* Sunny Dubey (dubeys@bxscience.edu) [010924 14:21]: > > > dude ... that is so NOT a word! > > yes, but fuck isn't a word, either, your point being?? > > > > > As to your points regarding application software, I'd tend to agree with > > your description of word processors, but I think you were a bit harsh on > > your treatment of browsers: > > no, I even stated that technologies like mozilla were rapidly improving. > Wheil I maybe a full blown KDE user (compiles it, and tracks all the major > KDE mailing lists), I sure want to use Mozilla more than anything. Mozilla > is the only form of standardization we have. Not only does mozilla very act > the same on different OS'es (a big plus) but it has the XUL interface > (another big plus). > > > Mozilla is very usable and very stable. > > Please don't wait for it to reach "perfect usability," as there is no > > such thing. I'll admit: this remark was trite. I got a little carried away, and I apologize. > stop taking my words literally, mozilla is nice and all, but it sure is a > memory hog, and it even makes Konqueror look pretty fast. > > > And when it comes to DEs, K does still feel like a much more > > "complete" environment, but gnome is getting there. I find gnome with > > enlightenment to be prettier, > > I don't care about which one looks better. Any desktop can be skinned to > look like something else. I'm talking more about the internal technology. I could have sworn that your original message was talking about usability. To many users, appearances count when talking about usability. Just look at the ever-prevalent fear of the command line. > KDE has cool stuff like Kioslaves, Mcop, Dcop, artsd, etc etc etc. What does > GNOME have??.... What does a user care? > thats where iI make my stand on KDE and why I choose it over GNOME. > (Gnome has much prettier Icons, but I could care less) well, they're free; you can go ahead and use them with K. > > <snip> > > > > Sorry, buddy, I don't mean to be a punk and/or flame you, but > > recommending non-free software on this list is one of my pet peeves, and > > really pretty heretical! > > and people like you are my pet peeves too "people like me"? do tell... > yes, OSS is great and what not, and yes I spend lots of time telling people > why they should use OSS, as opposed to CSS or OSSCCP (open source software, > closed community project). However there will forever be CSS software, and good! > everyonce in a while, the stuff does kick major ass. agreed. > Can you name me a single OSS app that can do what Norton does?? Those three lines of /bin/sh I scribbled up there do the job fairly well... > Can you name me a single OSS app that can take images of entire hard drivers, > or various parts, and send them over the network on the fly?? you mean like "dd | nc"? > Can you name me a single OSS app that can multicast to an entire network, > there by speeding the time it takes to "create" computer setups?? the multicast part does sound like a pretty cool feature. That would take some custom work (meaning I haven't seen it done and pacakged) to implement in debian. > Can you name me a single OSS app that can use just about every networking > card out there, provided that it has dos drivers?? (99% of all NICs have dos > drivers). I'm not sure where hardware support entered this discussion. This is certainly not the job of application software, all licensing terms aside. > Can you name me a single OSS app that works on MORE than just UNIX? (windows, > 9x, 2000/XP, AtheOS, et al) I could give a list, but you asked for one, so I'll give you one: apache. > > OSS has its place, and we should use it when we can. But CSS isn't going > anywhere, and we need to use it when we can too. I'd reverse that -- "we *can* use it when we *need* to." > As an employer (if I were one), I wouldn't mind spend the little amount of > money it cost to purchase licenses of Norton ghost and the clients. Why? > because this piece of CSS software would SAVE me money. Instead of paying my > sys admins 35~ an hour, to deal with computer crap just because they are too > stubborn to use CSS, I'd be paying them to have computers installed on the > fly, so they could do more productive things (and fun things too) Good thinking. My argument is not that we should use the free solution at all costs, but that we should seek free alternatives when we can. And I don't even mean "if at all possible", even just "when feasible." There certainly IS a Debian Way to do what the OP asked for, and it's not even hard nor does it require exorbitant time expenditures (see other posts), so IMO we shouldn't be recommending windows software to do the job. > just my two food stamps, i'm up for flames. my original intention was not to attack you or even your opinions; I just don't think it's appropriate to recommend windows software for problems which have easy debian answers on the debian-user list. Again, I hold no grudge against you, as re-reading my post, I can understand why you got defensive. I reiterate that I never meant to make any judgements on your advice or your character, and I think we can consider the whole thing closed. I apologize to you and to anyone else bored by this off-topic conversation. Good times, -- Vineet http://www.anti-dmca.org Unauthorized use of this .sig may constitute violation of US law. echo Qba\'g gernq ba zr\! |tr 'a-zA-Z' 'n-za-mN-ZA-M'
Attachment:
pgpImkroX4RTq.pgp
Description: PGP signature