers, but I suspect Linux is 
> adequate (and in fact, better than Windows) in that regard. Windows has 2 
> card games, minesweeper, and pinball.

Third parties offer far more than that, of course.  AIUI pinball is
being discontinued.  (Too bad; I rather liked it, even if the premise of
a pinball game on an NT server platform was rather stupid. :-) )

> Most Linux distributions I know come 
> with much more than that, and the Mahjong game is very addictive.

For you.  I'll admit I prefer Nexuiz, UT2004, a number of
casual Flash offerings, though Mahjong can be intriguing
(I've seen several variants, and am not sure I can
distinguish them).  Agreed that Linux has a lot of games
to offer, mostly because distros pull them from various
sources and package them nicely for easy download.

Want UT2004-demo?

# emerge ut2004-demo

and there you are (on Gentoo, anyway).  Can't get much
easier than that unless one gets the prepackaged deal.
(On other distros YMMV.)

>
>     Browse the web is very good on Linux.  There's just the issue of ActiveX 
> (which is thorny, as discussed above) and some versions of 
> Flash/Shockwave/Something-like-that?

Macromedia Flash and Macromedia Shockwave.  Flash is supported;
Shockwave apparently is not.

> I haven't encountered either of these 
> issues, which only highlights how minor I think they are: So Linux gets a 
> very good grade here, but not a perfect one.

http://www.miniclip.com/games/on-the-run/en .  Can't play it.
http://www.miniclip.com/games/snowboard-madness/en .  Can't play it.
http://www.miniclip.com/games/family-feud/en .  Not sure if I can play
that or not, as it requires a download (probably an .EXE file).

One might do something with Cedega.  I for one don't know.

Yahoo! Games apparently requires registration, so I'm not going to
bother.

I don't think Armor Games offers Shockwave.

>
>     For research papers, I haven't played with OpenOffice Writer much, but 
> last time I did, it didn't feel quite as nice as Microsoft Word. I don't 
> have the energy right now to go into a in-depth analysis of the so-called 
> "problems" with Writer, though.

I'll admit the only OpenOffice tool I like is the formula composer, and
there are some problems in there that preclude more widespread use;
ideally, it would be able to export to LaTeX, for example.

>
>     Send messages to relatives is one thing. Typically, there's one "geek" 
> in the family, and everyone else is a non-geek. And so sending messages 
> tends to fall to the lowest common denominator, which means not using fancy 
> features, and just doing plain text. Sending messages to friends is another. 
> Geeks tend to have friends who are also geeks, and so you'll see these 
> cliques exploiting the full power of their messaging software. There's a lot 
> of features in MSN that Gaim hasn't implemented. And so I use GAIM to 
> replace AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, etc., but I keep the official MSN client around.

AIUI, one has to. :-/  I used to IRC but haven't done so in a coon's
age.

>
>     - Oliver 
>

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/14/2006 6:36:15 PM
begin  risky.vbs
	<4580CDED.FED33773@hovnanian.com>,
	"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> writes:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> 
>> What is Look XP
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>> `----
> 
> Why?

Exactly. Anyone who has ever used a superior 'look&feel' would never
want to emulate the Windows 'look&feel'. It has always been crap for
anyone who has used something superior such as Sunview, Openlook,
Motif, KDE, Gnome, ... even Macs.

-- 
I've asked time and time again for people to prove that I primarily spout
FUD. - Funkenbusch (COLA's comedian), Sat, 2 Dec 2006
0
mrloy1 (219)
12/14/2006 11:22:36 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Culley
<mrloy@spamme.zz>
 wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:22:36 +0100
<su2954-pi9.ln1@dog.did.it>:
> begin  risky.vbs
> 	<4580CDED.FED33773@hovnanian.com>,
> 	"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> writes:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> 
>>> What is Look XP
>>> 
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>>> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>>> `----
>> 
>> Why?
>
> Exactly. Anyone who has ever used a superior 'look&feel' would never
> want to emulate the Windows 'look&feel'. It has always been crap for
> anyone who has used something superior such as Sunview, Openlook,
> Motif, KDE, Gnome, ... even Macs.
>

I'll admit to some curiosity here.  What, precisely, is it that makes
KDE, Gnome, Sunview, Openlook, whatever MacOSX uses superior to WinXP?

Be specific.  :-)

What I prefer about the Gnome look and feel is:

- I can iconify any window, dead or alive, or simply kill
  it using xkill.  The process admittedly might still not
  die but at least the window is gone or out of the way.
  (X)

- I can leverage Bash from anywhere, and Bash is a very
  intelligent environment for those used to CLIs.  Granted,
  I'm a touch typist.  (X/pty)

- I can leverage Gnome from anywhere (bandwidth permitting)
  by firing up xauth, Xnest, ssh, and gnome-session.
  (X and various)

- Gnome is simple and doesn't get in the way.  I'll admit
  I'm not sure how to make it more specific than that,
  and I have had freeze-ups with Eclipse if it decides
  to go south while I'm pulling down a menu.  However,
  that's very rare.  (X)

- Multiple workspaces are trivial to set up.  In Windows,
  one can get multiple workspaces with additional software;
  I'd have to look up the details.  (Gnome)

- Windows in multiple workspaces are clearly shown on
  the workspace switcher, with approximate locations
  and sizes.  (Gnome/workspace switcher)

- Window icons in the workspace switcher are intuitively dragged
  from workspace to workspace if necessary.  (Gnome/workspace switcher,
  Gnome/metacity, X/<common WM protocol>)

- If the window's big enough, the workspace switcher can display its
  icon.  (Gnome/workspace switcher, X/<common WM protocol>)

- One can rotate through the workspace using the thumbwheel.
  (Gnome/workspace switcher, Gnome/metacity)

- If necessary, any window can be found using the window
  selector, and Metacity will jump to the workspace
  containing that window.  I'll admit I very seldom have had
  need to use it, but it's there. (Gnome/metacity)

- The system monitor can show up to six little windows
  in the panel, and gives a thumbnail glance of how well
  the system's doing from any workspace.  (Gnome/system monitor)

- Two pairs of xeyes, one in each panel, allow me to locate
  the cursor/pointer, should I lose it visually.  (Gnome/xeyes)

- The window manager models "force".  Basically, it feels
  like one has to push a little extra if one window abuts
  against another.  This makes it easier to manually set
  up window grids and other such.  (Metacity)

- The window manager allows "focus follows mouse".
  Granted, so does Windows and KDE.  (Metacity)

- The panels are straightforward and easy to modify.
  (Gnome/gnome-panel)

- The browser is standard.  (Gnome/epiphany or Mozilla firefox)

- I find utilities such as the character map and character
  palette useful on occasion.  (Gnome/character map,
  Gnome/character palette)

- The backgrounds include gradients.  (Gnome)

- The popup calender from the clock is convenient, and
  shows events from Evolution's calendar.  (Gnome/clock,
  Gnome/evolution)

- Nautilus will attempt to show images, svgs, and stills
  from movies with thumbnails.  It doesn't put huge borders
  around them either, like WinXP.  (nautilus)

If one looks at the programming environment, the X.h and
Xlib.h files are much cleaner than windowsx.h.  The KDE
environment looks a little klunky to me personally, because
of 'moc', but in a pinch one can modify moc's source code
if necessary, and it does work.  For its part Gtk uses
straight, standard C.

There's a few things that could use improvement.

- Starting up nautilus from a terminal works but never pays
  attention to the current directory of the parent process.
  (nautilus)

- When xterm and gnome-terminal is squeezed then expanded
  again it behaves OK as a window, but tends to leave
  character crap littering the left side of its display.
  I'll admit I'm of two minds about this.  (xterm,
  gnome-terminal)

- Clearing the screen in gnome-terminal pushes the scroll
  bar down.  (gnome-terminal)

- The clock could use a bit more flexibility in formatting,
  allowing such things as YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS, MM/DD/YY
  HH:MM:SS, seconds since midnight 1970, and dual timezone
  displays.  Granted, it already shows more flexibility
  than its XP counterpart, and there's only so much real
  estate it can occupy in a panel.  (Gnome/clock)

- There probably could be a few more Gnome geyes themes
  and/or configuration options, such as background color.
  Admittedly, one could be charged with racism here if one
  is not very very careful.  (geyes)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Insert random misquote here.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/15/2006 3:32:34 PM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:v5i854-8ll.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
>
>>     Right. I'm not saying that users *want* an XP interface.
>> I'm saying that they *claim* they want an XP interface.
>> By giving them an XP interface in Linux, we either discover
>> that they really did want an XP interface (in which case
>> everybody is happy), or else we discover that they didn't
>> really want an XP interface, and now we're slightly closer
>> at finding out what it is they actually want.
>
> OK.  How deep does this go?  This is, after all, a multilayer problem.
>
> [1] Click, drag, type.
>
> With Windows (and with most Linux distros), one can click
> and drag onto icons and type into text areas and text
> fields, as well as arbitrary applications.  There are some
> subtleties in various widget sets (e.g., is one required to
> drag down a menu which automagically disappears when the
> button is released, or can one click on a menu header and
> click again to dismiss it?) and there might be some issues
> during typing (Linux/X supports input methods which can,
> for example, translate romanji or katakana into kanjii;
> I don't know the details on that but know they exist).

    As an aside, just last night, I had a problem with Ubuntu not reacting 
to keypresses. The screen was locked, and the mouse would work (when I 
wiggle the cursor, it'd show the password prompt), but although I ensured 
the flashing vertical bar was in the password box, thus ensuring it had 
focus, it would not react to my typing in my password (usually it displays 
those black dots for every character typed). Even trying 
CTRL-SHIFT-BACKSPACE didn't reset GDM. I guess the keyboard-to-OS 
connection, however it's implemented in Linux, completely died. Had to do a 
hard-reset the machine via holding the power button for 2 seconds. What 
should I have done instead in that situation?

    Back on topic, I think most Windows users are satisfied with the widget 
set (whether provided by X, GTK, QT or whatever). They generally behave the 
expected way.

>
> [2] Program interactions.
>
> With Windows, programs can interrelate using COM.  Dare we
> reimplement COM to make these programs happy?
[other similar issues]

    I don't think getting programmers to switch will be much of a problem. 
Well, maybe VB programmers won't like the Linux offering (though I haven't 
look at the Linux-equivalent-of-VB... Goombas?) but for those of us program 
using the keyboard more often than the mouse, I think learning a different 
set of API won't be much of an issue.

    Really, the focus should be on the end user. Get them to switch to 
Linux, and the programmers will follow. As for what it is that's exactly 
different between Linux and Windows, this is why the above "Make Linux look 
like XP" experiment is valuable. You then provide them with the 
XP-lookalike, and let them try to use the computer (without your guiding 
them), observe what "mistakes" they make, check if that "mistake" would have 
lead to a successful outcome under XP, and if so, then there's a difference 
that the user between Linux (more accurately, KDE or Gnome or whatever 
desktop their using, but hopefully you'll give me some leniency in the 
terminology here) and XP that the user is probably unhappy with.


[Snip a lot of stuff, many parts amusing]
>
> Child: Does it run Jumpstart?

    What is Jumpstart?

[...]
>> Personally, I don't like ActiveX, so lack of ActiveX support isn't a
>> drawback of Linux in my eyes.
>
> It is if one can't contact one's bank.

    Luckily, my bank doesn't, and I'd switch banks if they did. So once 
again, lack of ActiveX support isn't a drawback of Linux in my eyes.

>> And *I* want more people to switch to Linux. That's clear to me. More 
>> people
>> aware of Linux sort of automatically comes bundled with more people to
>> switch to Linux.
>
> Not sure about that.  More people are aware of black widow spiders, too.
> :-)  Or perhaps the Slammer bug.

    Yes, but following the analogy, I'm not saying if people are aware of 
black widow spiders, then they'll want to "switch" to black widow spiders 
(whatever "switch" may mean here). I'm saying if people want to "switch" to 
black widow spiders, then their becoming aware of black widow spiders is 
implied.

[...]
>> Mahjong game is very addictive.
>
> For you.  I'll admit I prefer Nexuiz, UT2004, a number of
> casual Flash offerings, though Mahjong can be intriguing
> (I've seen several variants, and am not sure I can
> distinguish them).  Agreed that Linux has a lot of games
> to offer, mostly because distros pull them from various
> sources and package them nicely for easy download.

    Now that I got the X server set up on my primary Windows box (which has 
the nicest keyboard and monitor) thanks to the advices of Jamie and Kelsey, 
I'm looking into getting into Linux development, and I'll probably try to 
make games to fill out that list a bit more.

>
> Want UT2004-demo?
>
> # emerge ut2004-demo
>
> and there you are (on Gentoo, anyway).  Can't get much
> easier than that unless one gets the prepackaged deal.
> (On other distros YMMV.)

    UT doesn't seem to appear in Synaptic under Ubuntu. And it's just as 
well, as I haven't been able to get 3D acceleration working under Ubuntu 
anyway. Given my specific circumstances, if I want to play Unreal 
Tournament, the path of least resistance is to use Windows.

[...]
>
> Yahoo! Games apparently requires registration, so I'm not going to
> bother.

    Yahoo used to use Java, but they've been switching to either Flash or 
Shockwave, even going so far as to reimplementing games previously written 
in Java into Flash.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/15/2006 3:32:52 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, Oliver Wong belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>     As an aside, just last night, I had a problem with Ubuntu not reacting 
> to keypresses. The screen was locked, and the mouse would work (when I 
> wiggle the cursor, it'd show the password prompt), but although I ensured 
> the flashing vertical bar was in the password box, thus ensuring it had 
> focus, it would not react to my typing in my password (usually it displays 
> those black dots for every character typed). Even trying 
> CTRL-SHIFT-BACKSPACE didn't reset GDM. I guess the keyboard-to-OS 
> connection, however it's implemented in Linux, completely died. Had to do a 
> hard-reset the machine via holding the power button for 2 seconds. What 
> should I have done instead in that situation?

Shell into your box from another machine and see what's happening.

Sounds like an X/xscreensaver issue, though.

Sometimes a loose connection might be the issue.  Might have to restart
input (ps/2) or usbhid after fixing it, though I think normally it kicks
in after a few seconds.

>     Back on topic, I think most Windows users are satisfied with the widget 
> set (whether provided by X, GTK, QT or whatever). They generally behave the 
> expected way.

I'm undergoing one of my periodic re-infatuations with fluxbox.

I seem to oscillate between xfce and fluxbox.  I am using an xfce
component, xfce-mcs-manager, to enhance the fluxbox experience, though.

-- 
   [ X ] Check here to always trust content from Linonut.
0
linonut2 (5242)
12/15/2006 4:05:41 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong@castortech.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:32:52 -0500
<Fezgh.21996$qH2.173994@wagner.videotron.net>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
> news:v5i854-8ll.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
>>
>>>     Right. I'm not saying that users *want* an XP interface.
>>> I'm saying that they *claim* they want an XP interface.
>>> By giving them an XP interface in Linux, we either discover
>>> that they really did want an XP interface (in which case
>>> everybody is happy), or else we discover that they didn't
>>> really want an XP interface, and now we're slightly closer
>>> at finding out what it is they actually want.
>>
>> OK.  How deep does this go?  This is, after all, a multilayer problem.
>>
>> [1] Click, drag, type.
>>
>> With Windows (and with most Linux distros), one can click
>> and drag onto icons and type into text areas and text
>> fields, as well as arbitrary applications.  There are some
>> subtleties in various widget sets (e.g., is one required to
>> drag down a menu which automagically disappears when the
>> button is released, or can one click on a menu header and
>> click again to dismiss it?) and there might be some issues
>> during typing (Linux/X supports input methods which can,
>> for example, translate romanji or katakana into kanjii;
>> I don't know the details on that but know they exist).
>
>     As an aside, just last night, I had a problem with Ubuntu not reacting 
> to keypresses. The screen was locked, and the mouse would work (when I 
> wiggle the cursor, it'd show the password prompt), but although I ensured 
> the flashing vertical bar was in the password box, thus ensuring it had 
> focus, it would not react to my typing in my password (usually it displays 
> those black dots for every character typed). Even trying 
> CTRL-SHIFT-BACKSPACE didn't reset GDM. I guess the keyboard-to-OS 
> connection, however it's implemented in Linux, completely died. Had to do a 
> hard-reset the machine via holding the power button for 2 seconds. What 
> should I have done instead in that situation?

Remote login via ssh? :-)

I'll admit, if there is a failure in Linux it's somewhere
in the video/keyboard subsystem.  My Kayak in particular
seems to get confused (it's running an ATi card) and
corrupt its video screen when I switch from X to console,
though apparently the keyboard more or less works in this
mode (I simply can't see the results except as pixel
glop on the screen).  I'll have to try it again with a
newer version of the Linux kernel but do wonder where the
problem is.

For its part nvidia on my other box works reasonably well.

There's a minor problem with the SCSI system is well but I can't say
I'm able to be more specific; most of my equipment is IDE or EIDE now.

>
>     Back on topic, I think most Windows users are satisfied with the widget 
> set (whether provided by X, GTK, QT or whatever). They generally behave the 
> expected way.

Especially when marketed properly. :-)

>
>>
>> [2] Program interactions.
>>
>> With Windows, programs can interrelate using COM.  Dare we
>> reimplement COM to make these programs happy?
> [other similar issues]
>
>     I don't think getting programmers to switch will be much of a problem. 

Depends.  Which platform makes them more money?

> Well, maybe VB programmers won't like the Linux offering (though I haven't 
> look at the Linux-equivalent-of-VB... Goombas?)

Gambas.  It's the one with the blue lobster, crawdad,
or whatever that is.  (Tools->Preferences->Others->Show
Mascot puts him to sleep.  The expression he makes when
put to sleep is a little odd; he's covering his eyes with
one of his legs.  But then, a blue lobster is a little odd
anyway, especially since when he's on the desktop there's
no menu.  I for one wouldn't mind having a popup menu over
the lobster -- when he's active -- to show hints and help.
About his only other purpose is to spin around his legs
while the program is actually executing.  Might be fun to
cross-connect him with movement code a la the LOGOS turtle.)

> but for those of us program 
> using the keyboard more often than the mouse, I think learning a different 
> set of API won't be much of an issue.
>
>     Really, the focus should be on the end user. Get them to switch to 
> Linux, and the programmers will follow. As for what it is that's exactly 
> different between Linux and Windows, this is why the above "Make Linux look 
> like XP" experiment is valuable. You then provide them with the 
> XP-lookalike, and let them try to use the computer (without your guiding 
> them), observe what "mistakes" they make, check if that "mistake" would have 
> lead to a successful outcome under XP, and if so, then there's a difference 
> that the user between Linux (more accurately, KDE or Gnome or whatever 
> desktop their using, but hopefully you'll give me some leniency in the 
> terminology here) and XP that the user is probably unhappy with.
>
>
> [Snip a lot of stuff, many parts amusing]
>>
>> Child: Does it run Jumpstart?
>
>     What is Jumpstart?

Educational software for children.

http://www.jumpstart.com/

Has little to do with Linux admittedly.  Presumably there
are other examples of educational software along the
same lines.  The issues regarding differences between
Linux and Windows could bite the naive parent.

>
> [...]
>>> Personally, I don't like ActiveX, so lack of ActiveX support isn't a
>>> drawback of Linux in my eyes.
>>
>> It is if one can't contact one's bank.
>
>     Luckily, my bank doesn't, and I'd switch banks if they did. So once 
> again, lack of ActiveX support isn't a drawback of Linux in my eyes.
>
>>> And *I* want more people to switch to Linux. That's clear to me. More 
>>> people
>>> aware of Linux sort of automatically comes bundled with more people to
>>> switch to Linux.
>>
>> Not sure about that.  More people are aware of black widow spiders, too.
>> :-)  Or perhaps the Slammer bug.
>
>     Yes, but following the analogy, I'm not saying if people are aware of 
> black widow spiders, then they'll want to "switch" to black widow spiders 
> (whatever "switch" may mean here). I'm saying if people want to "switch" to 
> black widow spiders, then their becoming aware of black widow spiders is 
> implied.
>
> [...]
>>> Mahjong game is very addictive.
>>
>> For you.  I'll admit I prefer Nexuiz, UT2004, a number of
>> casual Flash offerings, though Mahjong can be intriguing
>> (I've seen several variants, and am not sure I can
>> distinguish them).  Agreed that Linux has a lot of games
>> to offer, mostly because distros pull them from various
>> sources and package them nicely for easy download.
>
>     Now that I got the X server set up on my primary Windows box (which has 
> the nicest keyboard and monitor) thanks to the advices of Jamie and Kelsey, 
> I'm looking into getting into Linux development, and I'll probably try to 
> make games to fill out that list a bit more.

Hm.  I'll admit to wondering what your performance is like on that box.
Cygnus/XFree86 on Windows wasn't the fastest beast.

>
>>
>> Want UT2004-demo?
>>
>> # emerge ut2004-demo
>>
>> and there you are (on Gentoo, anyway).  Can't get much
>> easier than that unless one gets the prepackaged deal.
>> (On other distros YMMV.)
>
>     UT doesn't seem to appear in Synaptic under Ubuntu.

It's very old, circa 1999.  The license is "as-is ware".
Unreal won't even run under Linux -- apparently the engine
and data are a little confused.  UT runs well enough but
is an old game; even UT2004 is getting long in the tooth.

> And it's just as 
> well, as I haven't been able to get 3D acceleration working under Ubuntu 
> anyway. Given my specific circumstances, if I want to play Unreal 
> Tournament, the path of least resistance is to use Windows.
>
> [...]
>>
>> Yahoo! Games apparently requires registration, so I'm not going to
>> bother.
>
>     Yahoo used to use Java, but they've been switching to either Flash or 
> Shockwave, even going so far as to reimplementing games previously written 
> in Java into Flash.
>
>     - Oliver 
>

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/15/2006 4:30:37 PM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:d6va54-jm6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>> [2] Program interactions.
>>>
>>> With Windows, programs can interrelate using COM.  Dare we
>>> reimplement COM to make these programs happy?
>> [other similar issues]
>>
>>     I don't think getting programmers to switch will be much of a 
>> problem.
>
> Depends.  Which platform makes them more money?

    Right. My point is that the users have the money. If we get the users to 
switch to Linux, then the programmers will target Linux, because that's 
where the money is.

[...]
>>
>>     Now that I got the X server set up on my primary Windows box (which 
>> has
>> the nicest keyboard and monitor) thanks to the advices of Jamie and 
>> Kelsey,
>> I'm looking into getting into Linux development, and I'll probably try to
>> make games to fill out that list a bit more.
>
> Hm.  I'll admit to wondering what your performance is like on that box.
> Cygnus/XFree86 on Windows wasn't the fastest beast.

    I don't know what Cygnus/XFree86 is, but I'm using Putty and XMing, as 
outlined in the tutorial that they gave me.

>>> Want UT2004-demo?
>>>
>>> # emerge ut2004-demo
>>>
>>> and there you are (on Gentoo, anyway).  Can't get much
>>> easier than that unless one gets the prepackaged deal.
>>> (On other distros YMMV.)
>>
>>     UT doesn't seem to appear in Synaptic under Ubuntu.
>
> It's very old, circa 1999.

    I'd imagine the older it is, the easier it'd be to get it into the 
repositories (hell, Synaptic has "Adventure", AKA Collosal Caves).

>  The license is "as-is ware".

    Well, there's always the Universe and Multiverse repositories, where 
they don't seem to care too much about licensing issues.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/15/2006 8:30:00 PM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:ipra54-pc6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> What, precisely, is it that makes
> KDE, Gnome, Sunview, Openlook, whatever MacOSX uses superior to WinXP?
>
> Be specific.  :-)
>
> What I prefer about the Gnome look and feel is:
>
[...]
>
> - I can leverage Gnome from anywhere (bandwidth permitting)
>  by firing up xauth, Xnest, ssh, and gnome-session.
>  (X and various)

    I think every OS has something functionally equivalent for this. I know 
Windows has Remote Desktop. Not sure what MacOSX has, but I'd imagine VNC is 
ported to all three (I know it's available on Linux and Windows anyway).


[...]
>
> - The system monitor can show up to six little windows
>  in the panel, and gives a thumbnail glance of how well
>  the system's doing from any workspace.  (Gnome/system monitor)

    Yes. I like this too, and the Post-it notes, and the weather forecast. 
MacOSX has something similar (I've seen screenshots, but didn't play with 
it). WinXP doesn't have it, except as a third party add on. Vista has it 
(again, seen screenshots, but didn't play with it), and it's one of the 
reasons I'm looking forward to Vista.

> - The browser is standard.  (Gnome/epiphany or Mozilla firefox)

    Not sure what you mean by this, and it seems like it could be a "bad" 
thing (Browser is standard on Windows too: Internet Explorer. Yuck.)

>
> - I find utilities such as the character map and character
>  palette useful on occasion.  (Gnome/character map,
>  Gnome/character palette)

    WinXP has something similar. I imagine so does MacOSX and Vista.

[...]
>
> - The popup calender from the clock is convenient, and
>  shows events from Evolution's calendar.  (Gnome/clock,
>  Gnome/evolution)

    Damn. This was the other thing I was gonna mention, other than the 
widgets above. Guess you got Gnome covered for me, then. Incidentally, this 
is an example of why tight integration of software is desirable. I'm trying 
to get off of Outlook, and Evolution is nice, but I can't get the spam 
filter working. Various Linux advocates (not here on COLA, but on the Ubuntu 
help forum, for example) are telling me to try Thunderbird, Sunbird, etc. 
But I want my applications to be MORE integrated, not less. I don't want to 
split my mail from my calendar.

>
> - Nautilus will attempt to show images, svgs, and stills
>  from movies with thumbnails.  It doesn't put huge borders
>  around them either, like WinXP.  (nautilus)

    Nautilus seems to recognize more file formats than WinXP too. That's 
another plus. With WinXP, third parties can add support for more file 
formats (I assume the same is true for Nautilus), but I have a few plugins 
that are buggy, it seems, whereas I haven't had any problem with any of the 
formats that Nautilus supports. Of course, we can get into the argument that 
the bugginess of the PDF preview is Adobe's fault and not Microsoft's, etc., 
but as a user, I don't care about any of that. I just want it to work. And 
with Nautilus, it just works.

    One thing I like about MacOSX that I wish the other desktop systems 
would implement is pressing F8 through F12 arranges all the windows on your 
desktop in various ways. I believe F10 slides them all off screen to make 
the desktop itself visible, for example, while F11 intelligently arranges 
all the windows so that they don't overlap while maintaining their relative 
sizes (i.e. it's smarter than Window's "tile horizontally" or "tile 
verticallY"), so you can click on a specific Window to activate it.

    None of these changes are permanent, and as soon as you release the key, 
the Windows return to their original configuration. So contrast:

    (*) MacOSX: You press F10, the windows slide out of the way, and you 
open some document on your desktop. The windows slide back into their 
original position, with your document at the top, in Z-order.

    (*) Windows: You right click on the taskbar, and choose "Show Desktop". 
Now all the windows are minimized. Permanently. You open your document, but 
now you have to go through the list of windows, selecting which one to 
unminimize, to get things back to the way they were.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/15/2006 8:45:29 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong@castortech.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:30:00 -0500
<eBDgh.23034$qH2.186236@wagner.videotron.net>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
> news:d6va54-jm6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>> [2] Program interactions.
>>>>
>>>> With Windows, programs can interrelate using COM.  Dare we
>>>> reimplement COM to make these programs happy?
>>> [other similar issues]
>>>
>>>     I don't think getting programmers to switch will be much of a 
>>> problem.
>>
>> Depends.  Which platform makes them more money?
>
>     Right. My point is that the users have the money. If we get
> the users to switch to Linux, then the programmers will target
> Linux, because that's where the money is.

Hm.  I wonder.  If one hypothesizes 500 million users,
each buying a $250 machine, that's $125B.  If Microsoft
gets $50 each that's $25B in revenue.

That's more than the states will get in sales tax revenue
(assuming 8%, they'll get $10B from all those sales).

Not a bad haul for a company founded from an old copy of Basic. :-)

>
> [...]
>>>
>>>     Now that I got the X server set up on my primary Windows box (which 
>>> has
>>> the nicest keyboard and monitor) thanks to the advices of Jamie and 
>>> Kelsey,
>>> I'm looking into getting into Linux development, and I'll probably try to
>>> make games to fill out that list a bit more.
>>
>> Hm.  I'll admit to wondering what your performance is like on that box.
>> Cygnus/XFree86 on Windows wasn't the fastest beast.
>
>     I don't know what Cygnus/XFree86 is, but I'm using Putty and XMing, as 
> outlined in the tutorial that they gave me.

I meant Cygwin/XFree86.  I hate it when I do that. :-)

>
>>>> Want UT2004-demo?
>>>>
>>>> # emerge ut2004-demo
>>>>
>>>> and there you are (on Gentoo, anyway).  Can't get much
>>>> easier than that unless one gets the prepackaged deal.
>>>> (On other distros YMMV.)
>>>
>>>     UT doesn't seem to appear in Synaptic under Ubuntu.
>>
>> It's very old, circa 1999.
>
>     I'd imagine the older it is, the easier it'd be to get it into the 
> repositories (hell, Synaptic has "Adventure", AKA Collosal Caves).

Gentoo has it.  Dunno why Ubuntu doesn't.  Oddly, Gentoo doesn't have
"Adventure".  (Which version does Ubuntu have?  There are several.)

>
>>  The license is "as-is ware".
>
>     Well, there's always the Universe and Multiverse repositories, where 
> they don't seem to care too much about licensing issues.
>
>     - Oliver 
>
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/15/2006 9:18:25 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong@castortech.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:45:29 -0500
<JPDgh.23036$qH2.187099@wagner.videotron.net>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
> news:ipra54-pc6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>
>> What, precisely, is it that makes
>> KDE, Gnome, Sunview, Openlook, whatever MacOSX uses superior to WinXP?
>>
>> Be specific.  :-)
>>
>> What I prefer about the Gnome look and feel is:
>>
> [...]
>>
>> - I can leverage Gnome from anywhere (bandwidth permitting)
>>  by firing up xauth, Xnest, ssh, and gnome-session.
>>  (X and various)
>
>     I think every OS has something functionally equivalent for this. I know 
> Windows has Remote Desktop. Not sure what MacOSX has, but I'd imagine VNC is 
> ported to all three (I know it's available on Linux and Windows anyway).
>
>
> [...]
>>
>> - The system monitor can show up to six little windows
>>  in the panel, and gives a thumbnail glance of how well
>>  the system's doing from any workspace.  (Gnome/system monitor)
>
>     Yes. I like this too, and the Post-it notes, and the weather forecast. 
> MacOSX has something similar (I've seen screenshots, but didn't play with 
> it). WinXP doesn't have it, except as a third party add on. Vista has it 
> (again, seen screenshots, but didn't play with it), and it's one of the 
> reasons I'm looking forward to Vista.
>
>> - The browser is standard.  (Gnome/epiphany or Mozilla firefox)
>
>     Not sure what you mean by this, and it seems like it could be a "bad" 
> thing (Browser is standard on Windows too: Internet Explorer. Yuck.)

I mean *standard* -- in accordance with W3C dictates.  (Certainly
a lot more so than IE.)

>
>>
>> - I find utilities such as the character map and character
>>  palette useful on occasion.  (Gnome/character map,
>>  Gnome/character palette)
>
>     WinXP has something similar. I imagine so does MacOSX and Vista.

It's not that difficult to implement, presumably.  The database
is basically a large text file.

>
> [...]
>>
>> - The popup calender from the clock is convenient, and
>>  shows events from Evolution's calendar.  (Gnome/clock,
>>  Gnome/evolution)
>
>     Damn. This was the other thing I was gonna mention, other than the 
> widgets above. Guess you got Gnome covered for me, then.

Maybe. :-)

> Incidentally, this 
> is an example of why tight integration of software is desirable. I'm trying 
> to get off of Outlook, and Evolution is nice, but I can't get the spam 
> filter working. Various Linux advocates (not here on COLA, but on the Ubuntu 
> help forum, for example) are telling me to try Thunderbird, Sunbird, etc. 
> But I want my applications to be MORE integrated, not less. I don't want to 
> split my mail from my calendar.
>
>>
>> - Nautilus will attempt to show images, svgs, and stills
>>  from movies with thumbnails.  It doesn't put huge borders
>>  around them either, like WinXP.  (nautilus)
>
>     Nautilus seems to recognize more file formats than WinXP too. That's 
> another plus. With WinXP, third parties can add support for more file 
> formats (I assume the same is true for Nautilus), but I have a few plugins 
> that are buggy, it seems, whereas I haven't had any problem with any of the 
> formats that Nautilus supports. Of course, we can get into the argument that 
> the bugginess of the PDF preview is Adobe's fault and not Microsoft's, etc., 
> but as a user, I don't care about any of that. I just want it to work. And 
> with Nautilus, it just works.
>
>     One thing I like about MacOSX that I wish the other desktop systems 
> would implement is pressing F8 through F12 arranges all the windows on your 
> desktop in various ways. I believe F10 slides them all off screen to make 
> the desktop itself visible, for example, while F11 intelligently arranges 
> all the windows so that they don't overlap while maintaining their relative 
> sizes (i.e. it's smarter than Window's "tile horizontally" or "tile 
> verticallY"), so you can click on a specific Window to activate it.
>
>     None of these changes are permanent, and as soon as you release the key, 
> the Windows return to their original configuration. So contrast:
>
>     (*) MacOSX: You press F10, the windows slide out of the way, and you 
> open some document on your desktop. The windows slide back into their 
> original position, with your document at the top, in Z-order.
>
>     (*) Windows: You right click on the taskbar, and choose "Show Desktop". 
> Now all the windows are minimized. Permanently. You open your document, but 
> now you have to go through the list of windows, selecting which one to 
> unminimize, to get things back to the way they were.

Gnome also has a "hide all windows" option.  I can't say I find it all
that useful, but it is there.

>
>     - Oliver 
>
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/15/2006 9:31:26 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paul Hovnanian P.E.
<paul@hovnanian.com>
 wrote
on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:57:01 -0800
<4587630D.FFABB319@hovnanian.com>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> 
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Culley
>> <mrloy@spamme.zz>
>>  wrote
>> on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:22:36 +0100
>> <su2954-pi9.ln1@dog.did.it>:
>> > begin  risky.vbs
>> >       <4580CDED.FED33773@hovnanian.com>,
>> >       "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> writes:
>> >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> What is Look XP
>> >>>
>> >>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> >>> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>> >>> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>> >>> `----
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > Exactly. Anyone who has ever used a superior 'look&feel' would never
>> > want to emulate the Windows 'look&feel'. It has always been crap for
>> > anyone who has used something superior such as Sunview, Openlook,
>> > Motif, KDE, Gnome, ... even Macs.
>> >
>> 
>> I'll admit to some curiosity here.  What, precisely, is it that makes
>> KDE, Gnome, Sunview, Openlook, whatever MacOSX uses superior to WinXP?
>> 
>> Be specific.  :-)
>
> All three mouse buttons work.

Five, actually.  (The scrollwheel takes up the other two,
as it turns out, but X has had support for five buttons
for awhile, even without the scrollwheel.)

> Cut and paste don't require some screwball
> mouse plus keystroke (or menu) operations.

No, but they don't prohibit them, either.  A sop to
Microsoft and maybe Apple, I guess, for their using
control-X/C/V (or Option-X/C/V) instead of Athena's/X's
button1/button2 protocol, but many of the widgets and/or
apps will support control-X/C/V.

>
> Clients (applications) aren't tied to a single, local display service
> (screen/keyboard/pointing device). 

Amen to that! :-)  Though VNC does help a little, X is
much more elegantly designed.

>
> The root window menu system is easier to use than a fixed tool bar (no
> stinkin' 'Start' buttons) or icons splattered all over the destop.*

I suppose it's a matter of taste.  Then again, I do wonder
what I'm going to do with all of these Nautilus icons.

>
> *If you really want to screw up a Windows user, make an image out of
> their desktop (a screen dump) and then install it as their desktop
> background. Watch them try to figure out which icons are real and which
> are the artwork. ;-)
>

One could do the same with a twm window manager (xsetroot).
That would probably drive them absolutely bonkers. :-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/19/2006 3:43:39 AM
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> 
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Culley
> <mrloy@spamme.zz>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:22:36 +0100
> <su2954-pi9.ln1@dog.did.it>:
> > begin  risky.vbs
> >       <4580CDED.FED33773@hovnanian.com>,
> >       "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> writes:
> >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What is Look XP
> >>>
> >>> ,----[ Quote ]
> >>> | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
> >>> | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
> >>> `----
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Exactly. Anyone who has ever used a superior 'look&feel' would never
> > want to emulate the Windows 'look&feel'. It has always been crap for
> > anyone who has used something superior such as Sunview, Openlook,
> > Motif, KDE, Gnome, ... even Macs.
> >
> 
> I'll admit to some curiosity here.  What, precisely, is it that makes
> KDE, Gnome, Sunview, Openlook, whatever MacOSX uses superior to WinXP?
> 
> Be specific.  :-)

All three mouse buttons work. Cut and paste don't require some screwball
mouse plus keystroke (or menu) operations.

Clients (applications) aren't tied to a single, local display service
(screen/keyboard/pointing device). 

The root window menu system is easier to use than a fixed tool bar (no
stinkin' 'Start' buttons) or icons splattered all over the destop.*

*If you really want to screw up a Windows user, make an image out of
their desktop (a screen dump) and then install it as their desktop
background. Watch them try to figure out which icons are real and which
are the artwork. ;-)

-- 
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
0
Paul261 (1126)
12/19/2006 3:57:01 AM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:12gb54-348.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
>> (hell, Synaptic has "Adventure", AKA Collosal Caves).
>
> Gentoo has it.  Dunno why Ubuntu doesn't.  Oddly, Gentoo doesn't have
> "Adventure".  (Which version does Ubuntu have?  There are several.)

    I don't know. Maybe this will help you find out the answer: 
http://packages.ubuntu.com/dapper/games/bsdgames

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/19/2006 6:00:10 PM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:eqgb54-j78.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
>>     One thing I like about MacOSX that I wish the other desktop systems
>> would implement is pressing F8 through F12 arranges all the windows on 
>> your
>> desktop in various ways. I believe F10 slides them all off screen to make
>> the desktop itself visible, for example, while F11 intelligently arranges
>> all the windows so that they don't overlap while maintaining their 
>> relative
>> sizes (i.e. it's smarter than Window's "tile horizontally" or "tile
>> verticallY"), so you can click on a specific Window to activate it.
>>
>>     None of these changes are permanent, and as soon as you release the 
>> key,
>> the Windows return to their original configuration. So contrast:
>>
>>     (*) MacOSX: You press F10, the windows slide out of the way, and you
>> open some document on your desktop. The windows slide back into their
>> original position, with your document at the top, in Z-order.
>>
>>     (*) Windows: You right click on the taskbar, and choose "Show 
>> Desktop".
>> Now all the windows are minimized. Permanently. You open your document, 
>> but
>> now you have to go through the list of windows, selecting which one to
>> unminimize, to get things back to the way they were.
>
> Gnome also has a "hide all windows" option.  I can't say I find it all
> that useful, but it is there.

    Does it behave like MacOSX's or Window's? If the former, how do I access 
it?

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/19/2006 6:02:56 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong@castortech.com>
 wrote
on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:02:56 -0500
<kPVhh.89837$_n2.572956@weber.videotron.net>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
> news:eqgb54-j78.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
>>>     One thing I like about MacOSX that I wish the other desktop systems
>>> would implement is pressing F8 through F12 arranges all the windows on 
>>> your
>>> desktop in various ways. I believe F10 slides them all off screen to make
>>> the desktop itself visible, for example, while F11 intelligently arranges
>>> all the windows so that they don't overlap while maintaining their 
>>> relative
>>> sizes (i.e. it's smarter than Window's "tile horizontally" or "tile
>>> verticallY"), so you can click on a specific Window to activate it.
>>>
>>>     None of these changes are permanent, and as soon as you release the 
>>> key,
>>> the Windows return to their original configuration. So contrast:
>>>
>>>     (*) MacOSX: You press F10, the windows slide out of the way, and you
>>> open some document on your desktop. The windows slide back into their
>>> original position, with your document at the top, in Z-order.
>>>
>>>     (*) Windows: You right click on the taskbar, and choose "Show 
>>> Desktop".
>>> Now all the windows are minimized. Permanently. You open your document, 
>>> but
>>> now you have to go through the list of windows, selecting which one to
>>> unminimize, to get things back to the way they were.
>>
>> Gnome also has a "hide all windows" option.  I can't say I find it all
>> that useful, but it is there.
>
>     Does it behave like MacOSX's or Window's?
> If the former, how do I access it?

Frankly, I don't know.  The functionality is accessed by
clicking on a small icon that looks like a desktop on the
lower left hand corner on my particular desktop (and the
icon looks like a rectangle with a pencil and a piece of
paper).  Doing so iconifies all currently-visible windows.
Clicking again deiconifies the windows.  Gnome is smart
enough not to deiconify windows which were iconified
already at the time of the first click, when one clicks
again.  Opening a new window then clicking again on the
desktop icon iconifies the new window and one then has to
deiconify the other windows manually; therefore Z-order
isn't an issue but this does appear slightly screwed up.

This is close to Windows in general functionality,
except that Gnome does have memory if one doesn't open new
windows, and one uses the first mouse button instead of the
third (the third is not available because it's dedicated
to the popup menu in this context; the second/middle mouse
button allows for moving/dragging the icon).

(If one does not already have this icon somewhere in one's
panels, one can simply add it by using the second mouse
button on top of a panel, "Add to panel", then scrolling
down until one finds "Show Desktop".)

One of the problems in dedicating F10 in X to the window
manager is simply that programs won't be able to see it.
Of course one could try pressing F10 while on top of the
panel, though all that did for me was transmit a character
sequence to the window that currently had focus.  Alt-F10
might work though at present it maximizes the current window.
Ctrl-Alt-F10 is already dedicated to switching to vt10.

As for sliding windows -- IMO that's at best a visual effect,
though Gnome does have the "opening outline" effect for
some reason.

>
>     - Oliver 
>
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Insert random misquote here.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
12/19/2006 7:23:32 PM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:kqql54-0ld.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
> <owong@castortech.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:02:56 -0500
> <kPVhh.89837$_n2.572956@weber.videotron.net>:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in 
>> message
>> news:eqgb54-j78.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>
>>> Gnome also has a "hide all windows" option.  I can't say I find it all
>>> that useful, but it is there.
>>
>>     Does it behave like MacOSX's or Window's?
>> If the former, how do I access it?
>
> Frankly, I don't know.  The functionality is accessed by
> clicking on a small icon that looks like a desktop on the
> lower left hand corner on my particular desktop (and the
> icon looks like a rectangle with a pencil and a piece of
> paper).  Doing so iconifies all currently-visible windows.
> Clicking again deiconifies the windows.  Gnome is smart
> enough not to deiconify windows which were iconified
> already at the time of the first click, when one clicks
> again.  Opening a new window then clicking again on the
> desktop icon iconifies the new window and one then has to
> deiconify the other windows manually; therefore Z-order
> isn't an issue but this does appear slightly screwed up.

    It sounds like Gnome essentially does the same thing as Windows, then. I 
like MacOSX's system better. It's one of the few things I really like about 
MacOSX.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/19/2006 10:15:59 PM
Reply: