openSUSE 11.3
in [Suse]
|
Prev: How to set up Viewsonic VA2012wb
Next: instructor's solutions manual for Cryptography and Network Security (4th Ed., William Stallings)
From: David Bolt on 21 Mar 2010 10:20 On Sunday 21 Mar 2010 04:33, while playing with a tin of spray paint, Paul J Gans painted this mural: > David Bolt <blacklist-me(a)davjam.org> wrote: >>You don't _have_ to adapt to KDE4. You can choose to use a different >>desktop, and there are several others to choose from, or you can go >>with KDE4. > > Same problem. I have to deal with what *was* working distribution. And still is. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be seeing this. > My basic point is that if openSUSE wants to be taken seriously by > computer *users* it can't do this to them. Few here seem to get it. > As a toy I'm perfectly happy having a new interface every release. > But I'd then not be using openSUSE as if it was a real operating > system. Then I don't suggest you try Mandriva, Fedora, Debian, or any of the other distros, as they're all moving, or have already moved, from KDE3 to KDE4. >>I'm using KDE4.3.5 with 11.2. While I still miss some features of KDE3, >>like media info in the properties dialogue box, it's minor. I tweaked >>my desktops so they looked like my KDE3 desktop, although I never found >>out how to add the application menus to the desktop. Not that it >>matters to me now as I no longer want them. I've added a new >>auto-hiding panel at the top of the screen that holds icons for all my >>most used programs. > > And how much time did all that take you? Less than an hour. And that included finding info on how to have each desktop have a separate activity, and then configuring each of my 18 desktops how I liked them. It also included going through a few of the themes available to see which one I liked, setting the window style to Keramik and tweaking the settings for it, setting it to use the fonts I like, the splash screen, and various other settings. > And what did you gain > in productivity as a result? The gain is actually quite minor. I don't have to go hunting through the KDE menu to find an app but, then again, some of the apps I most often use aren't shut down. Some I do, and then restart some time later, some are left open from start-up to shutdown, which usually means they're open and running for days or weeks on end. Having specific purposes for different desktops helps with this. For instance, I have kmail and knode running on desktop 7, susestudio on 6 and my buildservice account windows are on 8. I have other desktops specifically for video work, sounds, programming, even one aside for eBay. And I've found that I am just as productive, if not more so, with KDE4 as I was with KDE3. Sure, they don't look the same, but they don't really look that different. The main issue I had when I first started using KDE4 was the fact that it didn't look the same as KDE3, nor act quite the same. Now that's a none-issue. It's just another desktop environment, one among the many I've tried. Over the last 25 years I've tried GEM, MiNT and Magic on several different Atari machines; RISC OS 3 and 4 on several different Acorn machines; Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000 and XP; KDE1, KDE2, KDE3 and KDE4, Gnome and Gnome 2, Windowmaker, XFCE, and a some others of which I can't even recall the names; Mac OS 8.5. As for which one I preferred, that's quite easy. I started with GEM, and I preferred that. I tried MiNT and then Magic, and then I preferred Magic. I used RISC OS 3 for years before getting hold of a RISC PC and installing RISCOS 4. Now I prefer RISCOS 4 to RISCOS 3. I tried various versions of Windows and, of them, I prefer XP. I've seen Vista and, while there's not a great deal of visual difference, I don't like the repeated "do you really want to do this?" questioning. I've also seen Windows 7[0], and the first time I did I mistook it for an early version of KDE4. With Gnome and Gnome 2, I can say I don't actually like either of them that much. They feel too restrictive, although I have used them and, for testing the 11.3 milestones released so far, I still do quick tests. When I first tried KDE1, I preferred it to the other Linux desktops I'd tried. Then KDE2 was released and it took a short while before I preferred that to KDE1. The same happened with KDE3, it took a short while before I preferred it to KDE2. With KDE4, I've found KDE4.0 was virtually unusable. KDE4.1 was more usable, but still nowhere near as much as KDE3. KDE4.2 was more usable still, but I still preferred KDE3. With KDE4.3, it's as usable as KDE3 and I actually prefer 4.3 to 3.5. >>Why set up a separate machine when you can set up a virtual machine? > > I don't really want to play with virtualization on my production > machine. Why not? It's just like any other application. Sure, the virtual hard drives may take up several GBs of drive space but, unless you need all your CPU cycles for something important, it's not going to make much of an issue. Again, I do run VirtualBox and use it for testing distros out, and I find the impact is fairly minimal. > Thanks for your input, but I think that you have missed the point. > Real operating systems don't introduce major changes in operations > without *first* making sure that the new features work and that > old users have a clear upgrade path. You are missing the point. Linux is the OS, not openSUSE. KDE is one of the desktops that runs on top of Linux, and Windows if you really want to do so. OpenSUSE is just one of the distros that combine various packages together to make it easier for people to install and use. > I very much want Linux taken seriously as an operating system. At > the moment it can't be. Apparently, there's an awful lot of people that disagree, including those masters of FUD in Redmond. If it couldn't be taken seriously, they would be ignoring it. Since they aren't, they must think it can be taken seriously. Regards, David Bolt -- Team Acorn: www.distributed.net OGR-NG @ ~100Mnodes RC5-72 @ ~1Mkeys/s openSUSE 11.0 32b | | | openSUSE 11.3M3 32b openSUSE 11.0 64b | openSUSE 11.1 64b | openSUSE 11.2 64b | TOS 4.02 | openSUSE 11.1 PPC | RISC OS 4.02 | RISC OS 3.11
From: Darrell Stec on 21 Mar 2010 10:49 David Bolt wrote: > Over the last 25 years I've tried GEM, MiNT and Magic on several > different Atari machines; RISC OS 3 and 4 on several different > Acorn machines; Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000 and XP; KDE1, KDE2, KDE3 and > KDE4, Gnome and Gnome 2, Windowmaker, XFCE, and a some others of which > I can't even recall the names; Mac OS 8.5. > Do you remember GEOS/Geoworks a windowing program and early competitor to Microsoft? The company that made it disappeared for a long while but are back with a vengeance on cell phone software. -- Later, Darrell
From: David Bolt on 21 Mar 2010 12:39 On Sunday 21 Mar 2010 14:49, while playing with a tin of spray paint, Darrell Stec painted this mural: > David Bolt wrote: > Do you remember GEOS/Geoworks a windowing program and early competitor to > Microsoft? The company that made it disappeared for a long while but are > back with a vengeance on cell phone software. No. I didn't use a PC before 1998, so I missed out on all the DOS, GEOS and the early Windows environments. I did hear about the version for the C64 but not the one for the PC. And, even then, I was already using an ST and GEM by the time it was released. Regards, David Bolt -- Team Acorn: www.distributed.net OGR-NG @ ~100Mnodes RC5-72 @ ~1Mkeys/s openSUSE 11.0 32b | | | openSUSE 11.3M3 32b openSUSE 11.0 64b | openSUSE 11.1 64b | openSUSE 11.2 64b | TOS 4.02 | openSUSE 11.1 PPC | RISC OS 4.02 | RISC OS 3.11
From: Paul J Gans on 21 Mar 2010 15:27 houghi <houghi(a)houghi.org.invalid> wrote: >Paul J Gans wrote: >> My basic point is that if openSUSE wants to be taken seriously by >> computer *users* it can't do this to them. Few here seem to get it. >> As a toy I'm perfectly happy having a new interface every release. >> But I'd then not be using openSUSE as if it was a real operating >> system. >We get it. You don't like openSUSE. Then why do you keep using it. >Please start using something else. I never said that. What I said was that I did not like the switch from a relatively stable KDE 3.5 to the relatively buggy 4.x. My view is that KDE 3.5 should have been kept alive for another year or so while 4.x worked out its bugs. Both were included with 11.1. I saw no problem with that at all and had I had a test machine available then would probably have installed 4.x on it just to get used to it. Both should have been included in 11.2 and possibly in 11.3 as well. -- --- Paul J. Gans
From: Paul J Gans on 21 Mar 2010 15:28
houghi <houghi(a)houghi.org.invalid> wrote: >Paul J Gans wrote: >> Thank you very much. I do like KDE. I do not like the switch >> from KDE 3.5 to KDE 4.x. Too much change with too little gain >> for the user. >OK. I'll play. >> You see, in a real distro, the unix principle of minimum astonishment >> should still apply. The user's needs are very important. >So if openSUSE (or Linux) is not a real distro, why still use it? >> That doesn't mean that you can't change software or programming >> interfaces. It does mean that you can't expect your production >> users to beta test your stuff for you. >LOL. Still not over the early release of 4.x We have that behind us now. >You don't lie 4.x. You liked 3.X. Tough for you. Start using something >you DO like and stop whining. >> You want to see linux as a major player on the desktop, then pay >> attention to the users. >Perhaps that is what you want. I don't care if it is a major player or >not. Well then, it is clear where we differ. -- --- Paul J. Gans |