Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Do Microsoft?s Copilot+ PCs Require Linux?
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 15:31:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <v37hpc$16hr0$5@dont-email.me>
References: <9s645j1pehkhdkc7kjj3hbp2nnu93c4mfc@4ax.com>
 <66523fb2$0$1258345$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <v2u2cj$33vus$1@dont-email.me> <v2v9fr$3daer$4@dont-email.me>
 <v2vc53$3dkln$3@dont-email.me> <v30g0c$3lhel$3@dont-email.me>
 <slrnv5a4g0.8c8.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <v33c75$ddl1$4@dont-email.me>
 <slrnv5aeav.hse.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <v33tqh$ftv1$1@dont-email.me> <uglb5jho4cn959nosc8di0lai52p4tftb6@4ax.com>
 <v35pqb$qao6$4@dont-email.me> <tusc5jllfskdpj5cknsk84mb5p66q0b0hc@4ax.com>
 <v36f0o$111db$1@dont-email.me> <bPE5O.15788$ytC1.771@fx34.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:31:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eb98d4530b341fa9b7ae112fd3b851ef";
	logging-data="1263456"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19++auLqpDXo0qKrprNQMSA"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WcI9MYo1lKBylgTSmAvvgJP4BwU=
Bytes: 4028

On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-29 1:38 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:19:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>> 
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:04:39 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 01:55:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because it's [WinXP] a good UI and some stuff still works..from
>>>>>>> what I heard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?? That Fisher-Price toy-style UI was a “good UI”?
>>>>>
>>>>> You could switch it to look mostly like Win2000.
>>>>
>>>> You’re admitting that an even older UI out of the 1990s was
>>>> nicer-looking than XP?
>>>
>>> 2000's UI was a bit enhanced over 9x, actually ...
>> 
>> Really?? Now you’re resorting to comparing it with even older, DOS-based
>> Windows to try to make it look good?
>
> Spoken like someone who's never used Windows 2000. That version of 
> Windows was spectacular, so Microsoft's decision to base XP on it was a 
> smart one. It was stable, fast and it looks better than every Windows 
> 95-like Linux desktop environment *to this day*. You're desperately 
> trying to bury it, but it is only because you're jealous that a bunch of 
> "untalented" programmers managed in 1999 to do something Linux 
> developers still can't manage to do twenty-five years later. Not one 
> person who looks at a Linux desktop environment today is impressed by 
> how it looks. Grab a random, non-technical person from the street and 
> show them Linux Mint and Windows 2000 side-by-side, and I promise you 
> they would choose to use the latter despite its obsolescence. Switch 
> Cinnamon for GNOME and the result would be the same. Your serious 
> delusion won't change that fact. None of these people give a flying Snit 
> if Mint uses the same kernel as is being used on supercomputers.

I used Windows 2000. It's inferior to Cinnamon, or Mate or Xfce in my 
opinion. (Of course these desktops have the advantage of running on top of 
Linux.) But I can't quite understand why you run down Linux UIs that look 
like the Windows' UI — what is it about Windows 2000's UI that you think is 
somehow unique compared to other Windows desktops?

-- 
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an 
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality." 
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..."     — St. Augustine