Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,747

    Quote Originally Posted by CarterCox View Post
    What I don't understand is: why have a bunch of DEs for that, instead of a single DE with lots of options? Every time anyone wants a new feature, or disagrees with a certain policy, a new DE is written, instead of adding things to the only existing one. I agree that the resulting package would be a bit larger, but you wouldn't have to write apps for Qt and GTK separately. Every time you want to write a GUI front-end for a program, you have to do it for Qt and for GTK. It's insanely inefficient.
    you are largely wrong.
    the unified DE you dream of? it would have to be the ultimate bloat - for _technical_ reasons.
    and it's not necessary either, because toolkits can co-exist - there's no need to write two or more frontends, because most (read: practically all) systems already have QT and GTK installed.
    There is no way this will ever be different. There are too many minds to change. It's very frustrating. Linux would have been different under unified management. Probably if it was for-profit too.
    why is it frustrating? it's the price of freedom. i am willing to pay that price, because freedom is important to me.
    you just need to get your priorities straight - what's more important to you, software freedom or a unified, slick system under unified and for-profit management?

    relevant xkcd:

  2. #12
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by nihili View Post
    you are largely wrong.
    the unified DE you dream of? it would have to be the ultimate bloat - for _technical_ reasons.
    Maybe instead of 800Mb it would take up 1.5Gb. That's a small price to pay. KDE is already highly customizable. A few added features wouldn't make much difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by nihili View Post
    and it's not necessary either, because toolkits can co-exist - there's no need to write two or more frontends, because most (read: practically all) systems already have QT and GTK installed.
    Maybe I am a special user, because the sole process of intalling Kate would mean installing 240Mb of extra Qt dependencies. Also:

    https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...t#Alternatives
    https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...dio#Front-ends

    Just a few examples of wasted time.

    Quote Originally Posted by nihili View Post
    why is it frustrating? it's the price of freedom. i am willing to pay that price, because freedom is important to me.
    It's frustrating because Linux could be so much better if only function was prioritized over ideology.

    And I don't get what you mean by freedom. You still depend on others to have and use software. Even to install it you depend on utilities written by others. The only thing that's free is the code, created by others out of good will or just vanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by nihili View Post
    you just need to get your priorities straight - what's more important to you, software freedom or a unified, slick system under unified and for-profit management?
    A usable system for everybody, not a few with very special needs, or a few who can't stand Windows violating their rights and are willing to make sacrifices, only because their loss wasn't too great in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by nihili View Post
    relevant xkcd:
    Yeah... As I said, it's too late now.

  3. #13
    Linux User peteh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by CarterCox View Post
    A usable system for everybody, not a few with very special needs, or a few who can't stand Windows violating their rights and are willing to make sacrifices, only because their loss wasn't too great in the first place.
    I'm not sure what you mean here. The only reason most people use MS is because that's what almost all hardware sellers sell. You don't suppose all of those MS windows users know anything about the system, do you? My wife, who knows almost nothing about computers, happily uses a laptop with opensuse on it. She knows it works well and that's enough for her.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #14
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by peteh View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean here. The only reason most people use MS is because that's what almost all hardware sellers sell. You don't suppose all of those MS windows users know anything about the system, do you? My wife, who knows almost nothing about computers, happily uses a laptop with opensuse on it. She knows it works well and that's enough for her.
    I've installed Antix on my aunt's PC and she is using Linux for years without even knowing what a OS is

  6. #15
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by peteh View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean here. The only reason most people use MS is because that's what almost all hardware sellers sell. You don't suppose all of those MS windows users know anything about the system, do you? My wife, who knows almost nothing about computers, happily uses a laptop with opensuse on it. She knows it works well and that's enough for her.
    You don't suppose there is a reason why sellers use Windows instead of Linux? Just luck perhaps.

    People don't need to know anything about the system. They know it allows them to use software they need to use because they use it at work without complications.

    Example: my mother is a teacher and needs to use interactive screens in her workplace, and she needs Activ software. This it is not available (at least not easily available for a person who "doesn't know anything about the system") for Linux.

    There is an example like that for almost anyone who works with computers at least a little. MS Office is the best example.

    Another example: I am an engineering student and I need AutoCAD and Inventor, and guess what: MS Office as well!

    What else do we need to know about the system?

    May I ask what your wife does with that laptop?

    Quote Originally Posted by allin View Post
    I've installed Antix on my aunt's PC and she is using Linux for years without even knowing what a OS is
    Again, may I ask what your aunt does with it?

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  7. #16
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by CarterCox View Post
    You don't suppose there is a reason why sellers use Windows instead of Linux? Just luck perhaps.

    People don't need to know anything about the system. They know it allows them to use software they need to use because they use it at work without complications.

    Example: my mother is a teacher and needs to use interactive screens in her workplace, and she needs Activ software. This it is not available (at least not easily available for a person who "doesn't know anything about the system") for Linux.

    There is an example like that for almost anyone who works with computers at least a little. MS Office is the best example.

    Another example: I am an engineering student and I need AutoCAD and Inventor, and guess what: MS Office as well!

    What else do we need to know about the system?

    May I ask what your wife does with that laptop?



    Again, may I ask what your aunt does with it?

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    Just for read/write emails and surf the web. I'm not sure that we don't need to know anything about the system, but the main problem is that we are grown with Windows and for most people it's the only OS.

    btw, I suppose we are going too much Off Topic

  8. #17
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by allin View Post
    Just for read/write emails and surf the web. I'm not sure that we don't need to know anything about the system, but the main problem is that we are grown with Windows and for most people it's the only OS.

    btw, I suppose we are going too much Off Topic
    How are we going off-topic? We are trying to determine how truthful the statement is.

    I think that one of the reasons why Windows is so popular is because you don't need to know a thing about the system, which is what most people that don't care about computers want. Or do you need to know how the engine of your car works? Do you need to know how your lung cells work? No. Why would this be different?

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  9. #18
    Linux Guru Segfault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Acadiana
    Posts
    2,185
    Windows is not popular, it is widespread as home PC OS. Popular would mean people have made a choice and chosen Windows.
    It is widespread because Microsoft offered cost-effective OS when PC market exploded and hardware became affordable. Compare to UNIX cost back then, only wealthy companies could afford it. And Apple Mac was expensive, it still is.
    Despite Windows being commercial OS protecting their market share with tooth and nail Linux is creeping in. Nobody is really pushing it into home PC market, so Windows, despite being unbelievably crappy, is relatively safe.

  10. #19
    The one and only reason that Windows is so popular is money.

    They get paid, with Linux which is free nothing.

    If Linux was like Windows, I would never have changed.

    Choice is reason for so many different versions.

  11. #20
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    271
    -->
    Quote Originally Posted by Segfault View Post
    Windows is not popular, it is widespread as home PC OS. Popular would mean people have made a choice and chosen Windows.
    It is widespread because Microsoft offered cost-effective OS when PC market exploded and hardware became affordable. Compare to UNIX cost back then, only wealthy companies could afford it. And Apple Mac was expensive, it still is.
    Despite Windows being commercial OS protecting their market share with tooth and nail Linux is creeping in. Nobody is really pushing it into home PC market, so Windows, despite being unbelievably crappy, is relatively safe.
    I believe Windows is worse than almost any Linux distribution, simply because of the impact the user can have. I don't think it's crappy though. I don't notice any difference between using something like Ubuntu to using Windows, except for the way one can obtain and install software, which I believe to be the most relevant feature in Linux distributions this days.

    I won't mention software compatibility because that's not influenced by the OS itself, it is rather a consequence of popularity or, I guess, in the MacOS case, investments made by the company (why else would MS Office be available for Mac and not Linux?).

    And I don't think that's the reason why it's popular or "widespread" is just luck or because they got here first. Maybe initially but not anymore.

    Since we are speaking about this, may I ask what you do with your main computer, Segfault?

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •