![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 18/10/2012 01:56 PM, Shay wrote:
> But not everything has been so straight forward: I was proud of my personal
> drew me into Linux in the first place.
Wait, you left Windows and went to Linux because of the steep learning
curve of *Windows*??
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 18-10-2012 14:56, Shay wrote:
> This morning, I dug up a few old procedurally-created 3D works and sent them to
> the printer for a(-nother) laugh. Thinking back to those old works and how
> relatively quickly I was able to produce them, I am reminded of what I was able
> to accomplish when I spent my time working instead of searching for a panacea.
If those were the intricate mesh object you showed in these newsgroups I
am more amazed that nobody offered you a job before.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 18/10/2012 01:56 PM, Shay wrote:
> > But not everything has been so straight forward: I was proud of my personal
> > drew me into Linux in the first place.
>
> Wait, you left Windows and went to Linux because of the steep learning
> curve of *Windows*??
No, I was enticed by the steep learning curve of Linux. I was convinced that
something earned must be better than something purchased.
That being said, the Win7 "Windows Explorer" is more confusing that any
standard, modern Linux application I can think of.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>
> If those were the intricate mesh object you showed in these newsgroups I
> am more amazed that nobody offered you a job before.
Thank you. Amazing enough that anyone remembers that far back.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> Wait, you left Windows and went to Linux because of the steep learning
>> curve of *Windows*??
>
> No, I was enticed by the steep learning curve of Linux. I was convinced that
> something earned must be better than something purchased.
Oh, right. That makes far more sense...
Having said that, from what I can tell, Linux is far more flexible, and
Windows has a far higher probability of actually working.
> That being said, the Win7 "Windows Explorer" is more confusing that any
> standard, modern Linux application I can think of.
Really?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
> Having said that, from what I can tell, Linux is far more flexible, and
> Windows has a far higher probability of actually working.
That about sums it up for laptops with their extra buttons, hard-drive
protection, thumb scanners, etc. Linux "just works" (maybe not 100% optimally,
but you probably wouldn't notice) for a standard desktop.
But Linux has more going for it than "far more flexible". It won't be as
compatible as Windows, but it will do what it does do (e.g., window managers)
better[1]. Windows only wins with top-shelf software installed.
>
> > That being said, the Win7 "Windows Explorer" is more confusing that any
> > standard, modern Linux application I can think of.
>
> Really?
Maybe I just don't have it configured correctly. Not in front of it atm, but
iirc, the first screen doesn't show your file system as a connected network of
folders. What you see is shortcuts to various folders in your file system. This
is confusing if you want to go somewhere that doesn't have a shortcut. Two
clicks to get to my home folder, and, in my case, my home folder is called
"LENOVO_USER" in DOS and "Shay" in Windows Explorer. I found it frustrating at
first.
-Shay
[1] This mirrors my limited experience with IDEs vs. text editors: the IDE can
do a lot of things, but the text editor component is never as nice ime as a
dedicated text editor. Similarly, Windows Explorer, Internet Explorer, and
Explorer shell aren't nearly as nice as their FOSS counterparts.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> Having said that, from what I can tell, Linux is far more flexible, and
>> Windows has a far higher probability of actually working.
>
> That about sums it up for laptops with their extra buttons, hard-drive
> protection, thumb scanners, etc. Linux "just works" (maybe not 100% optimally,
> but you probably wouldn't notice) for a standard desktop.
This has not been my experience. I'm sure we could have a very long
flamewar about this. (In fact, I can promise you that somebody,
somewhere is having this exact discussion /right now/...)
In essence, my experience has been this:
* If the distro installs it by default, it'll probably work perfectly.
* If there is a package for your version of your distro, you can
/probably/ install it. Often this works perfectly. And often this fails
spectacularly, and it's impossible to figure out why.
* If there isn't a suitable package... you probably need to build the
thing from source. If it's a simple item, this might work. If it has
non-trivial external dependencies... forget it. You could waste several
months of your life utterly failing to make it work. It isn't worth it.
For example, when you run VMware Workstation, you can install "VMware
Tools" on the guest OS, which greatly improves integration with the host
OS. At least, you can if the guest OS is Windows. If it's Linux, then
this never, ever, under any circumstances, works. It's /supposed/ to
work; they provide Linux-compatible packages. They just don't /work/.
I imagine the problem basically comes down to this: "Windows" is one OS.
"Linux" is several hundred similar but incompatible OSes. You haven't
got a snowball's chance in hell of writing an installer that works on
all of them.
> But Linux has more going for it than "far more flexible". It won't be as
> compatible as Windows, but it will do what it does do (e.g., window managers)
> better[1]. Windows only wins with top-shelf software installed.
That's an interesting choice of example.
From what I've seen, KDE is reasonable, and GNOME is reasonable. Every
other window manager I've ever seen has been /horrifyingly awful/! I
mean, they're literally /so bad/ that you wonder why the hell anybody
even bothered to build the RPM for it. It looks so utterly hideous, and
it's so difficult to use... WHY WOULD YOU BOTHER?
KDE or GNOME aren't too bad. I haven't really used KDE much recently,
but I think I could probably live with GNOME as my actual desktop. (You
mean, I mean, if I could actually get my software to run on Linux.)
Either of these desktops usually has far more configuration options than
Windows ever had. [Although I see that with GNOME 3 they've removed most
if not all configuration options, for no defined reason...]
>>> That being said, the Win7 "Windows Explorer" is more confusing that any
>>> standard, modern Linux application I can think of.
>>
>> Really?
>
> Maybe I just don't have it configured correctly. Not in front of it atm, but
> iirc, the first screen doesn't show your file system as a connected network of
> folders. What you see is shortcuts to various folders in your file system. This
> is confusing if you want to go somewhere that doesn't have a shortcut. Two
> clicks to get to my home folder, and, in my case, my home folder is called
> "LENOVO_USER" in DOS and "Shay" in Windows Explorer. I found it frustrating at
> first.
Yeah, I'm not fond of that. Basically Microsoft is all like "why should
you care where your file are, or what the filesystem structure looks
like? Let me hide all that computery stuff away from your so you don't
have to even /touch/ it. Let's just pretend that I'm in charge of your
PC, not you..."
You can fight it, and work around it. But you can't turn it off, sadly...
> [1] This mirrors my limited experience with IDEs vs. text editors: the IDE can
> do a lot of things, but the text editor component is never as nice ime as a
> dedicated text editor.
IME, a good IDE has a text editor roughly comparable to a good
standalone text editor. The difference is, I can press a button and
compile my stuff, or whatever. And I've yet to see a standalone text
editor which understands source code well enough to do really decent
syntax highlighing, much less anything more sophisticated.
What I /will/ say is that most IDEs tend to be unreasonably slow...
> Similarly, Windows Explorer, Internet Explorer, and
> Explorer shell aren't nearly as nice as their FOSS counterparts.
I don't like Internet Explorer at all. I use Firefox instead. (I tried
Chrome, but didn't like it.)
However, I prefer Windows Explorer to any FOSS alternative I've seen.
[Not that I've seen any that run on Windows in the first place.] It
defaults to assuming you're a total moron who is too stupid to operate a
computer. Once you turn all that crap off, it looks nicer and works with
less fuss than anything else I've seen.
In Windows 7, the main user shell now basically looks like KDE or GNOME.
I preferred the old one, but it's a mere personal preference rather than
a strong opinion.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:10:57 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> If it's Linux, then this never, ever, under any circumstances, works.
> It's /supposed/ to work; they provide Linux-compatible packages. They
> just don't /work/.
No, it would be accurate for you to say that you've never gotten it to
work. It's not accurate for you to say it never, ever, under any
circumstances just cannot possibly be made to work by anybody ever in the
entire universe.
The counter example? I've used the VMware Tools in Linux guests, and
they've worked perfectly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> The counter example? I've used the VMware Tools in Linux guests, and
> they've worked perfectly.
Me too. So there's at least two of us against one Andrew ;-).
> Jim
>
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> Having said that, from what I can tell, Linux is far more flexible, and
> >> Windows has a far higher probability of actually working.
> >
> > That about sums it up for laptops with their extra buttons, hard-drive
> > protection, thumb scanners, etc. Linux "just works" (maybe not 100% optimally,
> > but you probably wouldn't notice) for a standard desktop.
>
> This has not been my experience. I'm sure we could have a very long
> flamewar about this. (In fact, I can promise you that somebody,
> somewhere is having this exact discussion /right now/...)
>
> In essence, my experience has been this:
>
Fair enough. You're probably more of a "power user" than I am. I don't even work
on things remotely. That being said, VMWare is on the Arch Linux wiki, and I'll
bet you could get it working in ten minutes if you followed that.
>
> > But Linux has more going for it than "far more flexible". It won't be as
> > compatible as Windows, but it will do what it does do (e.g., window managers)
> > better[1]. Windows only wins with top-shelf software installed.
>
> That's an interesting choice of example.
>
> From what I've seen, KDE is reasonable, and GNOME is reasonable. Every
> other window manager I've ever seen has been /horrifyingly awful/! I
> mean, they're literally /so bad/ that you wonder why the hell anybody
> even bothered to build the RPM for it. It looks so utterly hideous, and
> it's so difficult to use... WHY WOULD YOU BOTHER?
Why I would bother:
(12" laptop)
* Multiple workspaces
* Keybord control
* Ability to fullscreen almost any application
* Ability to alter and hide window decorations
* At least rudimentary tiling
(Shared Desktop)
* Switch users with a key-combination
* Configurable for wide monitors
Of course, that's not only true of the ugly ones. I prefer xfce (an ugly one).
It's easy to make attractive (fo my tastes: small, simple, square window
decorations and a nice nature wallpaper) and it's simple to set up hotkeys. The
default ugliness must be a pride issue with some of those projects. Doesn't make
sense to me either.
>
> Yeah, I'm not fond of that. Basically Microsoft is all like "why should
> you care where your file are, or what the filesystem structure looks
> like? Let me hide all that computery stuff away from your so you don't
> have to even /touch/ it. Let's just pretend that I'm in charge of your
> PC, not you..."
>
> You can fight it, and work around it. But you can't turn it off, sadly...
I guess I'm bone-headed. I'm a user. I don't try anything fancy with the
interface. But I always seem to quickly run into something the UI guys didn't
expect me to.
>
> > [1] This mirrors my limited experience with IDEs vs. text editors: the IDE can
> > do a lot of things, but the text editor component is never as nice ime as a
> > dedicated text editor.
>
> IME, a good IDE has a text editor roughly comparable to a good
> standalone text editor.
I remember now: you don't care for featureful text editors. They've been working
on Vim for decades now. It can do a lot of things.
>
> > Similarly, Windows Explorer, Internet Explorer, and
> > Explorer shell aren't nearly as nice as their FOSS counterparts.
>
> I don't like Internet Explorer at all. I use Firefox instead. (I tried
> Chrome, but didn't like it.)
>
> However, I prefer Windows Explorer to any FOSS alternative I've seen.
Ignore the FOSS. I don't know what is and isn't FOSS. I was just too lazy to
type 'Open Source'. I meant Firefox, KDE, etc.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |