6:44 a.m.
You are joking, aren't you? I don't know what you mean by
"lesser
graphic-cards," but I have a Toshiba laptop with Intel graphics and F 13
that I use as a showpiece.
I'm not joking. Yes, there are some look-perks that Linux has - like the
cube and the wobbly windows - that are nice, and "Oh wow!" indeed. But did
you notice my mentioning of the true transparency? Even conky isn't truly
transparent, but what about borders or panels? The panels take the colour
of the desktop-background if told to do so, but that doesn't make them
transparent; move a window off the bottom to see what I mean.
Isn't it possible to keep these effects and make it transparent?
Leaving my comments on hardware management and wifi (almost) unnoticed.
--
Greetz,
Roelof Kusters
aka Ben
The internet isn't a highway, it's a swamp: the more you surf, the more it
draws you in.
Make 1000 euros in minutes! Sell my house: http://www.bentrein.com/house
2:35 p.m.
New subject: Thoughts of a user
On 12/26/2010 11:53 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
I'm aware of that, the reply-to is there for a purpose
(deliberate e-mail
redundancy, don't ask...).
As long as you know what's happening, it's no problem. Back when I did
tech support for an ISP, I regularly got calls from customers who
couldn't understand why they were getting double messages from mailing
lists. I put the comment in the main message instead of a private one,
BTW, so that anybody else who might have that issue by accident would
know why and be able to correct it if they wanted.
1:53 p.m.
New subject: Thoughts of a user
On Sunday 26 December 2010 18:53:21 Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/26/2010 09:02 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> 3) Gnome folks lack good taste for eye-candy :-D . If you try out just
> the default KDE spin, you'll find a much more interesting environment
> even by default, not to mention turning on desktop effects and such.
I use Gnome. The few times I tried KDE I found it garish. And, I'm
glad transparency isn't on by default; my eyesight is bad enough as it
is, considering that I'm having a consult tomorrow to find out if I'm
ready for cataract surgery. Not everybody has the same needs, and
Fedora is wise to have defaults that are usable by those of us with poor
vision.
Of course, I agree, that's one of the reasons why eye-candy stuff should be
opt-in rather than opt-out. OTOH, I am lucky to have good eyesight, and I find
Gnome quite dull compared to KDE. And as it seemed that OP has a similar
opinion on Gnome, I suggested he tried KDE instead.
As you say, not everybody has the same needs. ;-)
BTW, you'll be getting this twice because you have your Reply To
header
set. Unless you really like getting double messages, you might want to
correct that.
I'm aware of that, the reply-to is there for a purpose (deliberate e-mail
redundancy, don't ask...). Yes, I do get double messages (and filter them when
it is possible), and yes, I hate them, but in general sometimes it is better
to get a double message than not at all... ;-) You might also notice that the
reply-to address is different from the one I use to post on the list. That is
also deliberate.
Best, :-)
Marko
4:58 a.m.
New subject: Thoughts of a user
<snip>
I'm not joking. Yes, there are some look-perks that Linux has - like the
> cube and the wobbly windows - that are nice, and "Oh
wow!" indeed.
But did
> you notice my mentioning of the true transparency? Even conky isn't truly
> transparent, but what about borders or panels?
</snip>
Why? ?
Ubuntu has semi transparent terminals, apps can be made transparent to
varying degrees, why in the world would I need transparent windows,
borders and menus with a dozen windows open on 4 virtual screens-- it
may be cute but to me and others I work with, has no practical value,
no aesthetics and leans toward unuseability.
Fedora 14!, I'm glad not to have transparency.
Wobbly windows, duh!
On an average day I have Inkscape, Gimp, Scribus, Blender, Spreadsheets,
Audacity, Chromium x 2 or 3, geany, gedit, windows, 2 or 3 terminals
open at once and that's a normal day one that is unimaginable in Windows
or mac.
Couldn't imagine anything worse than seeing what's underneath while
concentrating on work at hand.
I love the look of Fedora and ubuntu.
The "Oh! Wow" effect, I would say could be from windows and mac users
whose mindset puts Linux circa "days of dos 3".
Roger
11:55 p.m.
New subject: Thoughts of a user
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Roger <arelem(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
The "Oh! Wow" effect, I would say could be from windows and
mac users
whose mindset puts Linux circa "days of dos 3".
Roger
I think people misunderstood my anecdote. The "Oh wow!" wasn't because
linux could do transparencies, but because it did it when you actually
need it i.e. moving your windows around so that you can place it best
and then be done with it when going back to work.
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.
12:53 p.m.
New subject: Thoughts of a user
On 12/26/2010 09:02 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
3) Gnome folks lack good taste for eye-candy :-D . If you try out
just the
default KDE spin, you'll find a much more interesting environment even by
default, not to mention turning on desktop effects and such.
I use Gnome. The few times I tried KDE I found it garish. And, I'm
glad transparency isn't on by default; my eyesight is bad enough as it
is, considering that I'm having a consult tomorrow to find out if I'm
ready for cataract surgery. Not everybody has the same needs, and
Fedora is wise to have defaults that are usable by those of us with poor
vision.
BTW, you'll be getting this twice because you have your Reply To header
set. Unless you really like getting double messages, you might want to
correct that.
11:02 a.m.
New subject: Thoughts of a user
On Sunday 26 December 2010 12:44:30 Roelof 'Ben' Kusters wrote:
> You are joking, aren't you? I don't know what you mean
by "lesser
> graphic-cards," but I have a Toshiba laptop with Intel graphics and F 13
> that I use as a showpiece.
I'm not joking. Yes, there are some look-perks that Linux has - like the
cube and the wobbly windows - that are nice, and "Oh wow!" indeed. But did
you notice my mentioning of the true transparency? Even conky isn't truly
transparent, but what about borders or panels? The panels take the colour
of the desktop-background if told to do so, but that doesn't make them
transparent; move a window off the bottom to see what I mean.
Isn't it possible to keep these effects and make it transparent?
My KDE panel is fully transparent (my choice is 30% visibility), I'm looking
at it right now. I wouldn't know about Gnome, but KDE does have true
transparency built-in, provided that you have appropriate graphics drivers for
your hardware. Compiz also has true transparency (I'm using it under KDE). If
Gnome doesn't have it, I'm really sorry for them... ;-)
In general, eye-candy stuff is present in Fedora (and Linux in general) to a
much higher degree than anything I've ever seen on Windows or Mac platforms.
Compiz (-fusion, with emerald decorator and coupled with native KDE
environment) is AFAIK unbeatable, eye-candy-wise.
That said, there are three main reasons why these things are not the default
(in Fedora at least):
1) A user may not have the hardware (or drivers) that can support such
graphics-intensive stuff; you don't want to install Fedora and see it slow down
and crawl on your machine just because desktop effects are on by default.
2) Some users are generally pissed off by desktop effects; while I like all that
eye-candy and use it, I do agree that it should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
3) Gnome folks lack good taste for eye-candy :-D . If you try out just the
default KDE spin, you'll find a much more interesting environment even by
default, not to mention turning on desktop effects and such.
Leaving my comments on hardware management and wifi (almost)
unnoticed.
As for wifi, there's not much anyone can do. If a vendor does provide open-
source drivers (or at least closed-source support for Linux), it works. If
there is only Windows support, go complain to the vendor, not here.
As for hardware management, I'm not so sure *why* would an ordinary user ever
want to enable/disable hardware components. In Windows this is useful because
the OS is total crap and users are already used to doing this on everyday
basis, in order to make the crap system work to some degree, at least. Also,
in Windows a user has no other choice but to use the GUI when something
doesn't work right.
However, in Linux in general (and Fedora in particular), things are quite
different. First, one does not need to do this so often (I remember needing to
disable hardware only once in the past 10 years or so, when my soundcard went
away and I needed to make it shut up). Second, an ordinary user doesn't
typically log in with admin privileges, so does not have/need any GUI-like
thing to disable hardware. Third, a user who doesn't know what he is doing has
no business doing it in the first place, while a user who does know what he is
doing typically already knows how to use a terminal-su-modprobe, and doesn't
need a GUI.
So the "hardware manager" in Windows is a "feature" that came into
life
because of the very poorly designed OS, lack of a reasonable CLI, and a
general habit of users to log in as admin for general-purpose everyday work.
In Linux environment such a tool would be both unnecessary and useless, and
that is my guess why it doesn't exist today. Or maybe it does exist, but noone
knows since noone uses it. :-)
P.S. Just try to disable a piece of hardware in Windows without having to
reboot the machine, and you'll get the perspective about the "quality" of
that
whole design. ;-)
HTH, :-)
Marko
4868
days inactive
4869
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Joe Zeff -
Marko Vojinovic -
Roelof 'Ben' Kusters -
Roger -
Suvayu Ali