Yeah, that was badly stated.  I stopped caring about the Linux desktop right
after Enlightenment came out the FIRST time.  It was interesting eye-candy,
but I could see where things were headed.  Give me a terminal and the
ability to pop up a GUI-based web-browser, and I was fine.  

Tried ratpoison for a while, that was fine... but then realized I was slowly
sliding toward either the Windows machine or the Mac for an SSH terminal
into the Linux servers, and then realized there was little/no value in
having a "real" Linux desktop machine... especially once Parallels and
VMWare came on the scene.

Nate 

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of
William "Chops" Westfield
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:25 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [OT] KDE 4.2 Desktop


On Apr 6, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:

> Linux on the desktop has always been a copy-cat OS.

No it hasn't.  Or not of windows/macos, anyway.  The original linux/ 
freebsd desktops were straight X-windows with old unix/X style window  
managers with minimal commonality between applications ("Motif" was  
one attempt at a GUI standard.)  And mostly based on  text Xterm  
windows.  Some of us still use that stuff.  And linux does pretty ok  
in an environment where the primary use of a desktop is to access the  
servers...

But Linux has only made PROGRESS in getting to the common persons  
desktop since they started being a copy-cat of the more popular  
commercial desktops.  (Actually, you can go a lot further - linux has  
only made that progress as it has become a general copycat of the  
look, feel, and feature-set of the common commercial GUI OSes.)

BillW

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist