Re: stuff and the thing

[--Damacus-- <damacus@bastion.cnsnet.net>]

On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 08:31:06PM -0500, John Corey wrote:
> 
> mike packard wrote:
> 
> >  I also find KDE very uncomfortable because (like Windows)
> > it's easy and convenient to configure the things they have menus for, but
> > very difficult, to do what there isn't a menu for. It seems to me that
> > this whole "getting Linux on the desktop" movement is doing a lot more
> > "Hey we can imitate Windows." and not enough "Hey, we're so much cooler
> > than windows, see!"  The whole thing (RedHat is doing this too) just
> > seemed very clogged and messy.  Example: A "minimum" install from Caldera
> > 2.2 installed full-blown KDE along with all its stuff and that gui login
> > thingy.
>
[Snip  John's nice reason]

Why KDE works and is a sucess in default installs:
	- GUI with enough resemblance to windows
	- Looks like Windows, tastes like OS/2, runs like a stable Linux app.
	  :-)
	- On a decent machine (300 or so MHz, std market speed) with 64M of
	  RAM will nicely carry the setup.
	- These OS's tote a nice big 'impress me' sign.  Most people scratch
	  their heads and say, "Oh." after seeing Linux boot.  I guess some
	  people have problems understanding a CLI can be so damned powerful :)
-AND-	- Majorly increases out-of-box usability.  Fairly nice for beginners
	  that want to be able to do something productive while learning how
	  to really get around on the system via a shell. [1]

> Most importantly, these movements aren't for everybody, and there is
> still the choice not to use them.  The last thing we need is for a group
> to demand that their way is the one and only way.  Some of the people
> get very vocal that their way is the only way, but that's not what has
> made Linux what it is today.  At least give them a try if you can.  If
> you like them use them, if you don't, don't.

Your way, right away at Burger King now! (Hehe, anyone listen to the Social
Engineering ra file from BeyondHope?)
 
> OpenLinux is really targetted to these people.  So their minimal
> installation installs KDE and all.  For a "true" minimal install, go
> with Debian or Slackware.

Re: Slackware 4, anyone know how large a full install is?  I've not had a
chance to toy with it.  
 
Hopefully with Slack4's moving to glibc2 it won't bloat up too much.  Being
able to slap an installation with Development and network support on 60M
drives is quite amazing, however quite stuffy. 

Speaking of small hard drives, does anyone have unused harddrives of at least
100M?  The C++ lab at school (SHS) is really aching for a few larger drives.
If you have any to spare, please zap me an emal.

At the moment, of the lab's 29 client machines, about 6 of them have drives
of 60M or so.  That leaves about 200K free after installing Slackware 3.6 with
our base needs.. TGFNFS ;-)

Regards,

Mike

-- 
Damacus		| damacus@bastion.cnsnet.net ** damacus@statiknet.org
		| PGP: http://bastion.cnsnet.net/~damacus/damacus-key.asc
		| Administrator, Cimarron Network Services, Inc.
IRC:  (EFnet)	| #statik	http://www.statiknet.org  
nick: damacus	| #dc-stuff	http://www.attrition.org/ (hosted/dc-stuff)
   
   Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
			      -- Ferenc Mantfeld

--
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.