Snit's real views:
    -----
    But UNIX does have some advantages over the Mac... a CLI
    would be a great addition to the Mac. �I would say that
    between Mac and UNIX you have the best operating systems
    around.
    -----
    if DOS were a combo of UNIX and Mac it would be cool. �I just
    wish we had something that combined the two. In theory that
    is the way both UNIX and Mac are growing
    -----
    The Mac is not the end all in computer technology. �Where it
    fails, UNIX excels. Between the two, there is almost no task
    that computers would be used for that can not be done. �And
    one or the other will beat the competition in almost every
    area.
    -----
    Now on to your question: why should users not be pushed to the
    command line.

    The answer is easy: there is no reason they should be.  Since
    there is an easier and better UI for users, why force them to
    memorize arcane commands which, in general, only a techie user
    would care about?   Why learn an easier system and a harder system
    when the easier system does all that the general user needs?

    In other words: the question really is why would you expect
    general users to use a command line in any but the most rare of
    circumstances?   Can you think of a reason?
    -----
    
  Homer's claim about Snit's views:
    -----
    The only one "pushing" here, is Snit, pushing an agenda to remove
    the CLI as an option for those who actually /prefer/ it.
    -----

Is Homer illiterate or purposely lying?  What do you think?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:40:18 -0700, Snit wrote:

>   Snit's real views:
>     -----
>     But UNIX does have some advantages over the Mac... a CLI
>     would be a great addition to the Mac. �I would say that
>     between Mac and UNIX you have the best operating systems
>     around.
>     -----
>     if DOS were a combo of UNIX and Mac it would be cool. �I just
>     wish we had something that combined the two. In theory that
>     is the way both UNIX and Mac are growing
>     -----
>     The Mac is not the end all in computer technology. �Where it
>     fails, UNIX excels. Between the two, there is almost no task
>     that computers would be used for that can not be done. �And
>     one or the other will beat the competition in almost every
>     area.
>     -----
>     Now on to your question: why should users not be pushed to the
>     command line.
> 
>     The answer is easy: there is no reason they should be.  Since
>     there is an easier and better UI for users, why force them to
>     memorize arcane commands which, in general, only a techie user
>     would care about?   Why learn an easier system and a harder system
>     when the easier system does all that the general user needs?
> 
>     In other words: the question really is why would you expect
>     general users to use a command line in any but the most rare of
>     circumstances?   Can you think of a reason?
>     -----
>     
>   Homer's claim about Snit's views:
>     -----
>     The only one "pushing" here, is Snit, pushing an agenda to remove
>     the CLI as an option for those who actually /prefer/ it.
>     -----
> 
> Is Homer illiterate or purposely lying?  What do you think?

[Homer] is a Linux propagandist who LIE's for LIEnux.
He will say anything no matter how untrue just to make anti-Linux people
look bad and Linux look good.

In short he is a vile, nasty, tinfoil hat wearing Linux loving vermin
who needs to be locked in a cage and heavily sedated.

He should not be silenced though because like Slime-o-witz, he does far
more to harm the reputation of Linux than he does good.
Reading his paranoid rants is all it takes to turn noobs off to Linux.

Snit wrote:

>   Snit's real views:
>     -----
>     But UNIX does have some advantages over the Mac... a CLI
>     would be a great addition to the Mac.  I would say that
>     between Mac and UNIX you have the best operating systems
>     around.
>     -----
>     if DOS were a combo of UNIX and Mac it would be cool.  I just
>     wish we had something that combined the two. In theory that
>     is the way both UNIX and Mac are growing
>     -----
>     The Mac is not the end all in computer technology.  Where it
>     fails, UNIX excels. Between the two, there is almost no task
>     that computers would be used for that can not be done.  And
>     one or the other will beat the competition in almost every
>     area.
>     -----
>     Now on to your question: why should users not be pushed to the
>     command line.
> 
>     The answer is easy: there is no reason they should be.  Since
>     there is an easier and better UI for users, why force them to
>     memorize arcane commands which, in general, only a techie user
>     would care about?   Why learn an easier system and a harder system
>     when the easier system does all that the general user needs?
> 
>     In other words: the question really is why would you expect
>     general users to use a command line in any but the most rare of
>     circumstances?   Can you think of a reason?
>     -----
>     
>   Homer's claim about Snit's views:
>     -----
>     The only one "pushing" here, is Snit, pushing an agenda to remove
>     the CLI as an option for those who actually /prefer/ it.
>     -----
> 
> Is Homer illiterate or purposely lying?  What do you think?


Just face it appil OSen is for girlies despite your pathetic
attempts to promote that weedy OSen here.

Those kind of girlies are so sensitive, they would run away
at the sight of the Linux command line. Appil agent flatcake
has proved this on numerous occasions.

Real men use Linux and command line. They do things faster than
any windummy or appil girlie can muster even in a life and death
situation.


It is very dishonest of you to be saying anything less and even
more dishonest to attack a Linux advocate when he is
explaining these differences to you in candid terms that someone
of your stature is very much unable to understand.

7 stated in post CbMjp.123376$Ga7.86547@newsfe16.ams2 on 3/27/11 12:26 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>   Snit's real views:
>>     -----
>>     But UNIX does have some advantages over the Mac... a CLI
>>     would be a great addition to the Mac.  I would say that
>>     between Mac and UNIX you have the best operating systems
>>     around.
>>     -----
>>     if DOS were a combo of UNIX and Mac it would be cool.  I just
>>     wish we had something that combined the two. In theory that
>>     is the way both UNIX and Mac are growing
>>     -----
>>     The Mac is not the end all in computer technology.  Where it
>>     fails, UNIX excels. Between the two, there is almost no task
>>     that computers would be used for that can not be done.  And
>>     one or the other will beat the competition in almost every
>>     area.
>>     -----
>>     Now on to your question: why should users not be pushed to the
>>     command line.
>> 
>>     The answer is easy: there is no reason they should be.  Since
>>     there is an easier and better UI for users, why force them to
>>     memorize arcane commands which, in general, only a techie user
>>     would care about?   Why learn an easier system and a harder system
>>     when the easier system does all that the general user needs?
>> 
>>     In other words: the question really is why would you expect
>>     general users to use a command line in any but the most rare of
>>     circumstances?   Can you think of a reason?
>>     -----
>>     
>>   Homer's claim about Snit's views:
>>     -----
>>     The only one "pushing" here, is Snit, pushing an agenda to remove
>>     the CLI as an option for those who actually /prefer/ it.
>>     -----
>> 
>> Is Homer illiterate or purposely lying?  What do you think?
> 
> 
> Just face it appil OSen is for girlies despite your pathetic
> attempts to promote that weedy OSen here.
> 
> Those kind of girlies are so sensitive, they would run away
> at the sight of the Linux command line. Appil agent flatcake
> has proved this on numerous occasions.
> 
> Real men use Linux and command line. They do things faster than
> any windummy or appil girlie can muster even in a life and death
> situation.
> 
> 
> It is very dishonest of you to be saying anything less and even
> more dishonest to attack a Linux advocate when he is
> explaining these differences to you in candid terms that someone
> of your stature is very much unable to understand.

Your illiteracy is, according to Owl, an "art".  Whatever.

Oh, OS X has pretty much the same command line as does Linux (or, really,
the same command lines).


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 3/27/2011 6:44 PM, Snit wrote:
> 7 stated in post CbMjp.123376$Ga7.86547@newsfe16.ams2 on 3/27/11 12:26 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>>    Snit's real views:
>>>      -----
>>>      But UNIX does have some advantages over the Mac... a CLI
>>>      would be a great addition to the Mac.  I would say that
>>>      between Mac and UNIX you have the best operating systems
>>>      around.
>>>      -----
>>>      if DOS were a combo of UNIX and Mac it would be cool.  I just
>>>      wish we had something that combined the two. In theory that
>>>      is the way both UNIX and Mac are growing
>>>      -----
>>>      The Mac is not the end all in computer technology.  Where it
>>>      fails, UNIX excels. Between the two, there is almost no task
>>>      that computers would be used for that can not be done.  And
>>>      one or the other will beat the competition in almost every
>>>      area.
>>>      -----
>>>      Now on to your question: why should users not be pushed to the
>>>      command line.
>>>
>>>      The answer is easy: there is no reason they should be.  Since
>>>      there is an easier and better UI for users, why force them to
>>>      memorize arcane commands which, in general, only a techie user
>>>      would care about?   Why learn an easier system and a harder system
>>>      when the easier system does all that the general user needs?
>>>
>>>      In other words: the question really is why would you expect
>>>      general users to use a command line in any but the most rare of
>>>      circumstances?   Can you think of a reason?
>>>      -----
>>>
>>>    Homer's claim about Snit's views:
>>>      -----
>>>      The only one "pushing" here, is Snit, pushing an agenda to remove
>>>      the CLI as an option for those who actually /prefer/ it.
>>>      -----
>>>
>>> Is Homer illiterate or purposely lying?  What do you think?
>>
>>
>> Just face it appil OSen is for girlies despite your pathetic
>> attempts to promote that weedy OSen here.
>>
>> Those kind of girlies are so sensitive, they would run away
>> at the sight of the Linux command line. Appil agent flatcake
>> has proved this on numerous occasions.
>>
>> Real men use Linux and command line. They do things faster than
>> any windummy or appil girlie can muster even in a life and death
>> situation.
>>
>>
>> It is very dishonest of you to be saying anything less and even
>> more dishonest to attack a Linux advocate when he is
>> explaining these differences to you in candid terms that someone
>> of your stature is very much unable to understand.
>
> Your illiteracy is, according to Owl, an "art".  Whatever.
>
> Oh, OS X has pretty much the same command line as does Linux (or, really,
> the same command lines).
>
>

It would mean something that clown talking about real men when it's 
posting about tampon parties. :)

7 is nothing but a total joke and a panty dropper.

On 2011-03-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> Oh, OS X has pretty much the same command line as does Linux (or, really,
> the same command lines).

Explainify.

-- 
Look, the thing about my family is there's five of us.
Marge, Bart, Girl Bart, the one who doesn't talk, and
the fat guy. How I loathe him.
	~ Homer J. Simpson

TomB stated in post 20110328192440.88@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11 10:25
AM:

> On 2011-03-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>> Oh, OS X has pretty much the same command line as does Linux (or, really,
>> the same command lines).
> 
> Explainify.

shells.  


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2011-03-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110328192440.88@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11
> 10:25 AM:
>
>> On 2011-03-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>> Oh, OS X has pretty much the same command line as does Linux (or,
>>> really, the same command lines).
>> 
>> Explainify.
>
> shells.  

Ah, shells you mean. In that case I'm sorry to say that more shells
are available on GNU/Linux than on OSX. AFAIK the shells available on
OSX are bash, sh, tcsh, csh and zsh, all available on GNU/Linux too.
Shells such as ksh, ash, dash and fish however are not. AFAIK that is.

At first I thought you were referring to terminal emulators. No idea
what options OSX offers in that regard. On GNU/Linux we have
Gnome-terminal, Konsole, rxvt, rxvt-unicode, mrxvt, xterm, terminator,
aterm...

GNU/Linux is pretty much command line heaven, even more so thanks to
the wide range of command line applications.

Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with options
such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad, compiz, LXDE...
Let's not forget that either.

-- 
Lisa, vampires are make-believe, like elves, gremlins, and eskimos.
	~ Homer J. Simpson

TomB stated in post 20110328194345.795@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11 11:01
AM:

> On 2011-03-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110328192440.88@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11
>> 10:25 AM:
>> 
>>> On 2011-03-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, OS X has pretty much the same command line as does Linux (or,
>>>> really, the same command lines).
>>> 
>>> Explainify.
>> 
>> shells.  
> 
> Ah, shells you mean. In that case I'm sorry to say that more shells
> are available on GNU/Linux than on OSX. AFAIK the shells available on
> OSX are bash, sh, tcsh, csh and zsh, all available on GNU/Linux too.
> Shells such as ksh, ash, dash and fish however are not. AFAIK that is.

Could be that Linux has more options there, but the main ones are on both.
and looking now at least ksh is available... I did not look up the others.

> At first I thought you were referring to terminal emulators. No idea
> what options OSX offers in that regard. On GNU/Linux we have
> Gnome-terminal, Konsole, rxvt, rxvt-unicode, mrxvt, xterm, terminator,
> aterm...

There are a bunch for OS X - though Linux might have more options.
Remember, though, I am not of the mindset that more is always better.  This
is a good counter to those who worship counting choices, but that is mostly
Linux "advocates".

> GNU/Linux is pretty much command line heaven, even more so thanks to
> the wide range of command line applications.
> 
> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with options
> such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad, compiz, LXDE...
> Let's not forget that either.

And this is an areas where quality is far more important than quantity...
those different GUIs come with a cost.  OS X is, for good reasons, generally
seen as having the gold standard of GUIs.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2011-03-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110328194345.795@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11
> 11:01 AM:
>
>> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with
>> options such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad, compiz,
>> LXDE...  Let's not forget that either.
>
> And this is an areas where quality is far more important than
> quantity...  those different GUIs come with a cost. 

Whatever cost you mean, the gain I get from the diversity is well
worth it.

> OS X is, for good reasons, generally seen as having the gold
> standard of GUIs.


-- 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
	~ Groucho Marx

TomB stated in post 20110328225333.97@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11 1:57 PM:

> On 2011-03-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110328194345.795@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11
>> 11:01 AM:
>> 
>>> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with
>>> options such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad, compiz,
>>> LXDE...  Let's not forget that either.
>> 
>> And this is an areas where quality is far more important than
>> quantity...  those different GUIs come with a cost.
> 
> Whatever cost you mean, the gain I get from the diversity is well
> worth it.

What gain?  And how does it balance the loss of efficiency and increased
error rates of having a fractured user interface?

>> OS X is, for good reasons, generally seen as having the gold
>> standard of GUIs.
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2011-03-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110328194345.795@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11
>> 11:01 AM:
>>
>>> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with
>>> options such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad, compiz,
>>> LXDE...  Let's not forget that either.
>>
>> And this is an areas where quality is far more important than
>> quantity...  those different GUIs come with a cost. 
>
> Whatever cost you mean, the gain I get from the diversity is well
> worth it.
>
>> OS X is, for good reasons, generally seen as having the gold
>> standard of GUIs.

Can you detach window decorations from an OSX windows?

-- 
BOFH excuse #214:
 
Fluorescent lights are generating negative ions. If turning them off doesn't work, take them out and put tin foil on the ends.

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post imquii$fng$2@dont-email.me on 3/28/11 2:28 PM:

> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 2011-03-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20110328194345.795@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11
>>> 11:01 AM:
>>> 
>>>> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with
>>>> options such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad, compiz,
>>>> LXDE...  Let's not forget that either.
>>> 
>>> And this is an areas where quality is far more important than
>>> quantity...  those different GUIs come with a cost.
>> 
>> Whatever cost you mean, the gain I get from the diversity is well
>> worth it.
>> 
>>> OS X is, for good reasons, generally seen as having the gold
>>> standard of GUIs.
> 
> Can you detach window decorations from an OSX windows?

Detach window decorations?  Huh?  I do not even know what you mean - remove
the window widgets?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2011-03-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110328225333.97@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11
> 1:57 PM:
> 
>>>> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with
>>>> options such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad,
>>>> compiz, LXDE...  Let's not forget that either.
>>> 
>>> And this is an areas where quality is far more important than
>>> quantity...  those different GUIs come with a cost.
>> 
>> Whatever cost you mean, the gain I get from the diversity is well
>> worth it.
>
> What gain?

I've talked about this before. One one and the same computer I can
geek out with awesome and terminal windows, while the wife and kids
can enjoy a slick and contemporary desktop in full WIMP fashion.

No substitute.

I also often use my laptop as just an X server, running my
applications from the main family desktop. On GNU/Linux this is all
possible out of the box without additional software - wouldn't be able
to cope without all that functionality.

> And how does it balance the loss of efficiency and increased error
> rates of having a fractured user interface?

No issues with that at all. And in reality this 'fractured' user
interface isn't half as bad as you like to think. The desktops of my
family are pretty much 100% Gnome/Gtk, thus pretty uniform. My own
'desktop' is mainly terminal based, with the odd GUI application here
and there, and I cannot say it causes me any grief at all. It is - for
my workflow and at this moment - the most productive environment I can
think of.

>>> OS X is, for good reasons, generally seen as having the gold
>>> standard of GUIs.

-- 
Attempted murder, now honestly, what is that? Do they give a
Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?
	~ Sideshow Bob

TomB stated in post 20110329072606.702@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11 10:42
PM:

> On 2011-03-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110328225333.97@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11
>> 1:57 PM:
>> 
>>>>> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with
>>>>> options such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad,
>>>>> compiz, LXDE...  Let's not forget that either.
>>>> 
>>>> And this is an areas where quality is far more important than
>>>> quantity...  those different GUIs come with a cost.
>>> 
>>> Whatever cost you mean, the gain I get from the diversity is well
>>> worth it.
>> 
>> What gain?
> 
> I've talked about this before. One one and the same computer I can
> geek out with awesome and terminal windows, while the wife and kids
> can enjoy a slick and contemporary desktop in full WIMP fashion.
> 
> No substitute.

That is not a gain from a diversity of UIs.   A single well designed GUI
would serve all of the GUI needs just fine.

> I also often use my laptop as just an X server, running my
> applications from the main family desktop. On GNU/Linux this is all
> possible out of the box without additional software - wouldn't be able
> to cope without all that functionality.

Not relevant.

>> And how does it balance the loss of efficiency and increased error
>> rates of having a fractured user interface?
> 
> No issues with that at all.

You already admitted you had a non-unified GUI.  Those *are* effects of a
lack of consistency.

> And in reality this 'fractured' user interface isn't half as bad as you like
> to think. The desktops of my family are pretty much 100% Gnome/Gtk, thus
> pretty uniform. My own 'desktop' is mainly terminal based, with the odd GUI
> application here and there, and I cannot say it causes me any grief at all. It
> is - for my workflow and at this moment - the most productive environment I
> can think of.
> 
>>>> OS X is, for good reasons, generally seen as having the gold
>>>> standard of GUIs.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2011-03-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110329072606.702@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11 10:42
> PM:
>
>>>>>> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with
>>>>>> options such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad,
>>>>>> compiz, LXDE...  Let's not forget that either.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And this is an areas where quality is far more important than
>>>>> quantity...  those different GUIs come with a cost.
>>>> 
>>>> Whatever cost you mean, the gain I get from the diversity is well
>>>> worth it.
>>> 
>>> What gain?
>> 
>> I've talked about this before. One one and the same computer I can
>> geek out with awesome and terminal windows, while the wife and kids
>> can enjoy a slick and contemporary desktop in full WIMP fashion.
>> 
>> No substitute.
>
> That is not a gain from a diversity of UIs.   A single well designed
> GUI would serve all of the GUI needs just fine.

The 'one size fits all' mentality so typical for Apple users. Remember
this: there currently is not a single graphical environment that can
serve any user's needs, and there never will be. Just like there will
never be a command line environment that will serve any user's needs.

Having many environments available *is* a benefit, and the gain I get
from it is *huge*.

>> I also often use my laptop as just an X server, running my
>> applications from the main family desktop. On GNU/Linux this is all
>> possible out of the box without additional software - wouldn't be
>> able to cope without all that functionality.
>
> Not relevant.

This is a GNU/Linux advocacy group. Anything that highlights the
advantages of GNU/Linux over other operating systems is relevant.

>>> And how does it balance the loss of efficiency and increased error
>>> rates of having a fractured user interface?
>> 
>> No issues with that at all.
>
> You already admitted you had a non-unified GUI.  Those *are* effects
> of a lack of consistency.

Yet I'm having no issues with it at all.

>> And in reality this 'fractured' user interface isn't half as bad as
>> you like to think. The desktops of my family are pretty much 100%
>> Gnome/Gtk, thus pretty uniform. My own 'desktop' is mainly terminal
>> based, with the odd GUI application here and there, and I cannot
>> say it causes me any grief at all. It is - for my workflow and at
>> this moment - the most productive environment I can think of.
>> 
>>>>> OS X is, for good reasons, generally seen as having the gold
>>>>> standard of GUIs.

-- 
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man
to laugh at that man. 

TomB stated in post 20110329185825.569@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/29/11 10:28
AM:

> On 2011-03-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110329072606.702@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/28/11 10:42
>> PM:
>> 
>>>>>>> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with
>>>>>>> options such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad,
>>>>>>> compiz, LXDE...  Let's not forget that either.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And this is an areas where quality is far more important than
>>>>>> quantity...  those different GUIs come with a cost.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whatever cost you mean, the gain I get from the diversity is well
>>>>> worth it.
>>>> 
>>>> What gain?
>>> 
>>> I've talked about this before. One one and the same computer I can
>>> geek out with awesome and terminal windows, while the wife and kids
>>> can enjoy a slick and contemporary desktop in full WIMP fashion.
>>> 
>>> No substitute.
>> 
>> That is not a gain from a diversity of UIs.   A single well designed
>> GUI would serve all of the GUI needs just fine.
> 
> The 'one size fits all' mentality so typical for Apple users.

Nobody said anything about a "one size fits all".  Nobody tried to define
for you, well, anything.

> Remember
> this: there currently is not a single graphical environment that can
> serve any user's needs, and there never will be. Just like there will
> never be a command line environment that will serve any user's needs.

If you mean "every" when you say "any" I agree.  If not, then I am not sure
of your point. 

> Having many environments available *is* a benefit, and the gain I get
> from it is *huge*.

My comments were not about what is *available", but about having the mix and
match approach and the clear weaknesses of that.
 
>>> I also often use my laptop as just an X server, running my
>>> applications from the main family desktop. On GNU/Linux this is all
>>> possible out of the box without additional software - wouldn't be
>>> able to cope without all that functionality.
>> 
>> Not relevant.
> 
> This is a GNU/Linux advocacy group. Anything that highlights the
> advantages of GNU/Linux over other operating systems is relevant.

Not relevant to the *conversation*.  Geeeeez!

>>>> And how does it balance the loss of efficiency and increased error
>>>> rates of having a fractured user interface?
>>> 
>>> No issues with that at all.
>> 
>> You already admitted you had a non-unified GUI.  Those *are* effects
>> of a lack of consistency.
> 
> Yet I'm having no issues with it at all.

OK, there is some small chance that you, unlike the norm, are somehow immune
to things that affect people in general.  I cannot say I know of any study
that shows how *everyone* is affected as the studies show.  With that said,
I know that many people do not see how a poorly designed UI (or a mish mash
of different UIs) affects them and yet it does.  This is far, far more
likely.

But it is the normal "advocate" counter to the massive evidence of the
affects of UI issues: you do not see or understand the affect, and thus this
is somehow supposed to counter the massive data that supports it.  It is not
a convincing argument... not to anyone who is rational.

>>> And in reality this 'fractured' user interface isn't half as bad as
>>> you like to think. The desktops of my family are pretty much 100%
>>> Gnome/Gtk, thus pretty uniform. My own 'desktop' is mainly terminal
>>> based, with the odd GUI application here and there, and I cannot
>>> say it causes me any grief at all. It is - for my workflow and at
>>> this moment - the most productive environment I can think of.
>>> 
>>>>>> OS X is, for good reasons, generally seen as having the gold
>>>>>> standard of GUIs.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2011-03-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110329185825.569@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/29/11 10:28
> AM:
>
>>>>>>>> Of course GNU/Linux is also graphical interface heaven, with
>>>>>>>> options such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, fluxbox, awesome, xmonad,
>>>>>>>> compiz, LXDE...  Let's not forget that either.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And this is an areas where quality is far more important than
>>>>>>> quantity...  those different GUIs come with a cost.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Whatever cost you mean, the gain I get from the diversity is
>>>>>> well worth it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What gain?
>>>> 
>>>> I've talked about this before. One one and the same computer I
>>>> can geek out with awesome and terminal windows, while the wife
>>>> and kids can enjoy a slick and contemporary desktop in full WIMP
>>>> fashion.
>>>> 
>>>> No substitute.
>>> 
>>> That is not a gain from a diversity of UIs.   A single well
>>> designed GUI would serve all of the GUI needs just fine.
>> 
>> The 'one size fits all' mentality so typical for Apple users.
>
> Nobody said anything about a "one size fits all".  Nobody tried to
> define for you, well, anything.

I mention some of the graphical environments available on GNU/Linux,
and note that it allows me give my family a contemporary WIMP
environment (in casu Gnome) while I am able to have a geeky power-user
environment on one and the same computer.

I say this is a huge gain.

You then tell me that it isn't (but really: it *is*), and say that 'a
single well designed GUI would serve /all of the GUI needs/ just
fine'.

If you were not moving away from my point (ie. the availability of
multiple graphical interfaces on one system means that this system can
serve multiple types of users), you were actually telling me that
there should be one single graphical interface that would serve me and
the rest of my family equally well.

If not, I'm at loss about the relevance of your reply and the point
you were trying to make.

>> Remember this: there currently is not a single graphical
>> environment that can serve any user's needs, and there never will
>> be. Just like there will never be a command line environment that
>> will serve any user's needs.
>
> If you mean "every" when you say "any" I agree.  If not, then I am
> not sure of your point.

Yes, 'any' should've been 'every'. The burden of not being a native
English speaker.

But you agree. Good. So you do agree then that having multiple
and very diverse environments on one multiuser OS is a huge benefit?
That with GNU/Linux I can enjoy the geekiness of the power-user
environment called awesome, while the wife and kids can have a
contemporary WIMP experience with Gnome, even simultaneously if so
required?

-- 
Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good,
you'd step over your own mother just to get one! But you
can't stop at one. You wanna drink another woman!
	~ Homer J. Simpson

TomB stated in post 20110329231314.736@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/29/11 2:34
PM:

....
>>>>> No substitute.
>>>> 
>>>> That is not a gain from a diversity of UIs.   A single well
>>>> designed GUI would serve all of the GUI needs just fine.
>>> 
>>> The 'one size fits all' mentality so typical for Apple users.
>> 
>> Nobody said anything about a "one size fits all".  Nobody tried to
>> define for you, well, anything.
> 
> I mention some of the graphical environments available on GNU/Linux,
> and note that it allows me give my family a contemporary WIMP
> environment (in casu Gnome) while I am able to have a geeky power-user
> environment on one and the same computer.
> 
> I say this is a huge gain.
> 
> You then tell me that it isn't (but really: it *is*), and say that 'a
> single well designed GUI would serve /all of the GUI needs/ just
> fine'.
> 
> If you were not moving away from my point (ie. the availability of
> multiple graphical interfaces on one system means that this system can
> serve multiple types of users), you were actually telling me that
> there should be one single graphical interface that would serve me and
> the rest of my family equally well.
> 
> If not, I'm at loss about the relevance of your reply and the point
> you were trying to make.

My point is a mixed GUI leads to lower efficiency and more errors.  And the
data supports this.  Sorry if I was not clear, above - I thought we had
discussed this enough for you to know I am certainly *not* for pushing any
UI on anyone.

>>> Remember this: there currently is not a single graphical
>>> environment that can serve any user's needs, and there never will
>>> be. Just like there will never be a command line environment that
>>> will serve any user's needs.
>> 
>> If you mean "every" when you say "any" I agree.  If not, then I am
>> not sure of your point.
> 
> Yes, 'any' should've been 'every'. The burden of not being a native
> English speaker.

Fair enough.  

> But you agree. Good. So you do agree then that having multiple
> and very diverse environments on one multiuser OS is a huge benefit?

Hmmm, taking things back to the real world for a bit: right now there are
two choices (well, more, but I am looking at just two):

Desktop Linux: multiple and diverse environments
OS X: One unified environment done very well (mostly)

The problem - and it is big problem - for Linux users is that no matter what
environment they pick, they are almost sure to end up with a mish-mash of
different UIs where the programs follow the conventions poorly (or sometimes
just make their own).  Not only does this have direct consequences for
users, but it is also a problem for developers / development (as Adobe has
written about).  

OS X users, on the other hand, can be pretty much assured that their
programs will be done well (at least in terms of UI)... or, to be fair, can
be more assured (there are, to be clear, some lousy OS X programs, too).
For the most part, given that they have a very well designed and *unified*
GUI, they can be more efficient and can benefit from making fewer "user"
errors.  And, of course, they can alter their UI to fit their desires *to
some extent*, so it is not as though they are stuck with what any one
company had provided.  With that said, however, they are limited far more
than they would be with Linux - and there are places where OS X is not
likely to fit needs perfectly (some of my pet peeves are the lack of window
re-resizing from any edge and lack of a real maximize - the former is not
easy to fix, the latter is pretty easy with third party software).  Still,
for uncommon needs, OS X is not going to serve people well.

The benefit for Linux users is if they have one of these uncommon needs
where OS X will not serve them well (which can be a pretty big problem for a
small number of user), or if they just do not like the look and feel of OS X
(which is a smaller problem), then Linux can serve them very well - though
not as well as it would if it could be made more unified.

I do think that Linux (and the OSS ecosystem) will grow to the point where
you get most of the benefits of both - no loss of choice but a gain in
consistency and professional design.  Yes, I know, I hear the "advocates"
screaming that they do not need someone else to design things for them -
they know what they like, but there is a reason pilots do not design their
own cockpits from scratch.  I am not saying folks on Linux should not be
able to do so, but frankly unless they are quite knowledgably in UI matters
(which none in COLA seem to be) they are not going to approach the quality
of a professional team.

> That with GNU/Linux I can enjoy the geekiness of the power-user
> environment called awesome, while the wife and kids can have a
> contemporary WIMP experience with Gnome, even simultaneously if so
> required?



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2011-03-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110329231314.736@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/29/11
> 2:34 PM:
>
> ...
>>>>>> No substitute.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is not a gain from a diversity of UIs.   A single well
>>>>> designed GUI would serve all of the GUI needs just fine.
>>>> 
>>>> The 'one size fits all' mentality so typical for Apple users.
>>> 
>>> Nobody said anything about a "one size fits all".  Nobody tried to
>>> define for you, well, anything.
>> 
>> I mention some of the graphical environments available on
>> GNU/Linux, and note that it allows me give my family a contemporary
>> WIMP environment (in casu Gnome) while I am able to have a geeky
>> power-user environment on one and the same computer.
>> 
>> I say this is a huge gain.
>> 
>> You then tell me that it isn't (but really: it *is*), and say that
>> 'a single well designed GUI would serve /all of the GUI needs/ just
>> fine'.
>> 
>> If you were not moving away from my point (ie. the availability of
>> multiple graphical interfaces on one system means that this system
>> can serve multiple types of users), you were actually telling me
>> that there should be one single graphical interface that would
>> serve me and the rest of my family equally well.
>> 
>> If not, I'm at loss about the relevance of your reply and the point
>> you were trying to make.
>
> My point is a mixed GUI leads to lower efficiency and more errors.
> And the data supports this.  Sorry if I was not clear, above - I
> thought we had discussed this enough for you to know I am certainly
> *not* for pushing any UI on anyone.

Note that I was not talking about /mixing/ different environments. I
was talking about the different environments themselves, and the
benefit of having them on a system used by several people with totally
different needs.

>>>> Remember this: there currently is not a single graphical
>>>> environment that can serve any user's needs, and there never will
>>>> be. Just like there will never be a command line environment that
>>>> will serve any user's needs.
>>> 
>>> If you mean "every" when you say "any" I agree.  If not, then I am
>>> not sure of your point.
>> 
>> Yes, 'any' should've been 'every'. The burden of not being a native
>> English speaker.
>
> Fair enough.  
>
>> But you agree. Good. So you do agree then that having multiple and
>> very diverse environments on one multiuser OS is a huge benefit?
>
> Hmmm, taking things back to the real world for a bit: right now
> there are two choices (well, more, but I am looking at just two):
>
> Desktop Linux: multiple and diverse environments OS X: One unified
> environment done very well (mostly)
>
> The problem - and it is big problem - for Linux users is that no
> matter what environment they pick, they are almost sure to end up
> with a mish-mash of different UIs where the programs follow the
> conventions poorly (or sometimes just make their own).

I do not agree. Not entirely anyway.

Yes, it is very likely a user ends up using programs made for
different environments, but in general applications follow the
conventions for their own environment very well.

Running a KDE application in Gnome is not that different from running
a Windows application on OSX for example. The difference is that the
former is possible, while the latter is not. I would label that as yet
another advantage (with the added 'disadvantage' of ending up with a
mixed environment).

> Not only does this have direct consequences for users, but it is
> also a problem for developers / development (as Adobe has written
> about).  

I think they're full of it, but that's a different topic. In any case
many manage to develop applications for GNU/Linux just fine, even
commercial vendors.

-- 
When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s
pushing the Earth down.

TomB stated in post 20110330192910.825@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/31/11 3:36
PM:

> On 2011-03-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110329231314.736@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/29/11
>> 2:34 PM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>>>> No substitute.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That is not a gain from a diversity of UIs.   A single well
>>>>>> designed GUI would serve all of the GUI needs just fine.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The 'one size fits all' mentality so typical for Apple users.
>>>> 
>>>> Nobody said anything about a "one size fits all".  Nobody tried to
>>>> define for you, well, anything.
>>> 
>>> I mention some of the graphical environments available on
>>> GNU/Linux, and note that it allows me give my family a contemporary
>>> WIMP environment (in casu Gnome) while I am able to have a geeky
>>> power-user environment on one and the same computer.
>>> 
>>> I say this is a huge gain.
>>> 
>>> You then tell me that it isn't (but really: it *is*), and say that
>>> 'a single well designed GUI would serve /all of the GUI needs/ just
>>> fine'.
>>> 
>>> If you were not moving away from my point (ie. the availability of
>>> multiple graphical interfaces on one system means that this system
>>> can serve multiple types of users), you were actually telling me
>>> that there should be one single graphical interface that would
>>> serve me and the rest of my family equally well.
>>> 
>>> If not, I'm at loss about the relevance of your reply and the point
>>> you were trying to make.
>> 
>> My point is a mixed GUI leads to lower efficiency and more errors.
>> And the data supports this.  Sorry if I was not clear, above - I
>> thought we had discussed this enough for you to know I am certainly
>> *not* for pushing any UI on anyone.
> 
> Note that I was not talking about /mixing/ different environments.

You are using Linux - it is implied, after all, there is no unified Linux
desktop (at least not one with a large selection of common programs). But if
that is not what you mean, I apologize.

> I was talking about the different environments themselves, and the benefit of
> having them on a system used by several people with totally different needs.

As I wrote, I have no problem with that.  Heck, if you could do that *and*
have each one be very well designed and consistent then you would have the
best of both desktop Linux and OS X.  And I think that is where Linux will
get to (at least largely).

>>>>> Remember this: there currently is not a single graphical
>>>>> environment that can serve any user's needs, and there never will
>>>>> be. Just like there will never be a command line environment that
>>>>> will serve any user's needs.
>>>> 
>>>> If you mean "every" when you say "any" I agree.  If not, then I am
>>>> not sure of your point.
>>> 
>>> Yes, 'any' should've been 'every'. The burden of not being a native
>>> English speaker.
>> 
>> Fair enough.  
>> 
>>> But you agree. Good. So you do agree then that having multiple and
>>> very diverse environments on one multiuser OS is a huge benefit?
>> 
>> Hmmm, taking things back to the real world for a bit: right now
>> there are two choices (well, more, but I am looking at just two):
>> 
>> Desktop Linux: multiple and diverse environments OS X: One unified
>> environment done very well (mostly)
>> 
>> The problem - and it is big problem - for Linux users is that no
>> matter what environment they pick, they are almost sure to end up
>> with a mish-mash of different UIs where the programs follow the
>> conventions poorly (or sometimes just make their own).
> 
> I do not agree. Not entirely anyway.
> 
> Yes, it is very likely a user ends up using programs made for
> different environments, but in general applications follow the
> conventions for their own environment very well.

If they follow *different* conventions this is not very helpful (though
generally better than following the "right" conventions poorly).

> Running a KDE application in Gnome is not that different from running
> a Windows application on OSX for example. The difference is that the
> former is possible, while the latter is not. I would label that as yet
> another advantage (with the added 'disadvantage' of ending up with a
> mixed environment).

Well, I run Windows and Linux on OS X... but if you want to call that an
advantage, then we need to stop looking at desktop Linux as a unit and
instead talk about KDE / Linux and Gnome / Linux market share (etc.).  That
seems a bit silly.

>> Not only does this have direct consequences for users, but it is
>> also a problem for developers / development (as Adobe has written
>> about).  
> 
> I think they're full of it, but that's a different topic.

I take their word for their reasoning over yours - but, out of curiosity,
what do you think the "real" reason is?

> In any case many manage to develop applications for GNU/Linux just fine, even
> commercial vendors.

Looking now, I find these:
<http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxCommercialApplications.html>

That is a very small amount... esp. when you talk in terms of desktop
applications.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2011-04-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110330192910.825@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/31/11 3:36
> PM:
>
>>> My point is a mixed GUI leads to lower efficiency and more errors.
>>> And the data supports this.  Sorry if I was not clear, above - I
>>> thought we had discussed this enough for you to know I am certainly
>>> *not* for pushing any UI on anyone.
>> 
>> Note that I was not talking about /mixing/ different environments.
>
> You are using Linux - it is implied, after all, there is no unified Linux
> desktop (at least not one with a large selection of common programs). But if
> that is not what you mean, I apologize.

Again I cannot agree. It is perfectly possible to have a very complete
and unified environment on GNU/Linux - more unified than the Redmond
offering even. My family is using the Gnome desktop with nothing but
Gnome applications, and it serves their every need. Hence, they have a
very clean and well-integrated computing environment. Here's a
selection of the programs they use on a daily base:

* Firefox for the web
* Empathy for IM
* Rhythmbox and Gnome Music Player Client for listening to music
* Totem for watching videos (including DVDs)
* Gimp for imaging (my nine year old daughter *loves* that program)
* Transmission for torrents
* Nautilus for file management
* Avant Window Navigator as dock
* Abiword for document processing
* Gnumeric for spreadsheets

The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches nicely
into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
environment indeed:

http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png

Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of luck,
so GNU/Linux it is.

-- 
There are only 10 types of people in this world: those who understand
binary, and those who don't...

On 4/1/2011 6:56 PM, TomB wrote:


> The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches nicely
> into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
> environment indeed:
>
> http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png

I see the folder on the desktop.  Seems you've been bullshitting all 
along about likeing heavy metal, and you're really a Justin Beiber 
fan... Scary.


"Baby baby..."

heh!





> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of luck,
> so GNU/Linux it is.

You made it look a bit like a Mac.  Jealous much?

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:50:14 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 4/1/2011 6:56 PM, TomB wrote:
> 
> 
>> The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches nicely
>> into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
>> environment indeed:
>>
>> http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png
> 
> I see the folder on the desktop.  Seems you've been bullshitting all 
> along about likeing heavy metal, and you're really a Justin Beiber 
> fan... Scary.
> 
> 
> "Baby baby..."
> 
> heh!

OMFG!

Justin Beiber?

Let's see him try and squirm out of this one!

BTW I like Justin, not his music, but the person.
I think he is a good role model for younger kids.
Hopefully he doesn't pull a Brittany Spears or Miley Cyrus and go off
the deep end.

 
>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of luck,
>> so GNU/Linux it is.
> 
> You made it look a bit like a Mac.  Jealous much?

Wouldn't you if you were running Linux?
His desktop still looks awful BTW.


-- 
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta 
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

TomB stated in post 20110402002208.777@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/1/11 3:56 PM:

> On 2011-04-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110330192910.825@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/31/11 3:36
>> PM:
>> 
>>>> My point is a mixed GUI leads to lower efficiency and more errors.
>>>> And the data supports this.  Sorry if I was not clear, above - I
>>>> thought we had discussed this enough for you to know I am certainly
>>>> *not* for pushing any UI on anyone.
>>> 
>>> Note that I was not talking about /mixing/ different environments.
>> 
>> You are using Linux - it is implied, after all, there is no unified Linux
>> desktop (at least not one with a large selection of common programs). But if
>> that is not what you mean, I apologize.
> 
> Again I cannot agree. It is perfectly possible to have a very complete
> and unified environment on GNU/Linux - more unified than the Redmond
> offering even. My family is using the Gnome desktop with nothing but
> Gnome applications, and it serves their every need. Hence, they have a
> very clean and well-integrated computing environment. Here's a
> selection of the programs they use on a daily base:
> 
> * Firefox for the web
> * Empathy for IM
> * Rhythmbox and Gnome Music Player Client for listening to music
> * Totem for watching videos (including DVDs)
> * Gimp for imaging (my nine year old daughter *loves* that program)
> * Transmission for torrents
> * Nautilus for file management
> * Avant Window Navigator as dock
> * Abiword for document processing
> * Gnumeric for spreadsheets
> 
> The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches nicely
> into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
> environment indeed:
> 
> http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png
> 
> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of luck,
> so GNU/Linux it is.

First: when you say it offers something as good as what MS offers, that is
hardly glowing praise.  But to say that Gnome offers a UI as well developed
and OS X is simply not true.

As an example, look at the menu names: "Systeem".  What type typo is that -
where is the quality control?

Ok, just joking about my example (obviously!), but the idea that Gnome is as
in the same league as OS X is a pretty big stretch.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:51:49 -0700, Snit wrote:

> TomB stated in post 20110402002208.777@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/1/11 3:56 PM:
> 
>> On 2011-04-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20110330192910.825@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/31/11 3:36
>>> PM:
>>> 
>>>>> My point is a mixed GUI leads to lower efficiency and more errors.
>>>>> And the data supports this.  Sorry if I was not clear, above - I
>>>>> thought we had discussed this enough for you to know I am certainly
>>>>> *not* for pushing any UI on anyone.
>>>> 
>>>> Note that I was not talking about /mixing/ different environments.
>>> 
>>> You are using Linux - it is implied, after all, there is no unified Linux
>>> desktop (at least not one with a large selection of common programs). But if
>>> that is not what you mean, I apologize.
>> 
>> Again I cannot agree. It is perfectly possible to have a very complete
>> and unified environment on GNU/Linux - more unified than the Redmond
>> offering even. My family is using the Gnome desktop with nothing but
>> Gnome applications, and it serves their every need. Hence, they have a
>> very clean and well-integrated computing environment. Here's a
>> selection of the programs they use on a daily base:
>> 
>> * Firefox for the web
>> * Empathy for IM
>> * Rhythmbox and Gnome Music Player Client for listening to music
>> * Totem for watching videos (including DVDs)
>> * Gimp for imaging (my nine year old daughter *loves* that program)
>> * Transmission for torrents
>> * Nautilus for file management
>> * Avant Window Navigator as dock
>> * Abiword for document processing
>> * Gnumeric for spreadsheets
>> 
>> The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches nicely
>> into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
>> environment indeed:
>> 
>> http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png
>> 
>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of luck,
>> so GNU/Linux it is.
> 
> First: when you say it offers something as good as what MS offers, that is
> hardly glowing praise.  But to say that Gnome offers a UI as well developed
> and OS X is simply not true.
> 
> As an example, look at the menu names: "Systeem".  What type typo is that -
> where is the quality control?
> 
> Ok, just joking about my example (obviously!), but the idea that Gnome is as
> in the same league as OS X is a pretty big stretch.

The Linux advocates love to post lists of "equivalent to Windows/Mac"
applications but the truth is most of those applications are not even
close in functionality, ease of use, look and feel, help system,
features and so forth to the applications they are being compared to.

They pull this little stunt with digital audio programs all the time.
Then they leave out little tidbits like not supporting the popular VSTi
like Kontakt or FX like Sonnox or UAD or top quality instruments from
Vienna and so forth.

So basically with Linux, you end up with a fancy hdisk recorder.
Something any lite program included with your typical consumer sound
card can do. 

To compare ANY of the Linux GUI with OSX is like comparing a Yaris to a
Veyron.

Apples and oranges.

Even Windows 7 GUI isn't as nice as OSX.
It's close, a lot closer than Linux, but still no cigar.
Fonts in particular look so much better under OSX.
If you look at Protools for example under Windows vs OSX, it looks
sharper, crisper and clearer under OSX by far.


-- 
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta 
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

On 2011-04-02, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110402002208.777@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/1/11
> 3:56 PM:
>> On 2011-04-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20110330192910.825@usenet.drumscum.be on
>>> 3/31/11 3:36 PM:
>>> 
>>>>> My point is a mixed GUI leads to lower efficiency and more
>>>>> errors.  And the data supports this.  Sorry if I was not clear,
>>>>> above - I thought we had discussed this enough for you to know I
>>>>> am certainly *not* for pushing any UI on anyone.
>>>> 
>>>> Note that I was not talking about /mixing/ different
>>>> environments.
>>> 
>>> You are using Linux - it is implied, after all, there is no
>>> unified Linux desktop (at least not one with a large selection of
>>> common programs). But if that is not what you mean, I apologize.
>> 
>> Again I cannot agree. It is perfectly possible to have a very
>> complete and unified environment on GNU/Linux - more unified than
>> the Redmond offering even. My family is using the Gnome desktop
>> with nothing but Gnome applications, and it serves their every
>> need. Hence, they have a very clean and well-integrated computing
>> environment. Here's a selection of the programs they use on a daily
>> base:
>> 
>> * Firefox for the web * Empathy for IM * Rhythmbox and Gnome Music
>> Player Client for listening to music * Totem for watching videos
>> (including DVDs) * Gimp for imaging (my nine year old daughter
>> *loves* that program) * Transmission for torrents * Nautilus for
>> file management * Avant Window Navigator as dock * Abiword for
>> document processing * Gnumeric for spreadsheets
>> 
>> The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches
>> nicely into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
>> environment indeed:
>> 
>> http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png
>> 
>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of
>> luck, so GNU/Linux it is.
>
> First: when you say it offers something as good as what MS offers,
> that is hardly glowing praise.

Haha, with that I /can/ agree!

> But to say that Gnome offers a UI as well developed and OS X is
> simply not true.

Well, good that I didn't say that then. But better or not, Gnome is a
very clean and pleasant environment for pointy-clicky users. I put the
OSX-like dock (the Avant Window Navigator) on there because I noticed
that the wife and kids couln't cope well with a classic 'task bar'.
The dock works way better for them, and offers a couple of nice
extras, such as a bookmarks navigator for often used directories.

Like I said, I think a Mac would work perfectly fine for the family
too, but since I use that computer a lot as well, GNU/Linux is the
only sensible choice at this moment.

What will work even better for my family I think will be Canonical's
Unity interface. I personally hate the guts of that thing, but I think
it will work very well for my wife and kids. They're mostly using a
single full screen application at a time, and Unity seems ideal for
that.

> As an example, look at the menu names: "Systeem".  What type typo is
> that - where is the quality control?

That intentional. It's short for System With Lots Of Self-Esteem -
SySteem.

> Ok, just joking about my example (obviously!), but the idea that
> Gnome is as in the same league as OS X is a pretty big stretch.

For pointy-clickers it's a very good environment.

-- 
I asked myself, what is the most mind-numbing, pedestrian job conceivable and
three answers came to mind: Toll booth attendant, Apple Store Genius and what
Penny does. Now, since I don’t like touching other people’s coins, and I refuse
to contribute to the devaluation of the word Genius – here I am.
	~ Sheldon Cooper

On 2011-04-02, the following emerged from the brain of flatfish+++:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:51:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>> * Firefox for the web
>>> * Empathy for IM
>>> * Rhythmbox and Gnome Music Player Client for listening to music
>>> * Totem for watching videos (including DVDs)
>>> * Gimp for imaging (my nine year old daughter *loves* that program)
>>> * Transmission for torrents
>>> * Nautilus for file management
>>> * Avant Window Navigator as dock
>>> * Abiword for document processing
>>> * Gnumeric for spreadsheets
>
> The Linux advocates love to post lists of "equivalent to Windows/Mac"
> applications but (...)

I never said anything about 'equivalent to Windows/Mac'. I was just
listing the applications used daily by my family. And each of the
aplications above serve them *very* well.

-- 
My love life is terrible. The last time I was inside a woman was when I
visited the Statue of Liberty.
	~ Woody Allen

On 2011-04-01, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
> On 4/1/2011 6:56 PM, TomB wrote:
>
>> The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches
>> nicely into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
>> environment indeed:
>>
>> http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png
>
> I see the folder on the desktop.  Seems you've been bullshitting all
> along about likeing heavy metal, and you're really a Justin Beiber
> fan... Scary.
>
> "Baby baby..."
>
> heh!

It's the desktop of my wife, and the directory shows the songs
recently downloaded by one of my daughters (she's 11).

So no worries, I'm still a metalhead, and tonight I'm off boozing with
my wife (also a metal fan) and mates. Thank Hades for Babysittin'
Neighbours.

>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of
>> luck, so GNU/Linux it is.
>
> You made it look a bit like a Mac.  Jealous much?

What you're seeing is pretty much a stock Gnome with just an OSX-like
dock at the bottom. I've put the dock there because it serves my
family better than a classic 'task bar' (which is the Gnome default
for the bottom panel). No jealousy - just a practical consideration.
The dock is a nice OSX-feature, and I can think of a reason to not
have something similar available on a GNU/Linux desktop. And since it
is an official Gnome application, it integrates very well into Gnome.

-- 
The American Dream: Yes, we can!
The Belgian Dream: Yes, week-end!

On 2011-04-02, the following emerged from the brain of flatfish+++:
> 
>> I see the folder on the desktop.  Seems you've been bullshitting all 
>> along about likeing heavy metal, and you're really a Justin Beiber 
>> fan... Scary.
>> 
>> 
>> "Baby baby..."
>> 
>> heh!
>
> OMFG!
>
> Justin Beiber?
>
> Let's see him try and squirm out of this one!

Damn, got me there! The humiliation! The shame!

*slinks away*

-- 
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates
us from the animals... except the weasel.
	~ Homer J. Simpson

TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2011-04-02, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>> Ok, just joking about my example (obviously!), but the idea that
>> Gnome is as in the same league as OS X is a pretty big stretch.
>
> For pointy-clickers it's a very good environment.

Snit seems to be tip-toeing away from the "issue" of KDE.  :-)

-- 
You can do this in a number of ways.  IBM chose to do all of them.
Why do you find that funny?
		-- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350

TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2011-04-01, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>> On 4/1/2011 6:56 PM, TomB wrote:
>>
>>> The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches
>>> nicely into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
>>> environment indeed:
>>>
>>> http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png
>>
>> I see the folder on the desktop.  Seems you've been bullshitting all
>> along about likeing heavy metal, and you're really a Justin Beiber
>> fan... Scary.
>>
>> "Baby baby..."
>>
>> heh!
>
> It's the desktop of my wife, and the directory shows the songs
> recently downloaded by one of my daughters (she's 11).

That stalking bastard keeps looking for a chink in the armor,
doesn't he?

> So no worries, I'm still a metalhead, and tonight I'm off boozing with
> my wife (also a metal fan) and mates. Thank Hades for Babysittin'
> Neighbours.
>
>>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of
>>> luck, so GNU/Linux it is.
>>
>> You made it look a bit like a Mac.  Jealous much?
>
> What you're seeing is pretty much a stock Gnome with just an OSX-like
> dock at the bottom. I've put the dock there because it serves my
> family better than a classic 'task bar' (which is the Gnome default
> for the bottom panel). No jealousy - just a practical consideration.
> The dock is a nice OSX-feature, and I can think of a reason to not
> have something similar available on a GNU/Linux desktop. And since it
> is an official Gnome application, it integrates very well into Gnome.

So it's not "wbar" then?  An OSX-like bar that works with Fluxbox!

-- 
It's illegal in Wilbur, Washington, to ride an ugly horse.

TomB stated in post 20110402181149.523@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/2/11 9:29 AM:

.... 
>>> Again I cannot agree. It is perfectly possible to have a very
>>> complete and unified environment on GNU/Linux - more unified than
>>> the Redmond offering even. My family is using the Gnome desktop
>>> with nothing but Gnome applications, and it serves their every
>>> need. Hence, they have a very clean and well-integrated computing
>>> environment. Here's a selection of the programs they use on a daily
>>> base:
>>> 
>>> * Firefox for the web * Empathy for IM * Rhythmbox and Gnome Music
>>> Player Client for listening to music * Totem for watching videos
>>> (including DVDs) * Gimp for imaging (my nine year old daughter
>>> *loves* that program) * Transmission for torrents * Nautilus for
>>> file management * Avant Window Navigator as dock * Abiword for
>>> document processing * Gnumeric for spreadsheets
>>> 
>>> The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches
>>> nicely into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
>>> environment indeed:
>>> 
>>> http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png
>>> 
>>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of
>>> luck, so GNU/Linux it is.
>> 
>> First: when you say it offers something as good as what MS offers,
>> that is hardly glowing praise.
> 
> Haha, with that I /can/ agree!

Well, it is not as though Windows is done real well... though MS is working
on making it better.

>> But to say that Gnome offers a UI as well developed and OS X is
>> simply not true.
> 
> Well, good that I didn't say that then.

Ok, then I think we agree.  Again.

> But better or not, Gnome is a very clean and pleasant environment for
> pointy-clicky users. I put the OSX-like dock (the Avant Window Navigator) on
> there because I noticed that the wife and kids couln't cope well with a
> classic 'task bar'. The dock works way better for them, and offers a couple of
> nice extras, such as a bookmarks navigator for often used directories.

Even Windows has moved to a more dock-like experience.  It makes more sense
in a greater multitasking world.

> Like I said, I think a Mac would work perfectly fine for the family
> too, but since I use that computer a lot as well, GNU/Linux is the
> only sensible choice at this moment.

No argument here.  Heck, even if OS X would work somewhat better, you would
need to either use a VM to do your Linux stuff or dual boot.  You could not
just have different accounts.

> What will work even better for my family I think will be Canonical's
> Unity interface. I personally hate the guts of that thing, but I think
> it will work very well for my wife and kids. They're mostly using a
> single full screen application at a time, and Unity seems ideal for
> that.

OS X is moving toward working with that better, too.  Have not really used
Unity much (it is flakey with the VM I use), but look forward to using it
more.  When Ubuntu moves there I am sure Parallels will have to support it
better.  Maybe they already do - I have not tested since the last Parallels
update.  Or I could try it in VMWare, though I tend not to have two
different VM programs running at the same time.
 
>> As an example, look at the menu names: "Systeem".  What type typo is
>> that - where is the quality control?
> 
> That intentional. It's short for System With Lots Of Self-Esteem -
> SySteem.

Ah, my mistake.

>> Ok, just joking about my example (obviously!), but the idea that
>> Gnome is as in the same league as OS X is a pretty big stretch.
> 
> For pointy-clickers it's a very good environment.

It is certainly not a bad one... and what I suggest for most of the people I
suggest use desktop Linux.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

flatfish+++ stated in post 1wphddsmlboc1.7yddr475mu1y$.dlg@40tude.net on
4/1/11 6:58 PM:

> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:51:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> TomB stated in post 20110402002208.777@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/1/11 3:56 PM:
>> 
>>> On 2011-04-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> TomB stated in post 20110330192910.825@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/31/11 3:36
>>>> PM:
>>>> 
>>>>>> My point is a mixed GUI leads to lower efficiency and more errors.
>>>>>> And the data supports this.  Sorry if I was not clear, above - I
>>>>>> thought we had discussed this enough for you to know I am certainly
>>>>>> *not* for pushing any UI on anyone.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that I was not talking about /mixing/ different environments.
>>>> 
>>>> You are using Linux - it is implied, after all, there is no unified Linux
>>>> desktop (at least not one with a large selection of common programs). But
>>>> if
>>>> that is not what you mean, I apologize.
>>> 
>>> Again I cannot agree. It is perfectly possible to have a very complete
>>> and unified environment on GNU/Linux - more unified than the Redmond
>>> offering even. My family is using the Gnome desktop with nothing but
>>> Gnome applications, and it serves their every need. Hence, they have a
>>> very clean and well-integrated computing environment. Here's a
>>> selection of the programs they use on a daily base:
>>> 
>>> * Firefox for the web
>>> * Empathy for IM
>>> * Rhythmbox and Gnome Music Player Client for listening to music
>>> * Totem for watching videos (including DVDs)
>>> * Gimp for imaging (my nine year old daughter *loves* that program)
>>> * Transmission for torrents
>>> * Nautilus for file management
>>> * Avant Window Navigator as dock
>>> * Abiword for document processing
>>> * Gnumeric for spreadsheets
>>> 
>>> The PC boots with a nice graphical splash screen, and launches nicely
>>> into the GDM login screen. It is a very clean and integrated
>>> environment indeed:
>>> 
>>> http://drumscum.be/cola/cap.png
>>> 
>>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of luck,
>>> so GNU/Linux it is.
>> 
>> First: when you say it offers something as good as what MS offers, that is
>> hardly glowing praise.  But to say that Gnome offers a UI as well developed
>> and OS X is simply not true.
>> 
>> As an example, look at the menu names: "Systeem".  What type typo is that -
>> where is the quality control?
>> 
>> Ok, just joking about my example (obviously!), but the idea that Gnome is as
>> in the same league as OS X is a pretty big stretch.
> 
> The Linux advocates love to post lists of "equivalent to Windows/Mac"
> applications but the truth is most of those applications are not even
> close in functionality, ease of use, look and feel, help system,
> features and so forth to the applications they are being compared to.

Which means that the OS X environment, in general, would serve people better
than would Gnome on, say, Ubuntu.  Agreed.

> They pull this little stunt with digital audio programs all the time.
> Then they leave out little tidbits like not supporting the popular VSTi
> like Kontakt or FX like Sonnox or UAD or top quality instruments from
> Vienna and so forth.
> 
> So basically with Linux, you end up with a fancy hdisk recorder.
> Something any lite program included with your typical consumer sound
> card can do. 
> 
> To compare ANY of the Linux GUI with OSX is like comparing a Yaris to a
> Veyron.
> 
> Apples and oranges.

So to speak.  :)

> Even Windows 7 GUI isn't as nice as OSX.
> It's close, a lot closer than Linux, but still no cigar.
> Fonts in particular look so much better under OSX.
> If you look at Protools for example under Windows vs OSX, it looks
> sharper, crisper and clearer under OSX by far.

Apple focuses on many details of usability... more so than any other tech
company.  This does *not* mean that they always get things right (or that
there is always *a* right way to do things), but they are really quite far
ahead of the competition in most of the areas where they compete.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post in7p9l$qvc$2@dont-email.me on 4/2/11 11:18 AM:

> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 2011-04-02, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>>> Ok, just joking about my example (obviously!), but the idea that
>>> Gnome is as in the same league as OS X is a pretty big stretch.
>> 
>> For pointy-clickers it's a very good environment.
> 
> Snit seems to be tip-toeing away from the "issue" of KDE.  :-)

Er?  What?  You snipped just to make that up, eh?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:17:02 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post in7p9l$qvc$2@dont-email.me on 4/2/11 11:18 AM:
> 
>> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> On 2011-04-02, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>>> Ok, just joking about my example (obviously!), but the idea that
>>>> Gnome is as in the same league as OS X is a pretty big stretch.
>>> 
>>> For pointy-clickers it's a very good environment.
>> 
>> Snit seems to be tip-toeing away from the "issue" of KDE.  :-)
> 
> Er?  What?  You snipped just to make that up, eh?

Yea, Liarmutt is up to his old tricks again.
Snip and run.
Start new threads with aborted subject lines.

The usual garbage coming from a twisted, frustrated juvenile.

-- 
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta 
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

TomB stated in post 20110402183509.13@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/2/11 9:42 AM:

>>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of
>>> luck, so GNU/Linux it is.
>> 
>> You made it look a bit like a Mac.  Jealous much?
> 
> What you're seeing is pretty much a stock Gnome with just an OSX-like
> dock at the bottom. I've put the dock there because it serves my
> family better than a classic 'task bar' (which is the Gnome default
> for the bottom panel). No jealousy - just a practical consideration.
> The dock is a nice OSX-feature, and I can think of a reason to not
> have something similar available on a GNU/Linux desktop. And since it
> is an official Gnome application, it integrates very well into Gnome.

Curious: what app?  I might play with it and compare.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2011-04-03, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110402183509.13@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/2/11 9:42 AM:
>
>>>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of
>>>> luck, so GNU/Linux it is.
>>> 
>>> You made it look a bit like a Mac.  Jealous much?
>> 
>> What you're seeing is pretty much a stock Gnome with just an
>> OSX-like dock at the bottom. I've put the dock there because it
>> serves my family better than a classic 'task bar' (which is the
>> Gnome default for the bottom panel). No jealousy - just a practical
>> consideration.  The dock is a nice OSX-feature, and I can think of
							    ^'t
>> a reason to not have something similar available on a GNU/Linux
>> desktop. And since it is an official Gnome application, it
>> integrates very well into Gnome.
>
> Curious: what app?  I might play with it and compare.

Avant Window Navigator.

$ sudo apt-get install avant-window-navigator

-- 
Thats galloping insanity for you if you ask me.
	~ 7

On 2011-04-03, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20110402181149.523@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/2/11 9:29 AM:
>
>> But better or not, Gnome is a very clean and pleasant environment
>> for pointy-clicky users. I put the OSX-like dock (the Avant Window
>> Navigator) on there because I noticed that the wife and kids
>> couln't cope well with a classic 'task bar'. The dock works way
>> better for them, and offers a couple of nice extras, such as a
>> bookmarks navigator for often used directories.
>
> Even Windows has moved to a more dock-like experience.  It makes
> more sense in a greater multitasking world.

Personally, I don't like docks. It wouldn't make sense in my
environment anyway. I never minimize a window (I don't even have a
keybinding set up for 'minimize' in my awesome config) so all my
running applications are 'up' in one of my tags.

-- 
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us.
Pigs treat us as equals.
	~ Winston Churchill

On 2011-04-02, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> What you're seeing is pretty much a stock Gnome with just an
>> OSX-like dock at the bottom. I've put the dock there because it
>> serves my family better than a classic 'task bar' (which is the
>> Gnome default for the bottom panel). No jealousy - just a practical
>> consideration.  The dock is a nice OSX-feature, and I can think of
>> a reason to not have something similar available on a GNU/Linux
>> desktop. And since it is an official Gnome application, it
>> integrates very well into Gnome.
>
> So it's not "wbar" then?  An OSX-like bar that works with Fluxbox!

Tried wbar, but didn't like it. Awn is a lot better IMO with the added
bonus of good Gnome integration. It works in fluxbox by the way, but
since there is no compositing it is rendered with a black background
(haven't tried if xcompmgr can work around this).

-- 
If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck
Norris has more money than you. 

TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2011-04-03, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110402181149.523@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/2/11 9:29 AM:
>>
>>> But better or not, Gnome is a very clean and pleasant environment
>>> for pointy-clicky users. I put the OSX-like dock (the Avant Window
>>> Navigator) on there because I noticed that the wife and kids
>>> couln't cope well with a classic 'task bar'. The dock works way
>>> better for them, and offers a couple of nice extras, such as a
>>> bookmarks navigator for often used directories.
>>
>> Even Windows has moved to a more dock-like experience.  It makes
>> more sense in a greater multitasking world.
>
> Personally, I don't like docks. It wouldn't make sense in my
> environment anyway. I never minimize a window (I don't even have a
> keybinding set up for 'minimize' in my awesome config) so all my
> running applications are 'up' in one of my tags.

Docks take up too much screen real estate.

Hell, even gkrellm does, when you have four or eight CPUs!  :-)

-- 
Give me a fish and I will eat today.
 
Teach me to fish and I will eat forever.

TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2011-04-02, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> What you're seeing is pretty much a stock Gnome with just an
>>> OSX-like dock at the bottom. I've put the dock there because it
>>> serves my family better than a classic 'task bar' (which is the
>>> Gnome default for the bottom panel). No jealousy - just a practical
>>> consideration.  The dock is a nice OSX-feature, and I can think of
>>> a reason to not have something similar available on a GNU/Linux
>>> desktop. And since it is an official Gnome application, it
>>> integrates very well into Gnome.
>>
>> So it's not "wbar" then?  An OSX-like bar that works with Fluxbox!
>
> Tried wbar, but didn't like it. Awn is a lot better IMO with the added
> bonus of good Gnome integration.

Wow.  With 300 Mb of disk space required, it ought to be.  Checking that box
brings in brasero, evolution, a whole bunch of gnome crap.  Ye gods.
No thanks.

> It works in fluxbox by the way, but
> since there is no compositing it is rendered with a black background
> (haven't tried if xcompmgr can work around this).

You have to turn off pseudo-transparency in fluxbox first.
> -- 
> If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck
> Norris has more money than you. 

Heh.  I modified the sigs below to suit.  I do like Hal Abelson's statement
the best.  :-D

-- 
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the
shoulders of giants.
		-- Isaac Newton
 
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the
shoulders of Isaac Newton.
		-- Chuck Norris
 
In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with
the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
		-- Gerald Holton
 
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on
my shoulders.
		-- Hal Abelson
 
Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders.
		-- Gauss
 
Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists
stand on each other's toes.
		-- Richard Hamming
 
It has been said that physicists stand on one another's shoulders.  If
this is the case, then programmers stand on one another's toes, and
software engineers dig each other's graves.
		-- Unknown

TomB stated in post 20110403120320.932@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/3/11 3:09 AM:

> On 2011-04-03, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110402181149.523@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/2/11 9:29 AM:
>> 
>>> But better or not, Gnome is a very clean and pleasant environment
>>> for pointy-clicky users. I put the OSX-like dock (the Avant Window
>>> Navigator) on there because I noticed that the wife and kids
>>> couln't cope well with a classic 'task bar'. The dock works way
>>> better for them, and offers a couple of nice extras, such as a
>>> bookmarks navigator for often used directories.
>> 
>> Even Windows has moved to a more dock-like experience.  It makes
>> more sense in a greater multitasking world.
> 
> Personally, I don't like docks. It wouldn't make sense in my
> environment anyway. I never minimize a window (I don't even have a
> keybinding set up for 'minimize' in my awesome config) so all my
> running applications are 'up' in one of my tags.

I rarely minimize windows, but I hide apps often.  I also close all open
windows some apps, such as iTunes, on a regular basis.  With OS X, you have
the choice of minimizing, hiding, closing all windows or moving windows to
another "space".  Hmmm, I guess this is an area where OS X offers more
choice than Windows or, as far as I know, at least most Linux desktops.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2011-04-03, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>>>> What you're seeing is pretty much a stock Gnome with just an
>>>> OSX-like dock at the bottom. I've put the dock there because it
>>>> serves my family better than a classic 'task bar' (which is the
>>>> Gnome default for the bottom panel). No jealousy - just a
>>>> practical consideration.  The dock is a nice OSX-feature, and I
>>>> can think of a reason to not have something similar available on
>>>> a GNU/Linux desktop. And since it is an official Gnome
>>>> application, it integrates very well into Gnome.
>>>
>>> So it's not "wbar" then?  An OSX-like bar that works with Fluxbox!
>>
>> Tried wbar, but didn't like it. Awn is a lot better IMO with the
>> added bonus of good Gnome integration.
>
> Wow.  With 300 Mb of disk space required, it ought to be.  Checking
> that box brings in brasero, evolution, a whole bunch of gnome crap.
> Ye gods.  No thanks.

Yeah, it basically pulls in the entire Gnome desktop. Since I have
that installed on the family computer anyway it isn't really an issue
though. My laptop is another story. Don't even have a login manager on
there. Typing 'startx' after logging in isn't that big of a deal ;-)
(saves me another process running as root too).

-- 
Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes
the element of surprise.

TomB stated in post 20110403095214.634@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/3/11 12:54
AM:

> On 2011-04-03, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20110402183509.13@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/2/11 9:42 AM:
>> 
>>>>> Would a Mac be fine too for them? Sure. But then I'd be out of
>>>>> luck, so GNU/Linux it is.
>>>> 
>>>> You made it look a bit like a Mac.  Jealous much?
>>> 
>>> What you're seeing is pretty much a stock Gnome with just an
>>> OSX-like dock at the bottom. I've put the dock there because it
>>> serves my family better than a classic 'task bar' (which is the
>>> Gnome default for the bottom panel). No jealousy - just a practical
>>> consideration.  The dock is a nice OSX-feature, and I can think of
>    ^'t
>>> a reason to not have something similar available on a GNU/Linux
>>> desktop. And since it is an official Gnome application, it
>>> integrates very well into Gnome.
>> 
>> Curious: what app?  I might play with it and compare.
> 
> Avant Window Navigator.
> 
> $ sudo apt-get install avant-window-navigator

I use the Ubuntu Software Center... I understand if you mix that with
apt-get you hose your system.

Ok.  Just kidding. :)

I will try it out and let you know what I think.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post in9mcp$i89$1@dont-email.me on 4/3/11 4:40 AM:

> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 2011-04-03, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20110402181149.523@usenet.drumscum.be on 4/2/11 9:29 AM:
>>> 
>>>> But better or not, Gnome is a very clean and pleasant environment
>>>> for pointy-clicky users. I put the OSX-like dock (the Avant Window
>>>> Navigator) on there because I noticed that the wife and kids
>>>> couln't cope well with a classic 'task bar'. The dock works way
>>>> better for them, and offers a couple of nice extras, such as a
>>>> bookmarks navigator for often used directories.
>>> 
>>> Even Windows has moved to a more dock-like experience.  It makes
>>> more sense in a greater multitasking world.
>> 
>> Personally, I don't like docks. It wouldn't make sense in my
>> environment anyway. I never minimize a window (I don't even have a
>> keybinding set up for 'minimize' in my awesome config) so all my
>> running applications are 'up' in one of my tags.
> 
> Docks take up too much screen real estate.

They can be hidden.  With my 21" screen, though, I do not hide it.  I used
to with a smaller screen.

> Hell, even gkrellm does, when you have four or eight CPUs!  :-)



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]