[Re: [LIG] RIP linux on the desktop - proves what I have been saying for quite some time]

Discussion:

Nikhil Datta

2001-05-26 12:51:53 UTC

I dont see how adding features for newbies makes it any less usable for
power-users. At the most you need to spend a little time to switch off >the

stuff you dont need.

Saying that Linux is for power-users only is a curious kind of >intellectual

arrogance that, IMHO, is completely wrong.

Please re-read my mail. I've no objection to any user, of caste, color,
intellectual ability or experience using Linux. But they need to come in with
a willingness to learn - learning the Linux/unix way of doing things. I object
to KDE/GNOME because of what they advocate - bloatware, and rehashing the
crappy windows way of doing things. I ask you - what is the difference betweek
KDE/GNOME and Windows. They both crash every bit as often,(Atul shut up here -
we all know your trusty P-1 runs circles around every one else's P3's, and
magically overcomes all software bugs) they are incompatible (from a UI
coinsistency point of view) with each other, I need to install hundreds of
MB's of libraries and support files to run the smallest application, It add 10
seconds to my system start up time. And it realy doesn't achieve me doing my
work any *better*, but it does let your average newbie continue to function in
the same, terrible lost way he has been doing so far. I could probably think
of 10 more reasons at least, without too much effort.

The point of my mail was not that Linux will *die* on the desktop, but that it
will remain a niche product for power users. As a result, losing out on the
newbies and the "windows weenies" is of no loss to me, or any of us here.
Changing core design philosophies, IMHO, is too great a cost to pay to attract
users.

In short - are we trying to build the *best* damn OS out there, or trying to
build the *most popular* OS out there. I'm sure we agree they are not always
mutually compatible. (Atul, liken this to our discussion about the moderation
style of the BLUG list)

My 'intellectual arrogance' as you put it, has nothing to do with this.

nikk

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-26 09:44:56 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nikhil Datta
The point of my mail was not that Linux will *die* on the desktop, but that it
will remain a niche product for power users. As a result, losing out on the
newbies and the "windows weenies" is of no loss to me, or any of us here.
Changing core design philosophies, IMHO, is too great a cost to pay to attract
users.

Excellent point. Add to the cost the needless waste of alienating users.
It's not just the GUI model that's changing in linux all the time. A quest
for user friendliness automatically means less paranoid security policies,
far more time required to secure things and consequently more jokes about
how "Deadrat is worse than windows" etc.

This might bring in several joe users (who will mostly switch right back to
windows after a while) but it will also alienate linux's core market -
sysadmins, programmers and other power users.

Speaking of joe users, I don't need to point out what usually happens to a
default "user friendly" install of linux if left exposed to the 'net on a
broadband connection (DSL, cablemodems ...). I've heard cases of such boxen
meeting their predestined fate within 20 minutes of eth0 being brought up.

Said Joe User is likely to fall back on windows and a "personal firewall"
like Blackice. Yeah, he's much more vulnerable there, but at least he feels
more protected by the "firewall" he's installed :) If he puts a linux box
on that line, he'll have to learn a lot of sysadmin skills if he hopes to
stay safe.

Post by Nikhil Datta
In short - are we trying to build the *best* damn OS out there, or trying to
build the *most popular* OS out there. I'm sure we agree they are not always
mutually compatible.

Most popular *where* would be the next question. Linux is already extremely
popular as a server OS (for web, mail and DNS servers, say). Excellent, so
we work to making linux more and more popular.

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Atul Chitnis

2001-05-26 10:06:29 UTC

Permalink

(Aside: that must have been powerful stuff you were on last night! ;-)

Simple question for you - unless easy-to-use and stable interfaces like
KDE become available, how do you expect Linux to become a non-niche
product meant for non-power-users?

By wishing on a star? ;-)

Remember WindowMaker 0.01? It was crap, but *today* you swear by it. Does
that tell you something? Such as "things change"?

Post by Nikhil Datta
In short - are we trying to build the *best* damn OS out there, or trying to
build the *most popular* OS out there. I'm sure we agree they are not always
mutually compatible. (Atul, liken this to our discussion about the moderation
style of the BLUG list)

I disagree completely, because I feel you are very, very wrong and
trashing away in an elitist mode I thoroughly detest.

I see Linux as an OS for the people, especially here in India. Anything
that makes it easier for them to work with furthers that objective. Saying
that this is wrong is making a mockery of we are doing.

Oh, and I do *not* see the relevance of the remark at the end of the para.

Post by Nikhil Datta
My 'intellectual arrogance' as you put it, has nothing to do with this.

In fact, Biju hit it so correctly on the head that the flat disk you see
there was once upon a time a nail.

Some people I know see Linux as a tool/platform to differentiate
themselves from the "great unwashed masses" (sarcasm intended) rather
than a better and more sensible way of doing things that can (and will) in
the future benefit a huge number of people who do not even have access to
computers today.

If Linux is destined to be a power-user's social differentiation tool to
propagate the concept of a "guru class", I want to have nothing to with
it.

Thankfully, this is not the case, and you are wrong. As I keep saying,
time will tell.

The fact that your tirade was triggered off because your Celeron/700 Mhz
with 192 MB or RAM machine crashed when running KDE has, of course,
nothing to do with all this, irrespective of the fact that (as you have so
kindly already stated) KDE runs very happily on my P1/233 MHz with 128 MB
RAM. I am not saying that it is lightning fast, but it is comfortable,
usable and a pleasure to work with.

Atul

--
-------------------------------------------
Atul Chitnis | ***@exocore.com
Exocore Consulting | http://www.exocore.com
Bangalore, India | +91 (80) 344-0397
-------------------------------------------

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-26 10:30:39 UTC

Permalink

Post by Atul Chitnis
Simple question for you - unless easy-to-use and stable interfaces like
KDE become available, how do you expect Linux to become a non-niche
product meant for non-power-users?

Why should it become one?

Post by Atul Chitnis
I disagree completely, because I feel you are very, very wrong and
trashing away in an elitist mode I thoroughly detest.
I see Linux as an OS for the people, especially here in India. Anything
that makes it easier for them to work with furthers that objective. Saying
that this is wrong is making a mockery of we are doing.

If you are talking of small customized palm devices like simputer, which
just happens to run on linux (and where linux is more or less transparent to
the user) then I'd agree.

Despite the best efforts of kde, gnome and such, you _cannot_ make linux
transparent to the user. There'll always be the dreaded bash prompt lurking
in the background, and the linux user has to face up to it, or rather,
welcome it.

Post by Atul Chitnis
Some people I know see Linux as a tool/platform to differentiate
themselves from the "great unwashed masses" (sarcasm intended) rather
than a better and more sensible way of doing things that can (and will) in
the future benefit a huge number of people who do not even have access to
computers today.

Laborious and ponderous sarcasm aside, linux is not a tool or a platform for
*differentiating* oneself from "the great unwashed masses". It is a
powerful tool / platform, intended for power users, period.

Post by Atul Chitnis
If Linux is destined to be a power-user's social differentiation tool to
propagate the concept of a "guru class", I want to have nothing to with
it.

Social differences? Guru class? Those are way off the track. I don't use
linux because it has some kind of grunge, macho style like leather and
tattoos. Nor do most of the people here. Stuff like "linux r00lz, debian
r00lz, redhat sux, 'doze eww yuck" is not a religion with all that many
linux users, you'll find.

I (and most likely, other people here) use linux (or $UNIX) because it is
the best and most stable OS around. Not because it is some kind of
ego-booster and makes me feel superior.

Post by Atul Chitnis
The fact that your tirade was triggered off because your Celeron/700 Mhz
with 192 MB or RAM machine crashed when running KDE has, of course,
nothing to do with all this, irrespective of the fact that (as you have so
kindly already stated) KDE runs very happily on my P1/233 MHz with 128 MB
RAM. I am not saying that it is lightning fast, but it is comfortable,
usable and a pleasure to work with.

Your Mileage May Vary. Weirdly enough, it seems to vary drastically from
the mileage most people gain from using KDE or Gnome.

And I rather suspect Nikhil's "tirade" (s/tirade/reasoned\ post/) comes from
rather deeply held convictions, and is not a spur of the moment hissy fit
thrown because his kde crashed while yours runs stable.

Yeah, right, you very likely won't see my post ... don't know why I bother
to post this at all.

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Kingsly John

2001-05-26 11:23:20 UTC

Permalink

On Sat, 26 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

|* Atul Chitnis [linux-india] <26/05/01 15:36 +0530>:
|> Simple question for you - unless easy-to-use and stable interfaces like
|> KDE become available, how do you expect Linux to become a non-niche
|> product meant for non-power-users?
|
| Why should it become one?

Why not ? ;-)

| If you are talking of small customized palm devices like simputer, which
| just happens to run on linux (and where linux is more or less transparent to
| the user) then I'd agree.

Why can't there be a GUI interface that is just as transparent ?? if Apple
could come up with one for Mac OS X(transparent in more ways than one! ;-)
... can't the opensource ppl. do it too ??

| Despite the best efforts of kde, gnome and such, you _cannot_ make linux
| transparent to the user. There'll always be the dreaded bash prompt lurking
| in the background, and the linux user has to face up to it, or rather,
| welcome it.

Again you are talking power user... how many windoze users actually use
the MS-DOS prompt for anything ???

I would say most of the home users use their computers for nothing more
than surfing the net and printing letters!
(And playing games... but then again I know a lot of windoze users who
think I'm crazy to play games!!)

| Laborious and ponderous sarcasm aside, linux is not a tool or a platform for
| *differentiating* oneself from "the great unwashed masses". It is a
| powerful tool / platform, intended for power users, period.

Heard about the blind linux project ??

| I (and most likely, other people here) use linux (or $UNIX) because it is
| the best and most stable OS around. Not because it is some kind of
| ego-booster and makes me feel superior.

The same reason why the masses would like to use it too... because it's
the most stable OS around! nobody likes the BSOD!

| Your Mileage May Vary. Weirdly enough, it seems to vary drastically from
| the mileage most people gain from using KDE or Gnome.

It again depends on what you do on it! maybe Atul is using only the
non-buggy proggies! (consciously or unconsciously)

Windoze is /pretty stable/ too if you are happy with using notepad !! :o)
(and *never* install any software on it!)

And if you are a power user.. why should you be worried about what happens
on the desktop front ???? no one is asking you to use KDE/gnome .. when
you can stick to twm/fvwm + xterm +vi/emacs+bash ! And as I said before
the bloat is only on the software front... not at the OS level!

[***@utopia kingsly]# ls -l /boot/bzImage-2.4.3
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 782412 Apr 23 12:20 /boot/bzImage-2.4.3
[***@utopia kingsly]#

Kingsly
.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Sat May 26 16:37:48 IST 2001 .:'

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-26 14:53:00 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
Why not ? ;-)

Because it'd be a colossal waste of linux. You _can_ use a Ferrari sports
car like a bullock cart or farm truck, but be just like dumbing down linux.

Post by Kingsly John
Why can't there be a GUI interface that is just as transparent ?? if Apple
could come up with one for Mac OS X(transparent in more ways than one! ;-)
... can't the opensource ppl. do it too ??

Seen Linus rant about the Mac kernel right? :) And compiling on OSX is a
pain, I hear :)

Post by Kingsly John
| Despite the best efforts of kde, gnome and such, you _cannot_ make linux
| transparent to the user. There'll always be the dreaded bash prompt lurking
| in the background, and the linux user has to face up to it, or rather,
| welcome it.
Again you are talking power user... how many windoze users actually use
the MS-DOS prompt for anything ???

OK, now tell me how many kde and gnome users use the bash prompt (or tell me
how many kde and gnome users _have_ to use the bash prompt at some time or
the other).

Post by Kingsly John
I would say most of the home users use their computers for nothing more
than surfing the net and printing letters!
(And playing games... but then again I know a lot of windoze users who
think I'm crazy to play games!!)

Oh, Quake and Unreal on a linux box beat anything 'doze has to offer :)

Post by Kingsly John
| Laborious and ponderous sarcasm aside, linux is not a tool or a platform for
| *differentiating* oneself from "the great unwashed masses". It is a
| powerful tool / platform, intended for power users, period.
Heard about the blind linux project ??

Yes. And the Simputer. But those are beautiful apps that _use_ linux. And
it's a disservice to linux users if it is made transparent to them.

Post by Kingsly John
| I (and most likely, other people here) use linux (or $UNIX) because it is
| the best and most stable OS around. Not because it is some kind of
| ego-booster and makes me feel superior.
The same reason why the masses would like to use it too... because it's
the most stable OS around! nobody likes the BSOD!

Exactly. I see we agree on at least one point :)

Post by Kingsly John
| Your Mileage May Vary. Weirdly enough, it seems to vary drastically from
| the mileage most people gain from using KDE or Gnome.
It again depends on what you do on it! maybe Atul is using only the
non-buggy proggies! (consciously or unconsciously)

So man, KDE doesn't crash all that often - but you ought to admit it _is_ a
memory hog. OK, if you got a lot of patience it will run - but I have a SiS
6326 card on my office comp. Running kde with framebuffer there is more of
a pain than I need, so I switched to blackbox and then to twm.

Post by Kingsly John
Windoze is /pretty stable/ too if you are happy with using notepad !! :o)
(and *never* install any software on it!)

Yeah.

Post by Kingsly John
And if you are a power user.. why should you be worried about what happens
on the desktop front ???? no one is asking you to use KDE/gnome .. when
you can stick to twm/fvwm + xterm +vi/emacs+bash ! And as I said before
the bloat is only on the software front... not at the OS level!

Even the OS level _is_ bloating. Linus was ranting in the LKML (from a
linuxtoday article I read) about kludging in stuff for all kinds of weird
non standard stuff that's causing kernel bloat (major and minor numbers for
hardware, for example ... he said something like "all right, no more of this
shit").

Post by Kingsly John
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 782412 Apr 23 12:20 /boot/bzImage-2.4.3

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Kingsly John

2001-05-26 17:00:21 UTC

Permalink

On Sat, 26 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

|Kingsly John rearranged electrons thusly:
|> Why not ? ;-)
|
| Because it'd be a colossal waste of linux. You _can_ use a Ferrari sports
| car like a bullock cart or farm truck, but be just like dumbing down linux.

I would say that it would be more like driving a BMW or a Merc on indian
roads... the person would never make full use of the power/features... but
it does give him an oppurtunity to get acquanted with it... so when he
gets on an Autobahn... he won't be at a total loss as to what to do!

|Seen Linus rant about the Mac kernel right? :) And compiling on OSX is a
|pain, I hear :)

So we'll have great kernel and a great interface to go with it!! :o)

| OK, now tell me how many kde and gnome users use the bash prompt (or tell me
| how many kde and gnome users _have_ to use the bash prompt at some time or
| the other).

No they don't have to... let my sister on my machine to type out a few
mail on the offline mode today ... and she clicked send... and kde dialed
out and got her online! (while I use a term and su and type wvdial isp)

so we are actually there at the stage where a user doesn't have to use a
shell!!

These days I just press the power switch on my CPU to shutdown my
computer... haven't used shutdown -h in ages now!!

| Oh, Quake and Unreal on a linux box beat anything 'doze has to offer :)

So I have heard... I still get choppy video on q3 though it does look
better than it does on windoze... do you know how one measures framerates ??

The problem with games is there's a lack of variety for linux .. though we
are getting there.. !

| a pain than I need, so I switched to blackbox and then to twm.

Configuring the lightweight window managers is a pain... one of my friends
liked my fvwm desktop... but when I showed him the config files... he was
like.. "I'm not going to learn how to do that .. I'll stick what i have!"

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Sat May 26 22:13:28 IST 2001 .:'

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-26 19:00:50 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
I would say that it would be more like driving a BMW or a Merc on indian
roads... the person would never make full use of the power/features... but
it does give him an oppurtunity to get acquanted with it... so when he
gets on an Autobahn... he won't be at a total loss as to what to do!

Heck man, with a linux box, the guy's _already_ on the autobahn - he is the
sole decider of who's the fastest to go.

Post by Kingsly John
|Seen Linus rant about the Mac kernel right? :) And compiling on OSX is a
|pain, I hear :)
So we'll have great kernel and a great interface to go with it!! :o)

I suppose so. Even BillG seems to think so, as WinXP is alleged to be a
blatant copy and paste of the Mac OSX GUI (IIRC)

Post by Kingsly John
No they don't have to... let my sister on my machine to type out a few
mail on the offline mode today ... and she clicked send... and kde dialed
out and got her online! (while I use a term and su and type wvdial isp)

OK man - so I'm on a dialup and I have downloaded a few dozen mails (linux
india posts, say). Gotta reply to them _all_. If I type replies while
online, I'll likely faint when I see my phone bill :)

OK, OK, kmail can queue messages and send them when you say so I suppose,
but still ... :)

Dont mind me - just nitpicking. If you can stand the huge overhead on your
system, kde / gnome do make the job easier for a newbie. And life on an
xterm / terminal is not all that hard ... pico and jed for editing instead
of vi / emacs, pine for mail instead of mutt, there're all kinds of cushions
available :)

Post by Kingsly John
so we are actually there at the stage where a user doesn't have to use a
shell!!

Then, out of the blue, the power goes off when the comp is on. As soon as
the newbie reboots, he's dropped into a maintenance shell for a manual fsck.

[ok, ok, softupdates on freebsd 5-current takes care of this - and an
alternative filesystem to ext2 - say reiserfs - also minimizes this problem]

Post by Kingsly John
These days I just press the power switch on my CPU to shutdown my
computer... haven't used shutdown -h in ages now!!

You use reiserfs then?

Post by Kingsly John
| Oh, Quake and Unreal on a linux box beat anything 'doze has to offer :)
So I have heard... I still get choppy video on q3 though it does look
better than it does on windoze... do you know how one measures framerates ??

I'm not a hardcore gamer of any kind ... there are several others on this
list who'll likely help :)

Post by Kingsly John
The problem with games is there's a lack of variety for linux .. though we
are getting there.. !

Heck man, even with defaults, kde2 (at least on slackware) has about 4..5
varieties of solitaire and assorted other cutesy games :)

Post by Kingsly John
| a pain than I need, so I switched to blackbox and then to twm.
Configuring the lightweight window managers is a pain... one of my friends
liked my fvwm desktop... but when I showed him the config files... he was
like.. "I'm not going to learn how to do that .. I'll stick what i have!"

Y'see, most of them work out of the box (and default config files are
available in /etc/X11 or wherever your distro stores them).

If you need to cook your own dotfile - there are always readymade config
files available which you can later tweak to your taste :)

Take mutt for example. I downloaded Roland Rosenfeld's muttrc (linked from
www.mutt.org) originally. Today, it's changed a lot from the original.
Search google for "muttrc" or ".muttrc" and see how many you get ... (by
some weird luck, my muttrc at http://www.hserus.net/muttrc.html is the third
entry on the very first page of a search <g>)

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Atul Chitnis

2001-05-26 15:49:49 UTC

Permalink

No, I am not. I use a different attitude which (some might say
surprisingly, coming from me! ;) is far more positive.

The reason why KDE (and Gnome) work for me is simple - I understand the
conditions.

Let me explain before you misunderstand this as "a poweruser who knows
what to do to avoid a crash":

I have been using Linux since 1994. I have used it when X was still
unusable, and when getting twm up and running was a miracle (note for
professional nitpickers - yes, I know X is not Linux).

Over the years, I have seen Linux (and XFree86) grow and stabilise, and
become more and more usable with every iteration.

When KDE and Gnome (and WindowMaker) appeared on the scene, they added
more and more value to the system. Some of you who existed on the original
LI list will remember a discussion between me and Manoj Srivastava where
both sides made points about usability and non-usability of these
environments (methinks this was late 1998 or early 1999).

Since then, all these environments have grown and become more and more
usable. KDE 1.x and Gnome before 1.2 were nice toys, but "real men used
WindowMaker" (TM, Nikhil Datta ;). I agree, and even today environments
like WindowMaker provide leanness that many people find highly desirable.

I myself use WindowMaker and KDE interchangably on my trusty P1 notebook
(TM, Nikhil Datta ;), and sometimes together. I don't use Gnome for
reasons that have nothing to do with usability - I just like WM and KDE
more, and I can still run most Gnome apps (just as I can run KDE apps
under Gnome or WM, as long as the relevant libraries are installed). On
anything more powerful than a P2/Cerelon, I use *only* KDE, because there
is no reason not to.

Now whenever I install a new version of these environments, I look at it
with the benefit of having used the previous versions and I ask myself -
have things gotten better?

I have yet to find that the answer is "no".

Things *only* get better. And I understand that given time, they will
improve even more.

Today's KDE and Gnome is roughly where Windows 95 V1.0 was in terms of
stability and performance. Lots of great new features, but they *do* have
the occasional issue. As Swati has pointed out - at least you do not have
to reboot your machine if these environments die on you.

Remember Windows 98 and Windows ME? People said things couldn't get worse
- more crashes than anything you could throw a shoe at.

But Windows didn't stand still, either. A certain gentleman who shall go
unnamed to avoid embarrassment very recently posted a note advocating that
people should avoid Samba as a PDC and use Windows 2000 instead.

Why? Because Windows 2000, lo and behold, has matured and is quite
stable, finally able to compete with at least part of the vast Linux
world.

The only constant is change.

Nikhil cribs about "bloatware", but is *most* thrilled with Mozilla (he
will deny it, of course, for the sake of this argument - he usually does,
so let's not hold it against him ;), and completely ignores the fact that
Mozilla has its roots in the much maligned (but nevertheless loved)
Netscape 4.x that weighed in at 18 MB.

Mozilla today represents an *almost* usable monster that renders pages
like lightning, weighing in at just over 9 MB, and no longer uses that 600
pound gorilla motif library of its predecessor.

While KDE and Gnome may be huge today, it is an intermediate period. More
and more developers are using gtk and qt, reducing their own "unique to
the package" UI code.

Look at licq - 1.6 MB of serious usability (even a certain detractor in
this list uses it and is happy). Ever looked at it's Windows cousin's ICQ
distribution package size? And hey, guess what, licq (by default) uses the
qt gui that also drives KDE! And a gtk interface is available as well.

Right now, both Gnome and KDE developers are focussing on functionality
rather than size and speed. We now have working drag-and-drop, packages
that can talk to each other, consistant UIs, a browser (konqueror) that
*rocks*, and lots of good and usable apps, great config tools, etc.

And nothing has stopped. No developers have said "enough, this is done".
There are design docs that include a roadmap. Everyday, more stuff is
covered.

There will come a time when things have reached a stable state, and it
makes sense to start optimising for speed and size. Given the state of KDE
and Gnome today (which, despite naysayers saying otherwise, is actually
*very* usable and quite stable), I think we are looking at a time not too
far away.

Will Nikhil's complaints still hold good when the optimising process
starts?

Who knows? This time next year, the Pentium 3 as we know it will be dead
and machine performances will be through the roof. 100 GB disks will be
common, and a GB of RAM will not be totally unimaginable. All complaints
about KDE or Gnome's size and performance will be meaningless in such an
environment.

But here in India, the optimisation process I expect to see will make a
*massive* difference, because the non-elite members not in the Big-5 class
with 6-figure salaries will not be able to afford such big machines.

Instead, they will be using machines slower than the ones elite-class
members of this list use today. They will be using machines that could be
as "lowly" as the one I am typing this on, under KDE.

The optimisation that we *will* see happening over time will benefit these
people by giving them stable, fast and highly usable interfaces.

Nikhil's whine about the Windows-like interface is also familiar to me. I
have heard it before, and dowbtlessly will again in the future.

My answer to that is - who cares whether you like it or you do not? If you
do not, don't use it. Don't even install it! You have a choice!

But don't try and make *your* judgement of something the base to dis an
effort that will give countless number of people a familiar and usable
interface that does not get in the way. Something they can sit in front of
and immediately get to work, not having to learn a completely different
way of doing things.

When they are familiar with it, and the fear of "but I dont know
Linux/Unix/Nikhilix" is history, then they can start playing on the
machine, where they will discover that they are not stuck with what they
got - they can change it, use another UI, not use one at all, or whatever.

...

I am writing this a few minutes after the above. I got called away for
something else. I had logged out, and now logged in again, and I am
running WindowMaker - because I can. Apart from licq, I am using no KDE
stuff at all - for all practical purposes, I don't even have KDE on my
machine. If you don't like KDE, you do not need to install it. It will not
cut down your productivity. All your apps will still run.

So why whine about something you don't want to use? Did anyone superglue
you to KDE or Gnome? What is the point about that post of yours then? What
was it meant to achieve? Install a distro that doesn't ship with KDE or
Gnome (SLS 1.1 with Linux 0.98pl11 comes to mind - want a copy?) and live
happily ever after.

But don't use this list to propagate this elitist attitude of "it doesn't
work for me, therefore it works for no one" (TM, Suresh, going by
Kingsly's quote). If you had a bad day or two (as I know you had), don't
take it out on others, such as bunches of KDE/Gnome developers and users.
People like Raju, for example, are *way* more 31337 than you are, and last
time I met him, he was running Gnome quite happily.

It's time to stop thinking about yourself. Your needs and tastes are not
necessarily the base for the design of everything else.

Time, as I am so fond of saying, will tell. We will see whether KDE/Gnome
(that are X environments) will mean the destruction of Linux (that is an
OS) as you imply.

Atul

p.s. An explanation for the [COMMERCIAL]* tag. There are a lot of people
on this list who have in the past complained about my long posts
(especially when it was fashionable to bash me in public), quoting low
bandwidth.

I therefore anticipate that all these people also have filters
in place that will /dev/null all posts with [COMMERCIAL] in the subject
line, for the same low bandwidth reasons. Therefore, any such people would
have never had to download this post. ;-)

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-26 19:47:27 UTC

Permalink

Post by Atul Chitnis
I have been using Linux since 1994. I have used it when X was still
unusable, and when getting twm up and running was a miracle (note for
professional nitpickers - yes, I know X is not Linux).

It's part of a linux system, yes.

Post by Atul Chitnis
WindowMaker" (TM, Nikhil Datta ;). I agree, and even today environments
like WindowMaker provide leanness that many people find highly desirable.

Fine.

Post by Atul Chitnis
Now whenever I install a new version of these environments, I look at it
with the benefit of having used the previous versions and I ask myself -
have things gotten better?

Actually, nobody is denying that KDE and Gnome have got better. The
discussion is basically about whether a windowing environment like KDE /
GNOME is supposed to become an integral part of a linux system, as the trend
seems to be pointing towards. I (and Nikhil, from what I read in his
post) happen to agree on this point.

If you track the Windows GUI, it was originally (till 3.x) a GUI running on
top of DOS, where you boot into DOS and then start windows. Win95 distanced
users from DOS still further - and win2k has more or less disassociated
itself from its old DOS roots.

This trend is again increasing, with workstation installs letting you
directly boot to X (setting the default runlevel in inittab, xdm etc).

The question, as I hope you see, is a bit more fundamental than "whether KDE
/ GNOME is stable / improving / works great).

Post by Atul Chitnis
Who knows? This time next year, the Pentium 3 as we know it will be dead
and machine performances will be through the roof. 100 GB disks will be
common, and a GB of RAM will not be totally unimaginable. All complaints
about KDE or Gnome's size and performance will be meaningless in such an
environment.

"Feature Creep" and "Code Bloat". Two very efficient rebuttals to that
argument. You get a faster processor, tons of RAM, faster hard disks - and
all this speed is nullified by our two friends Mr.Creep and Mr.Bloat.

It's a very familiar story when you use windows and track the "minimum
requirement" spec (which you have to effectively almost double to get decent
performance).

Re your prediction that desktop environments will some day be optimized for
size and speed, that would, necessarily, occur *after* when Mr.Feature stops
creeping and Mr.Code stops bloating.

Post by Atul Chitnis
My answer to that is - who cares whether you like it or you do not? If you
do not, don't use it. Don't even install it! You have a choice!

This choice is (steadily) being eliminated in the install process, more or
less. Mandrake, for example, is a nice distro but its GUI install tends to
make a lot of assumptions about what you want (even the _custom_ option in
the GUI install).

The way things are going, I soon expect the custom install option to be more
or less deprecated in some distros.

Post by Atul Chitnis
So why whine about something you don't want to use? Did anyone superglue
you to KDE or Gnome? What is the point about that post of yours then? What
was it meant to achieve? Install a distro that doesn't ship with KDE or
Gnome (SLS 1.1 with Linux 0.98pl11 comes to mind - want a copy?) and live
happily ever after.

Oh, so people who don't use kde or gnome are outdated, is that it? Yeah, I
can pick other distros (not necessarily museum pieces) or I can do some
forcible surgery on a user friendly distro. However, as I stated above, the
question goes a bit deeper than whether kde / gnome is usable and user
friendly or not.

Post by Atul Chitnis
But don't use this list to propagate this elitist attitude of "it doesn't
work for me, therefore it works for no one" (TM, Suresh, going by
Kingsly's quote).

That's the problem with interpreting statements made by someone you have
killfiled - you tend to read quotes out of context (and misinterpret what you
read). Here's a hint: go back to the list archives (say) and re-read my
post.

Post by Atul Chitnis
If you had a bad day or two (as I know you had), don't
take it out on others, such as bunches of KDE/Gnome developers and users.

Oh, so it's because I had a "bad day or two", is that it? Coincidentially, I
was in an extremely good mood today (ran across a friend I hadn't met in
several years). Wrong hypothesis. Next.

OK, if _I_ have misinterpreted your words in the above and you actually meant
to say "if I had a bad experience or two with kde and shifted to twm" then
I'm not taking it out on anyone, nor am I forcibly restraining them from
using $window_environment. I'm expressing my opinions, that's all.

Post by Atul Chitnis
People like Raju, for example, are *way* more 31337 than you are, and last
time I met him, he was running Gnome quite happily.

Raju's not 31337 (the spelling, connotation and such are more suggestive of
skr1p7 k1dd33z than competent admins). Raju is a competent (for a very high
value of competence) sysadmin. I'm, as my .sig states, a lower middle class
sysadmin, again, not one of the so-called 31337 fraternity.

Post by Atul Chitnis
It's time to stop thinking about yourself. Your needs and tastes are not
necessarily the base for the design of everything else.
Time, as I am so fond of saying, will tell. We will see whether KDE/Gnome
(that are X environments) will mean the destruction of Linux (that is an
OS) as you imply.

Yes. Time will tell - and I'm sure we'll both be around on this list.

Time is already telling me of a heavy dilution of linux as an OS which
(in the case of a few distros) is being reduced to an amorphous mass without
an identity of its own.

When you work exclusively in a GUI, configure things using point and click
GUI tools, etc, you won't see the difference between NT, Solaris or Linux.
(for what it's worth, Solaris is currently working on bundling Gnome with
its next release, from what I hear).

We had this girl in my office (she's a network admin for a group company).
She sees a sun box from which CDE has been removed (for lack of space) and
which is booting into a console prompt. Her first question - "where is the
CDE and how can I configure things without CDE?"

Post by Atul Chitnis
p.s. An explanation for the [COMMERCIAL]* tag. There are a lot of people
on this list who have in the past complained about my long posts
(especially when it was fashionable to bash me in public), quoting low
bandwidth.

That's what the "long" is for. I don't see any rhyme or reason in your
prefixing a commercial tag to this post (which apparently has nothing at all
to do with commercialism) and have hence modified the subject a bit.

-suresh

Yeah, you won't see my post anyway, so I suppose typing all this is a real
waste of time. You can always read some of this post in someone else's
reply to me and misinterpret me again, if you are so inclined.

Post by Atul Chitnis
I therefore anticipate that all these people also have filters
in place that will /dev/null all posts with [COMMERCIAL] in the subject
line, for the same low bandwidth reasons. Therefore, any such people would
have never had to download this post. ;-)

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Mario da Costa

2001-05-28 10:53:17 UTC

Permalink

Atul Chitnis wrote:
<snip>

I stopped using gnome a long time back. Not becoz i was a power user,
never have been, but b'coz of the fact that i was running it off a 486.
FVWM2 worked very well for me then, i still use it coz i (learned to)
like it and consider it the best (strictly IMHO). I read and re-read
Suresh's mails on this thread, i never seem to find any whining in them.
Can't say the same for your mail though. In between the "i did this in
1994..." and "the i discussed this in 1998" and the "i am the very
epicenter of the linux movement in india, but watch out i'm bailing out
if you don't toe the line" or even as you so nicely put it, a few lines
below "my pal is Mr. 31337 or whatever, so shut up you have to match him
in expertise first before you make any comment", even between all these
noble words Mr. Chitnis, you still manage to whine.

Post by Atul Chitnis
But don't use this list to propagate this elitist attitude of "it doesn't
work for me, therefore it works for no one" (TM, Suresh, going by
Kingsly's quote). If you had a bad day or two (as I know you had), don't

what did you do now ? another email to someone's boss ? lay off any
personal attacks will you ? just how low are you willing to stoop anyway
?

Post by Atul Chitnis
take it out on others, such as bunches of KDE/Gnome developers and users.
People like Raju, for example, are *way* more 31337 than you are, and last
time I met him, he was running Gnome quite happily.

ahem. the "my pal" part i was talking about.

Post by Atul Chitnis
It's time to stop thinking about yourself. Your needs and tastes are not
necessarily the base for the design of everything else.

there is some truth here, like-wise some truth in what Suresh also said.
And as far as i am concerned if *anyone* sticks with linux for a while,
they are bound to become at least in some way a power user. There is
nothing elitist about it. BTW, Suresh has helped me a lot, and while he
is far from elitist, calls it like he sees it. And yes even i think he
should show some discretion when dealing with you, going by your past
actions.

Post by Atul Chitnis
Time, as I am so fond of saying, will tell. We will see whether KDE/Gnome
(that are X environments) will mean the destruction of Linux (that is an
OS) as you imply.

i don't see how. and yes i am agreeing with you here. Linux is an OS.
Which actually only strengthens what i said earlier, bundle a light
weight but fuctional Gui (fvwm2 comes to my mind) along with the OS. Let
the user than install KDE or GNOME or WM or whatever.

and about the CD you offered, i don't need to tell you what you can do
with it.

mario

p.s. It is not my intention nor was it ever my intention to drag Raju's
or for that matter even Suresh's name into this. guys please don't take
any offence if i have.

--
... Boy, if Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows
crashed.... Oh, wait, he does!

Nikhil Datta

2001-05-28 19:37:34 UTC

Permalink

Post by Mario da Costa
like it and consider it the best (strictly IMHO). I read and re-read
Suresh's mails on this thread, i never seem to find any whining in them.

I believe you are mistaken : He was referring to *my* whining.

;)

nikk

--
Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.
-- Klingon Soldier, "Day of the Dove", stardate unknown

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-29 07:39:14 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nikhil Datta

Post by Mario da Costa
like it and consider it the best (strictly IMHO). I read and re-read
Suresh's mails on this thread, i never seem to find any whining in them.

I believe you are mistaken : He was referring to *my* whining.
;)

Well, _I_ can't find you whining about anything here ;)

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Mario da Costa

2001-05-29 08:28:24 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nikhil Datta
I believe you are mistaken : He was referring to *my* whining.
;)

:o)

if that is the case, due apologies to you, Mr. Chitnis and Suresh.

--
... Boy, if Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows
crashed.... Oh, wait, he does!

Nikhil Datta

2001-05-28 01:31:54 UTC

Permalink

I'd normally hesitate to reply to such a post, but I promise to *try* and
keep on topic ;) I also apologise for quoting so much of the original mail,
but maybe going over it again, you will find content I have missed....

Post by Atul Chitnis
No, I am not. I use a different attitude which (some might say
surprisingly, coming from me! ;) is far more positive.
The reason why KDE (and Gnome) work for me is simple - I understand the
conditions.
Let me explain before you misunderstand this as "a poweruser who knows

Post by Atul Chitnis
Now whenever I install a new version of these environments, I look at it
with the benefit of having used the previous versions and I ask myself -
have things gotten better?
I have yet to find that the answer is "no".
Things *only* get better. And I understand that given time, they will
improve even more.
Today's KDE and Gnome is roughly where Windows 95 V1.0 was in terms of
stability and performance. Lots of great new features, but they *do* have
the occasional issue. As Swati has pointed out - at least you do not have
to reboot your machine if these environments die on you.

Seems to me this far, the only point you have made, is that everything
starts out small and buggy, and then grows to be big and beautiful and
stable. Acording to you, KDE and GNOME are now as nice stable and featureful
as the 6 year old win95.

Post by Atul Chitnis
Remember Windows 98 and Windows ME? People said things couldn't get worse
- more crashes than anything you could throw a shoe at.
But Windows didn't stand still, either. A certain gentleman who shall go
unnamed to avoid embarrassment very recently posted a note advocating that
people should avoid Samba as a PDC and use Windows 2000 instead.
Why? Because Windows 2000, lo and behold, has matured and is quite
stable, finally able to compete with at least part of the vast Linux
world.

I'm not embarassed to stand behind any of my posts. What I said then still
stands. For a small LAN with Windows-only clients, Win2K is an infinitely
better PDC than samba will ever be. Face it : it is proprietary. MS can
always change the code/features faster than the Samba team, for all its brilliance
in reverse engineering, can ever keep up with. My opinions about Samba and
Wine are perhaps controversial enough to start their own thread, so I'll
keep off them for now. For those who don't remember the thread about Samba
as PDC, it was concerned heavily with *user management* and control issues.
Samba till has a wonderful place in any network, but it's wonderful as long
as one knows where to put it.

Post by Atul Chitnis
The only constant is change.

Impressive.

Post by Atul Chitnis
Nikhil cribs about "bloatware", but is *most* thrilled with Mozilla (he
will deny it, of course, for the sake of this argument - he usually does,
so let's not hold it against him ;), and completely ignores the fact that
Mozilla has its roots in the much maligned (but nevertheless loved)
Netscape 4.x that weighed in at 18 MB.

Trying to anticipate my arguments is silly. You remind me of my
ex-girlfriend. So please don't. I do use mozilla - simply because it renders
HTML far better than Netscape, the fonts are so much nicer, It has nice
features like auto complete URL's, and remembers my passwords for site (I
feature I hate on windows, but love on Linux, because I know no one is
going to be fiddling around with my login). Mozilla is heavier than netscape,
but only marginally - and with 192 MB of RAM, i can afford it. And yes, with
mozilla, I know that performance/memory footpront issues are only going to
*improve* as it hits version 1.0. Can't say this about KDE/GNOME.

Post by Atul Chitnis
While KDE and Gnome may be huge today, it is an intermediate period. More
and more developers are using gtk and qt, reducing their own "unique to
the package" UI code.
Look at licq - 1.6 MB of serious usability (even a certain detractor in
this list uses it and is happy). Ever looked at it's Windows cousin's ICQ
distribution package size? And hey, guess what, licq (by default) uses the
qt gui that also drives KDE! And a gtk interface is available as well.
Right now, both Gnome and KDE developers are focussing on functionality
rather than size and speed. We now have working drag-and-drop, packages
that can talk to each other, consistant UIs, a browser (konqueror) that
*rocks*, and lots of good and usable apps, great config tools, etc.
And nothing has stopped. No developers have said "enough, this is done".
There are design docs that include a roadmap. Everyday, more stuff is
covered.
There will come a time when things have reached a stable state, and it
makes sense to start optimising for speed and size. Given the state of KDE
and Gnome today (which, despite naysayers saying otherwise, is actually
*very* usable and quite stable), I think we are looking at a time not too
far away.

This paragraph is general talkathon mode, so I'll move along.

Post by Atul Chitnis
Will Nikhil's complaints still hold good when the optimising process
starts?

<SNIP>

Post by Atul Chitnis
line, for the same low bandwidth reasons. Therefore, any such people would
have never had to download this post. ;-)

</SNIP>

You've given a great post on the software development cycle. But, you have
missed every point I have thrown up. I will re-state my point of view again,
with as much brevity as possible.

1) I believe there is a 'UNIX way' (small, minimalist, hands-on,configurable).

2) There is also a 'Windows way' (Monolithic apps, GUI, easy-to-use, not configurable).
There are no doubt other terms to describe this.

3) It is My Humble Opinion, that the UNIX way of doing things, is the
'Better Way'. This is my personal opinion, and that of most 'power users'.
It is the reason why I use Linux, why I use mutt, and why I compile my own
kernels.

4) WindowMaker/IceWM/Blackbox/twm, IMHO, do things the 'UNIX way'.

5) KDE/GNOME are the 'Windows Way'.

My point is simple, if you want to do things like (2), then use Windows.
With Win2k, crashing applications no longer (any more than Linux) brings
down the house, memory requirements (compared to kernel + X + KDE) are
comparable, stability of applications (MS Office etc.) is better than any
corresponding Linux desktop app., it is easy and familiar for new users to
use, and you don't have to deal with the complex tech. aspects you have to
deal with with Linux.

Why do you want to do things like (2) on Linux ? The answer is simple : it's
a matter of *choice*. And I respect that choice, so I say, go ahead, use
KDE, use GNOME, use whatever *you* want to. That's the beauty of freedom.

But if you ask me : Linux is about learning. It's about playing with the
internals (as far as you can reach) of an OS. It's about learning how things
*actually* work, not how a GUI configurator makes you think they do. Every
user - newbiew, power user/whatever, learns every minute he uses Linux.
Windows is a good tool to type letters on, but not to learn about computers
on.

In essense, you are bringing everything bad about Windows to Linux, simply
because there are people who are not interested in (1), the UNIX way of
doing things, but simply because they want to do (2) on (1). Go figure. Will they
contribute ? Will they make *Linux* better ? Will they make the developers
richer ? Will they make my life easier ?

Will I miss them when/if they are gone ? No.

So bring along a crappy interface to Linux. Have kids build firewalls for
you with GUI's. Buy applications with paperclips and feature bloat. It's
about choice right ?

Don't expect me to miss you when you're gone.

My original post merely stated that I'm not going to miss 'Linux on the
desktop' if it dies. I've tried to make that clear here.

nikk

PS. Please reply without personal references. It's quite ill mannered.

--
You're dead, Jim.
-- McCoy, "Amok Time", stardate 3372.7

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-29 04:42:42 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nikhil Datta
Seems to me this far, the only point you have made, is that everything
starts out small and buggy, and then grows to be big and beautiful and
stable. Acording to you, KDE and GNOME are now as nice stable and featureful
as the 6 year old win95.

As you point out, the answer to that point is still "and so?". Integrating
kde and gnome heavily with a distro defeats the raison d'etre of linux - the
reason why it was created and why it exists.

Post by Nikhil Datta
I'm not embarassed to stand behind any of my posts. What I said then still
stands. For a small LAN with Windows-only clients, Win2K is an infinitely
better PDC than samba will ever be. Face it : it is proprietary. MS can

This is correct, as it stands (speaking as having tried to set up samba and
openldap for a WinNT and Outlook 2000 using customer and having faced so many
cribs - text only configuration, PDC doesn't work properly etc etc that I
finally gave up and used a 'doze only plugin for the M$ address book and
NT server for the PDC. At least, Exchange got replaced by an Exim + Courier
IMAP combo ...)

Post by Nikhil Datta

Post by Atul Chitnis
The only constant is change.

Impressive.

Nice soundbite all right.

Post by Nikhil Datta
This paragraph is general talkathon mode, so I'll move along.

yep...

Post by Nikhil Datta
You've given a great post on the software development cycle. But, you have
missed every point I have thrown up. I will re-state my point of view again,
with as much brevity as possible.

s/missed/circumvented/ as a matter of fact. The topic has been rather
neatly turned around from the original "is ever-tightening integration of
linux distros with a GUI based desktop environment like kde / gnome good or
bad?" to "is KDE or Gnome good / bad?"

A subtle difference to be sure, but a significant one.

Post by Nikhil Datta
1) I believe there is a 'UNIX way' (small, minimalist, hands-on,configurable).
3) It is My Humble Opinion, that the UNIX way of doing things, is the
'Better Way'. This is my personal opinion, and that of most 'power users'.

That is perfectly correct. Another thing is that, better way
notwithstanding, it is the unix way - and linux is, last I heard, a unix.
So, the unix way can be said to be +the+ way, on linux.

Post by Nikhil Datta
It is the reason why I use Linux, why I use mutt, and why I compile my own
kernels.
4) WindowMaker/IceWM/Blackbox/twm, IMHO, do things the 'UNIX way'.
5) KDE/GNOME are the 'Windows Way'.

Well said.

Post by Nikhil Datta
Why do you want to do things like (2) on Linux ? The answer is simple : it's
a matter of *choice*. And I respect that choice, so I say, go ahead, use
KDE, use GNOME, use whatever *you* want to. That's the beauty of freedom.

A matter of choice - and a way to show that "linux can also do this".
However, it's fast changing into "this is the only way on linux" if some
people are to be believed. Like the girl I mentioned (an admin from a group
company who came here for training) - she was shocked when she couldn't find
the solaris CDE on a sun box, and was discouraged from using linuxconf on
the linux boxes.

Post by Nikhil Datta
But if you ask me : Linux is about learning. It's about playing with the
internals (as far as you can reach) of an OS. It's about learning how things
*actually* work, not how a GUI configurator makes you think they do. Every
user - newbiew, power user/whatever, learns every minute he uses Linux.
Windows is a good tool to type letters on, but not to learn about computers
on.

Excellent.

Post by Nikhil Datta
In essense, you are bringing everything bad about Windows to Linux, simply
because there are people who are not interested in (1), the UNIX way of
doing things, but simply because they want to do (2) on (1). Go figure. Will they
contribute ? Will they make *Linux* better ? Will they make the developers
richer ? Will they make my life easier ?

For such users, they are better off with something like the Simputer, if
they absolutely have to use linux.

There is, of course, the fact that linux is cost-effective and free.
However, it is nullified by the bloat effect. Even if kde and gnome are
free, they run well only on higher end machines with good video cards, not
(say) a 486 or early pentium with a SiS 6215c and 32 megs RAM.

Anyone who can afford the sort of hardware you need to comfortably run kde +
gnome + star office can _also_ afford windows.

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Atul Chitnis

2001-05-26 16:08:09 UTC

Permalink

In addition to my long rant (that may still be awaiting release by a
moderator, which is cool with me, BTW), see this article at freeos.com:

http://freeos.com/articles/4070/

Quotes I like:

"We just put out KDE. We're not forcing anyone to use it. We just put it
out there. If you don't want to use it, that's ok."

"We're not big fans of desktop environments because they tend to be slow.
We just prefer to use Windowmaker because it loads so fast. You start it
and it's on screen. What have you to say?

Windowmaker is just a window manager, whereas KDE is a desktop
environment. A desktop environment offers you a lot more than a
Windowmanager would. A desktop environment will address a lot more issues
-- drag-drop, a clipboard and supporting applications."

Atul

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-26 19:58:28 UTC

Permalink

It's part of a linux system, yes.

Post by Atul Chitnis
WindowMaker" (TM, Nikhil Datta ;). I agree, and even today environments
like WindowMaker provide leanness that many people find highly desirable.

Fine.

Post by Atul Chitnis
Now whenever I install a new version of these environments, I look at it
with the benefit of having used the previous versions and I ask myself -
have things gotten better?

Post by Atul Chitnis
My answer to that is - who cares whether you like it or you do not? If you
do not, don't use it. Don't even install it! You have a choice!

Post by Atul Chitnis
But don't use this list to propagate this elitist attitude of "it doesn't
work for me, therefore it works for no one" (TM, Suresh, going by
Kingsly's quote).

Post by Atul Chitnis
If you had a bad day or two (as I know you had), don't
take it out on others, such as bunches of KDE/Gnome developers and users.

Post by Atul Chitnis
People like Raju, for example, are *way* more 31337 than you are, and last
time I met him, he was running Gnome quite happily.

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Kingsly John

2001-05-26 20:46:55 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 27 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

|> These days I just press the power switch on my CPU to shutdown my
|> computer... haven't used shutdown -h in ages now!!
|
|You use reiserfs then?

No .. the ACPI daemon shuts down the machine when i press the power button
on the CPU!!

|> The problem with games is there's a lack of variety for linux .. though we
|> are getting there.. !
|
| Heck man, even with defaults, kde2 (at least on slackware) has about 4..5
| varieties of solitaire and assorted other cutesy games :)

I was talking more in terms of RolePlaying Mysteries and the likes...
Monkey Island(LucasArts), Gabriel Knight(Sierra) etc! the same old lack
of commercial software story... considering computer games are the only
software that i have actually paid for.. it's a shame that I can't use
them on my favorite OS!

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Sun May 27 02:08:23 IST 2001 .:'

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-27 02:50:28 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
No .. the ACPI daemon shuts down the machine when i press the power button
on the CPU!!

Not the safest way to go, but anyway ...

Post by Kingsly John
I was talking more in terms of RolePlaying Mysteries and the likes...
Monkey Island(LucasArts), Gabriel Knight(Sierra) etc! the same old lack
of commercial software story... considering computer games are the only
software that i have actually paid for.. it's a shame that I can't use
them on my favorite OS!

Heh, right. There _are_ a few RPGs available on linux ... or you can just
telnet into a MUD and enjoy life :)

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Kingsly John

2001-05-27 05:17:48 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 27 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

|> I was talking more in terms of RolePlaying Mysteries and the likes...
|> Monkey Island(LucasArts), Gabriel Knight(Sierra) etc! the same old lack
|> of commercial software story... considering computer games are the only
|> software that i have actually paid for.. it's a shame that I can't use
|> them on my favorite OS!
|
| Heh, right. There _are_ a few RPGs available on linux ... or you can just
| telnet into a MUD and enjoy life :)

Yes MUDs and MOOs are cool.. but they are also expensive(BSNL makes more
money than anyone else from the internet!) ... it's cheaper to buy a
shrink wrapped game for windoze a few months after it's release!

I have heard about loki games having release some games for linux... but
the only one that I have seen on the shelves here for linux is q3 !
(unless they come up with a single CD that would run on both linux and
windoze... the scene won't change much in the near future!)

Kingsly
.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Sun May 27 10:42:13 IST 2001 .:'

Diwakar Ranganathan

2001-05-27 12:30:23 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
| OK, now tell me how many kde and gnome users use
the bash prompt (or tell me
| how many kde and gnome users _have_ to use the
bash prompt at some time or
| the other).
No they don't have to... let my sister on my machine
to type out a few
mail on the offline mode today ... and she clicked
send... and kde dialed
out and got her online! (while I use a term and su
and type wvdial isp)

i use konsole because kde's so slow on my machine
(celeron 433 mhz, 64 mb ram, i810, 4 gb hdd). but
after Alt+F2-ing and typing konsole, i have to wait
for 10 secs before the term appears. i dont use gnome
and sawfish because i think they're ugly and
primitive-looking.

- Diwakar

=====
GNU/Linux, for technical and ethical reasons.

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Diwakar Ranganathan

2001-05-27 12:59:39 UTC

Permalink

i wont say "intellectual arrogance", but i'd say
you're ignoring ordinary users. i strongly object to
your words "windows weenies". why the hell do people
use windows? because until today they didnt have an
alternative to windows. a user - say a novelist or a
poet or a businessman or a CA student - doesnt care a
damn about linux's developer and admin friendliness.
he/she doesnt become a weenie because he/she doesnt
write shell programs or maintain web servers. this is
a sickening attitude that would make one think if it's
indeed a techie's arrogance towards ordinary users.
never belittle the non-developers and non-admins with
phrases like "windows weenies" (it has the tone of the
term "infidels"). you're only harming the linux cause.
i'm not trying to label you. i'm just genuinely
worried about this attitude.

- Diwakar

--- Nikhil Datta <***@usa.net> wrote: > Biju
Chacko <***@exocore.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Nikhil Datta
As a result, losing out on the
newbies and the "windows weenies" is of no loss to
me, or any of us here.
Changing core design philosophies, IMHO, is too
great a cost to pay to attract
users.

=====
GNU/Linux, for technical and ethical reasons.

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Kingsly John

2001-05-26 18:44:47 UTC

Permalink

On Sat, 26 May 2001, Atul Chitnis wrote:

|Who knows? This time next year, the Pentium 3 as we know it will be dead
|and machine performances will be through the roof. 100 GB disks will be
|common, and a GB of RAM will not be totally unimaginable.

I don't think it's wise to use processor power and RAM/storage just
because they are there... when the task can be accomplished in a more
efficient way.. it would be going the windoze way... I feel the one reason
why linux is more slicker and faster than windoze is because even today
the latest kernel will run on a 386.. I doubt if XP will even run on a
pentium class machine w/64MB!

But again this is a poweruser perspective.. the layman is happy as long he
can surf the net and print his letters!

|All complaints about KDE or Gnome's size and performance will be
|meaningless in such an environment.

IMO even today the complaint on size and performance is not such an issue
except for people with 32MB machines... I was forced to work on such a
machine last year due to Bangalore Telecoms inability to give me a phone
line to connect to my p3! .. I was able to use StarOffice even on *that*
machine(without a windowmanager!) and get my word processing done!

I agree on your view that performance/stability etc are relative ... so if
you compare kde/gnome with their prev. versions.. they are definitely
better! But they can't be compared with other windowmanager's which are a
lot more mature!

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Sat May 26 23:56:11 IST 2001 .:'

Indraneel Majumdar

2001-05-28 19:49:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
I don't think it's wise to use processor power and RAM/storage just
because they are there... when the task can be accomplished in a more
efficient way.. it would be going the windoze way... I feel the one reason
why linux is more slicker and faster than windoze is because even today
the latest kernel will run on a 386.. I doubt if XP will even run on a
pentium class machine w/64MB!

I agree with you, my 386SX runs on Linux 2.4.4, and it's really fast
(yes, I also run 2.4.4 on a PIII 933) if you compare it with PC-DOS on
the same machine.

\indraneel

--
http://www.indialine.org/indraneel/

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-29 04:22:55 UTC

Permalink

Post by Indraneel Majumdar

Dont even call it the windows way man ... there are some superb packages for
windows which follow the unix way quite well - and are extremely optimized as
re code. Take Mercury and Pegasus Mail for instance.

Post by Indraneel Majumdar
I agree with you, my 386SX runs on Linux 2.4.4, and it's really fast
(yes, I also run 2.4.4 on a PIII 933) if you compare it with PC-DOS on
the same machine.

What linux is it? Debian or one of the mini linux distros?

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Arun Sharma

2001-05-29 06:00:18 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nikhil Datta
1) I believe there is a 'UNIX way' (small, minimalist, hands-on,configurable).
2) There is also a 'Windows way' (Monolithic apps, GUI, easy-to-use, not configurable).
There are no doubt other terms to describe this.

I'll just make an observation and get out of the way. I'll also admit that I've
not read all of the thread.

The (excellent) distinction above, also reflects:

a. server vs client
b. power user vs casual user

The thing that everybody is worked up about is: is (2) killing (1) ?
I'd urge you to take a look at the FreeBSD approach on this. The motto
is "Power to serve". The "base" operating system includes only the
UNIX way and no windows way.

But nothing precludes one from implementing 2 on top of 1, as long as
the goals of 1 are not compromised. When there is a conflict of interest,
it's very clear how ties are resolved.

<back to the regularly scheduled programming>

-Arun

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-29 06:25:48 UTC

Permalink

Post by Arun Sharma
a. server vs client
b. power user vs casual user

Good you saw the point.

Post by Arun Sharma
The thing that everybody is worked up about is: is (2) killing (1) ?
I'd urge you to take a look at the FreeBSD approach on this. The motto
is "Power to serve". The "base" operating system includes only the
UNIX way and no windows way.

That's fine. Assuming you mean the kernel and a base install

Post by Arun Sharma
But nothing precludes one from implementing 2 on top of 1, as long as
the goals of 1 are not compromised. When there is a conflict of interest,
it's very clear how ties are resolved.

In linux at least, this is at the discretion of the distro, right? The unix
way is definitely under increasing attack from [often broken] GUI config
tools and ever-increasing integration of GUIs with distros.

Now, if someone built a BSD which was that heavily integrated with a GUI
(and cleverly bundled as such - default choices, et al) what'd happen?

Post by Arun Sharma
<back to the regularly scheduled programming>

But your post _was_ part of the regularly scheduled programming ;)

-s (what LIG would be without your BSD advocacy, I can't imagine ...)

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Nikhil Datta

2001-05-29 16:50:38 UTC

Permalink

Post by Suresh Ramasubramanian
In linux at least, this is at the discretion of the distro, right? The unix
way is definitely under increasing attack from [often broken] GUI config
tools and ever-increasing integration of GUIs with distros.
Now, if someone built a BSD which was that heavily integrated with a GUI
(and cleverly bundled as such - default choices, et al) what'd happen?

The level of interaction of not just GUI configurators with the base system
(case in point the interdependencies between printtool, ghostview and X
fonts being discussed), but with the interaction of *every* package with the
whole 'desktop environment'.

Another case in point : I wanted to compile and install a *simple*, 230 KB
source CD Label generating application. The application is not tied to the KDE
panel, or any other KDE specific interface. Yet, to install/compile it, I
had to install 130 MB of libraries, documentation, support files, base
system, headers etc. etc. etc. (And no, I didn't want to install
kde-multimedia etc, but it *made * me).

So to make a sweeping statement that "if you don't want it, don't use it"
may be an over generalization. LICQ, on the other had - which Atul brought
up, does not compile against KDE libs - only QT/GTK/(Even WindowMaker if
available), depending on your flavour of the month.
Your choice.

To sum up, IHMO, KDE/GNOME are becoming excessively integrated with the
system - which is "Not a Good Thing" (TM).

nikk

--
If some day we are defeated, well, war has its fortunes, good and bad.
-- Commander Kor, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3201.7

Kingsly John

2001-05-29 07:16:47 UTC

Permalink

On Tue, 29 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

| Anyone who can afford the sort of hardware you need to comfortably
|run kde + gnome + star office can _also_ afford windows.

I don't agree... why should I pay 25% of the cost of the hardware to
Microsoft ??

25% is BIG money anyday! (And to pay that much to go where someone else
wants you to! is a real waste!)

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Tue May 29 12:42:55 IST 2001 .:'

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-29 07:17:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
| Anyone who can afford the sort of hardware you need to comfortably
|run kde + gnome + star office can _also_ afford windows.
I don't agree... why should I pay 25% of the cost of the hardware to
Microsoft ??
25% is BIG money anyday! (And to pay that much to go where someone else
wants you to! is a real waste!)

Where do you want to go today? To install linux of course :)
Ya know, when you buy a new PC, doze usually comes bundled with the PC cost
as you point out. So if you are not careful you have effectively paid for
it already. [speaking only of branded PCs, not assembled]

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Atul Chitnis

2001-05-29 07:24:55 UTC

Permalink

While it is true that an attraction of Linux is its cost, this means less
than nothing to most corporate buyers, who are more concerned with
support and applications.

Remember, Windows comes from the land that gave us $65,000 toilet seats
;-)

Atul

Kingsly John

2001-05-29 07:28:51 UTC

Permalink

On Mon, 28 May 2001, Arun Sharma wrote:

|The thing that everybody is worked up about is: is (2) killing (1) ?
|I'd urge you to take a look at the FreeBSD approach on this. The motto
|is "Power to serve". The "base" operating system includes only the
|UNIX way and no windows way.

And how is the Linux approach any different ?? Kde/Gnome are not part of
the /base/ OS and those are the only two apps that people seem to dislike
out here!

Kingsly
.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Tue May 29 12:57:32 IST 2001 .:'

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-29 07:33:48 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
And how is the Linux approach any different ?? Kde/Gnome are not part of
the /base/ OS and those are the only two apps that people seem to dislike
out here!

You missed the point man ... I have nothing against kde / gnome per se. I
love the linux base OS. When distros try gluing 'em together with fevicol,
I hate the combination (kinda like I like chicken biryani and I like jam,
but I hate eating chicken biryani with jam)

-suresh

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Mario da Costa

2001-05-29 08:19:46 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
And how is the Linux approach any different ?? Kde/Gnome are not part of
the /base/ OS and those are the only two apps that people seem to dislike
out here!

The problem lies in the fact that when i did my first install of Linux
RH 6.0 i didn't know squat of what to choose and what not too. and when
i started X, i got gnome. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing rather
it is a feature esp. if you are making the transition from win9x to
linux. But it does tend to give the impression that gnome is the way to
go.

I don't dislike gnome, in fact i quite like the gnome terminal to xterm,
call me kinky if you will. I just like FVWM2 / Lesstif better. It
doesn't matter if one is a window manger or the other is a desktop
environment. All i want is a gui to run applications like gtkwave,
netscape, xmms and gvim.

mario

--
... Boy, if Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows
crashed.... Oh, wait, he does!

Kingsly John

2001-05-29 07:32:47 UTC

Permalink

On Tue, 29 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

| Where do you want to go today? To install linux of course :)
| Ya know, when you buy a new PC, doze usually comes bundled with the PC cost
| as you point out. So if you are not careful you have effectively paid for
| it already. [speaking only of branded PCs, not assembled]

But did you know that it is possible to file for M$FT Tax Refunds ??

Some laptop manufacturers do refund the M$FT Tax for you!
don't have the link on me right now.. but it was on some linux laptop
related site!

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Tue May 29 13:00:43 IST 2001 .:'

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-29 07:34:46 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
Some laptop manufacturers do refund the M$FT Tax for you!
don't have the link on me right now.. but it was on some linux laptop
related site!

Sounds interesting ... this thread is drifting every which way, isn't it? ;)

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Binand Raj S.

2001-05-29 08:47:51 UTC

Permalink

Kingsly> Some laptop manufacturers do refund the M$FT Tax for you!
Kingsly> don't have the link on me right now.. but it was on some
Kingsly> linux laptop related site!

Its not easy - you should try some of the links from
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Windows/WinRefunds/Personal_Struggles/

Binand

Atul Chitnis

2001-05-29 07:51:03 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nikhil Datta

Post by Mario da Costa
like it and consider it the best (strictly IMHO). I read and re-read
Suresh's mails on this thread, i never seem to find any whining in them.

I believe you are mistaken : He was referring to *my* whining.

Yep. And Nikk and I can slaughter each other online on technical stuff
*without* resorting to personal attacks, while still remaining the best of
friends in the real world.

Atul

Mario da Costa

2001-05-29 08:33:17 UTC

Permalink

Post by Atul Chitnis

Post by Nikhil Datta

Post by Mario da Costa
like it and consider it the best (strictly IMHO). I read and re-read
Suresh's mails on this thread, i never seem to find any whining in them.

I believe you are mistaken : He was referring to *my* whining.

Yep. And Nikk and I can slaughter each other online on technical stuff
*without* resorting to personal attacks, while still remaining the best of
friends in the real world.

Amen to that.

I have just posted an apology while replying to Nikhil's mail. With this
i hope that this little ugly chapter will come to it's logical end.

mario

--
... Boy, if Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows
crashed.... Oh, wait, he does!

Kingsly John

2001-05-29 08:51:38 UTC

Permalink

On Tue, 29 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

|
|* Kingsly John [linux-india] <29/05/01 12:58 +0530>:
|> And how is the Linux approach any different ?? Kde/Gnome are not part of
|> the /base/ OS and those are the only two apps that people seem to dislike
|> out here!
|
| You missed the point man ... I have nothing against kde / gnome per se. I

The subject seems to say otherwise !!

Anyways the mail was in reply to Arun's BSD advocacy!

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Tue May 29 14:20:09 IST 2001 .:'

Suresh Ramasubramanian

2001-05-29 09:38:17 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
|
|> And how is the Linux approach any different ?? Kde/Gnome are not part of
|> the /base/ OS and those are the only two apps that people seem to dislike
|> out here!
|
| You missed the point man ... I have nothing against kde / gnome per se. I
The subject seems to say otherwise !!

I didn't set that subject - you'll observe it was Atul, if you check back a
bit :)

Post by Kingsly John
Anyways the mail was in reply to Arun's BSD advocacy!

I was talking about the "only two apps that people seem to dislike out here"
part.

--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin

Kingsly John

2001-05-29 09:06:20 UTC

Permalink

On Tue, 29 May 2001, Mario da Costa wrote:

|Kingsly John wrote:
|>
|> And how is the Linux approach any different ?? Kde/Gnome are not part of
|> the /base/ OS and those are the only two apps that people seem to dislike
|> out here!
|>
|
|The problem lies in the fact that when i did my first install of Linux
|RH 6.0 i didn't know squat of what to choose and what not too. and when

You are going off .. my mail was for BSD base OS vs Linux base OS... and

FYI X *definitely* is not base OS !

And if you didn't know what to choose... it would mean that you were not
using linux before.. so Gnome/KDE would be the easiest way to go... and if
you are interested in linux.. you would learn... and you did.. and
discovered Fvwm/Lesstif (AnotherLevel MWM would be the correct term I
suppose).

That is how you make the transition from normal user to power user...
imagine a person who is used to pressing *start* to *shutdown* ends up
with AnotherLevel MWM as his default window manager he wouldn't know what
to do at all ..cos he wouldn't know where to click in the first place!!
(clicking on any of the onscreen components wouldn't give him any menus!!)

Not everyone likes to read lines and lines of manuals and docs... a friend
of mine call me to setup new hardware for his windoze machine because he
hates to read the documentation that came with the h/w while I kinda
relish playing around with fancy hardware!

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Tue May 29 14:25:22 IST 2001 .:'

Atul Chitnis

2001-05-29 09:23:48 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
FYI X *definitely* is not base OS !

Interestingly, RedHat (of all the people) seems to agree. RHL 7.1 lets you
do a server install without a trace of X. A couple of earlier versions
were not so forgiving, but they seem to be back on track with things. ;-)

Atul

Binand Raj S.

2001-05-29 09:36:44 UTC

Permalink

Atul> Interestingly, RedHat (of all the people) seems to
Atul> agree. RHL 7.1 lets you do a server install without a trace
Atul> of X. A couple of earlier versions were not so forgiving,
Atul> but they seem to be back on track with things. ;-)

IIRC, the dependency on X of RHL's server installation was because of
printing - RHL's ghostscipt had X drivers compiled in, along with
drivers for printers. I remember having to recompile the ghostscript
RPM to get rid of the dependency on XFree86-libs (I think) to have an
X free (not XFree!) print server running, using RHL 6.2.

It is good to hear that they are addressing these issues. How did they
get rid of printtool's X requirement???

Binand

Atul Chitnis

2001-05-29 09:48:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by Binand Raj S.
It is good to hear that they are addressing these issues. How did they
get rid of printtool's X requirement???

They didn't ;-)

If you need to use any of the graphical tools, you better have an
X-enabled workstation on the network somewhere that you can export the
display to. This of course assumes that you have the application installed
in first place, with any libs that it requires.

Either that or learn how to create /etc/printcap ;-)

Atul

Atul Chitnis

2001-05-29 11:05:30 UTC

Permalink

Post by Binand Raj S.
IIRC, the dependency on X of RHL's server installation was because of
printing - RHL's ghostscipt had X drivers compiled in, along with
drivers for printers. I remember having to recompile the ghostscript
RPM to get rid of the dependency on XFree86-libs (I think) to have an
X free (not XFree!) print server running, using RHL 6.2.

Argh, you are not going to be a happy camper. It looks like when you
install ghostscript, X is still required. :-(

$ rpm -qpR ghostscript-5.50-17.i386.rpm

urw-fonts >= 1.1
ghostscript-fonts
VFlib2
xtt-fonts
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
ld-linux.so.2
libICE.so.6
libSM.so.6
libVFlib2.so.24
libX11.so.6
libXext.so.6
libXt.so.6
libc.so.6
libm.so.6
libpng.so.2
libttf.so.2
libz.so.1
/bin/sh
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)

Can you figure out what you did to break the dependency? Maybe I can do
something about it a CD set I am working on...

Atul

Binand Raj S.

2001-05-29 11:27:15 UTC

Permalink

Atul> Argh, you are not going to be a happy camper. It looks like
Atul> when you install ghostscript, X is still required. :-(

X is required only if you use ghostscript to view .ps files on a X
display. For printing the X driver is not required, only the driver
for the printer is necessary.

Atul> Can you figure out what you did to break the dependency?
Atul> Maybe I can do something about it a CD set I am working
Atul> on...

Oh yes, I hacked the main Makefile so that it didn't compile the X
drivers, and the spec file. I don't remember if there was an actual
code hack... I had a patch file, but left it in Mumbai, but I remember
it was a bit of a pain. ;-)

Binand

Atul Chitnis

2001-05-29 11:22:55 UTC

Permalink

On Tue, 29 May 2001, Atul Chitnis wrote:

...

Post by Atul Chitnis
Can you figure out what you did to break the dependency? Maybe I can do
something about it a CD set I am working on...

Oops, sorry! I meant to reply to Binand directly. I know this is the wrong
list for this.

Binand - please reply in private mail.

Thanks, and sorry again.

Atul

Arun Sharma

2001-05-29 15:47:21 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
|The thing that everybody is worked up about is: is (2) killing (1) ?
|I'd urge you to take a look at the FreeBSD approach on this. The motto
|is "Power to serve". The "base" operating system includes only the
|UNIX way and no windows way.
And how is the Linux approach any different ?? Kde/Gnome are not part of
the /base/ OS and those are the only two apps that people seem to dislike
out here!

There is no such thing as a base operating system among the linux distros
I've used. glibc is just another package, just like enlightenment. BTW,
Linux is just a kernel, Redhat Linux is an operating system. The distro
thing is just another annoying piece of terminology (just like IP masquerading,
which the rest of the world calls NAT ;).

But the non-integration of the kernel and the "base" OS, has some benefits,
in the form of a clean interface. BSD for example reads /dev/kmem to display
top and ps. It'd be a nightmare in the Linux land to maintain.

-Arun

Arun Sharma

2001-05-29 15:52:47 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
You are going off .. my mail was for BSD base OS vs Linux base OS... and
FYI X *definitely* is not base OS !

The mail was not about BSD base OS vs Linux base OS, because the second
one doesn't exist, AFAIK. If such a thing exists, it has to be prefixed
by the name of the distro.

-Arun

Kingsly John

2001-05-29 07:04:43 UTC

Permalink

On Mon, 28 May 2001, Nikhil Datta wrote:

|going to be fiddling around with my login). Mozilla is heavier than netscape,
|but only marginally - and with 192 MB of RAM, i can afford it. And yes, with
|mozilla, I know that performance/memory footpront issues are only going to
|*improve* as it hits version 1.0. Can't say this about KDE/GNOME.

Why not ? You have seen how mozilla has progressed from the code that came
out of Netscape and to what it is today at 0.9 !

Remember that it has taken all of 3 years to get here.. and it's just one
application.. whereas something like kde and gnome are a LOT more
complex.. KDE even comes with it's own browser that is giving mozilla a
run for the mouseclicks! ... and if you look at GUI development life
cycles.. MacOS and Windoze have had a *lot* longer life than KDE/Gnome...
so if you look at the relative features I would say KDE/Gnome are a lot
better off(they don't have the burden of supporting legacy apps) and they
are improving a lot faster.

I would have to agree with Atul views on KDE/Gnome. They can only improve!

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Tue May 29 12:26:43 IST 2001 .:'

Arun Sharma

2001-05-30 04:01:27 UTC

Permalink

Post by Suresh Ramasubramanian

That's fine. Assuming you mean the kernel and a base install

I mean everything checked into FreeBSD cvs. The exceptions being the
stuff in /usr/src/gnu (cf. cp -a, rgrep[1]) :)

Post by Suresh Ramasubramanian
Now, if someone built a BSD which was that heavily integrated with a GUI
(and cleverly bundled as such - default choices, et al) what'd happen?

One thing is for sure - it won't be called foo FreeBSD or bar OpenBSD
or even bazBSD. The names are trademarks and unlike Linus Torvalds
(who lets people use the name generously), they don't let others use it,
especially when they do something that the trademark owners don't like.

-Arun

[1] rgrep man page claims that it performs better than find, but no
explanations on why.

Arun Sharma

2001-06-03 17:40:05 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nikhil Datta
Another case in point : I wanted to compile and install a *simple*, 230 KB
source CD Label generating application. The application is not tied to the KDE
panel, or any other KDE specific interface. Yet, to install/compile it, I
had to install 130 MB of libraries, documentation, support files, base
system, headers etc. etc. etc. (And no, I didn't want to install
kde-multimedia etc, but it *made * me).

Similar packaging issue: compiling against the latest and greatest libraries.
If you're on Redhat 6.1 and need to use JDK 1.3, tough luck! JDK 1.3 RPM
demands that you have glibc-2.2 installed.

I think binary packages should be created against the *oldest* versions of the
libraries in circulation (with reasonable controls on when a library becomes
obsolete), unless it uses a feature that's not present in the older library.

In this case, I know that JDK 1.3 RPM doesn't use anything glibc-2.2 specific.
In fact, the one from Sun is linked against Redhat 6.x libraries. There is no
excuse to linking it against glibc-2.2.

But doing so (linking against glibc-2.2) may contribute to the bottomline of
some companies.

In freebsd-ports, the latest version of all packages get built against all
versions of freebsd currently in circulation.

-Arun

Kingsly John

2001-06-04 02:28:16 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Arun Sharma wrote:

|I think binary packages should be created against the *oldest* versions of the
|libraries in circulation (with reasonable controls on when a library becomes
|obsolete), unless it uses a feature that's not present in the older library.

So who will get to test the library for bugs and shortcomings ?? why
develop a library further??

If you can't afford to upgrade the library ... get the srpm and do a
rebuild !!

|In this case, I know that JDK 1.3 RPM doesn't use anything glibc-2.2 specific.
|In fact, the one from Sun is linked against Redhat 6.x libraries. There is no
|excuse to linking it against glibc-2.2.

The main disadvantage of the jdk is that there's no source distro... so
you are stuck with no choice but to dance to the tune of the Java Man!

|In freebsd-ports, the latest version of all packages get built against all
|versions of freebsd currently in circulation.

When sun does come out with a jdk for freebsd... I'm willing to bet that
they will only give out only *1* binary distro!

Goto rpmfind.net and you will be able to see rpms built against various
versions of the same libraries... if you don't find yours there are always
the srpms!

Maybe linux users are smarter than bsd users and don't need to be handed
binaries for them to be able to use the software. ;-)

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Mon Jun 4 07:49:26 IST 2001 .:'

Atul Chitnis

2001-06-04 09:49:06 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nikhil Datta
To sum up, IHMO, KDE/GNOME are becoming excessively integrated with the
system - which is "Not a Good Thing" (TM).

Bah, what an over-generalisation. A CD labelling program is *not* part of
the base OS. If you have issues with the application (not shipped with any
known distro), take it up with the author. This has nothing to do with
distro. LICQ is very much a KDE-compliant program - the difference is that
it is intelligently written.

Does you distro break if your CD labelling program is not installed? No?
Then leave the distro out of the argument.

And have a look at the PCQ July 2001 CD set (the annual PCQ Linux issue) -
install the Gateway or Intranet profile and see whether your point still
has a leg to stand on. ;-)

As for proving your point re: ghostscript - bah again. Ghostscript needs
neither KDE nor Gnome, even for the printer config support. It requires
plain old X - and this has been no reason for complaint by you since RHL
5.0 in 1998, when KDE/Gnome did not exist.

Atul

Arun Sharma

2001-06-05 04:31:06 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kingsly John
|I think binary packages should be created against the *oldest* versions of the
|libraries in circulation (with reasonable controls on when a library becomes
|obsolete), unless it uses a feature that's not present in the older library.
So who will get to test the library for bugs and shortcomings ?? why
develop a library further??

Not everyone is interested in fixing the bugs. Some people are interested
in just using the system. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing is a
matter of ideology along the lines of ESR vs RMS.

Post by Kingsly John
If you can't afford to upgrade the library ... get the srpm and do a
rebuild !!

And you want these people to use Linux instead of Windows ? ;)

Post by Kingsly John
|In this case, I know that JDK 1.3 RPM doesn't use anything glibc-2.2 specific.
|In fact, the one from Sun is linked against Redhat 6.x libraries. There is no
|excuse to linking it against glibc-2.2.
The main disadvantage of the jdk is that there's no source distro... so
you are stuck with no choice but to dance to the tune of the Java Man!

Check your facts. I have the source code to JDK 1.2 and 1.3. I have it
compiled for FreeBSD. I just can't redistribute it due to Sun's license
restrictions. If you've followed freebsd-java, the argument goes along the
lines of: we have no company to talk to about licensing. And when people
point out Blackdown is not a company, no answers are forth coming. It's
pretty clear that there is a lot of back door politics happening regarding
Java for FreeBSD, not all of which is clear to me. But I digress.

Post by Kingsly John
|In freebsd-ports, the latest version of all packages get built against all
|versions of freebsd currently in circulation.
When sun does come out with a jdk for freebsd... I'm willing to bet that
they will only give out only *1* binary distro!

No. All you have to do is:

cd /usr/ports/jdk-1.2.2b10; make install

and of course, I can always run the Linux JDK 1.3.

Post by Kingsly John
Goto rpmfind.net and you will be able to see rpms built against various
versions of the same libraries... if you don't find yours there are always
the srpms!

I wish you checked your facts before posting something here.

http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=jdk-1.3

Post by Kingsly John
Maybe linux users are smarter than bsd users and don't need to be handed
binaries for them to be able to use the software. ;-)

[ ignore cheap shot ]

I generally ignore posts based on content, rather than the sender. This
one was a close call.

-Arun

Kingsly John

2001-06-05 07:31:32 UTC

Permalink

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Arun Sharma wrote:

|> If you can't afford to upgrade the library ... get the srpm and do a
|> rebuild !!
|
|And you want these people to use Linux instead of Windows ? ;)

The windoze people will probably have the least problems even if they have
to upgrade everysingle library on the system! and if they use something
like up2date... they would think much about the number of packages being
upgraded.(because unlike a windoze install you don't have to go thru so
many screens click next/continue!)

|> |In this case, I know that JDK 1.3 RPM doesn't use anything glibc-2.2 specific.
|> |In fact, the one from Sun is linked against Redhat 6.x libraries. There is no
|> |excuse to linking it against glibc-2.2.
|>
|> The main disadvantage of the jdk is that there's no source distro... so
|> you are stuck with no choice but to dance to the tune of the Java Man!

|Check your facts. I have the source code to JDK 1.2 and 1.3. I have it
|compiled for FreeBSD. I just can't redistribute it due to Sun's license
|restrictions.

Comes back to what I was saying.. it wouldn't be redistributable... so you
are still stuck with only one binary distro that can be redistributed and
will be called the *official* jdk! as opposed to the official php or perl
that can be built by anyone!

|point out Blackdown is not a company, no answers are forth coming. It's
|pretty clear that there is a lot of back door politics happening regarding
|Java for FreeBSD.

There was more than enough politics for Java for Linux.. too .. and the
first announcement that came from Sun didn't make even a mention of
Blackdown!! They did mention another company(I forget the name)

The people at blackdown protested and said that Sun and the other company
have hijacked their efforts and the whole team quit/retired ... it was
almost a week I think before Sun changed the announcement.

|> Goto rpmfind.net and you will be able to see rpms built against various
|> versions of the same libraries... if you don't find yours there are always
|> the srpms!
|
|I wish you checked your facts before posting something here.
|
|http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=jdk-1.3

I wasn't talking about jdk... as I said the jdk thing is controlled by Sun
no matter what they say about openness.

do a search for any other popular package... you get versions optimised
for 586/686 and various versions of libraries..

|> Maybe linux users are smarter than bsd users and don't need to be handed
|> binaries for them to be able to use the software. ;-)
|>
|
|[ ignore cheap shot ]

I should have tagged it myself... I thought the ;-) at the end would have
sufficed!

Kingsly

.:: Kingsly John ICQ 14787510 ::.
--------------------------------------------------
.:: Linux 2.4.3 #10 Mon Apr 23 22:43:11 IST 2001 i686 ::.
--------------------------------------------------------
`:. Posted to the list on Tue Jun 5 12:48:04 IST 2001 .:'