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: Thu, 30 May 2024 12:10:11 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <v39qb3$1lnr7$14@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>
 <v37hpc$16hr0$5@dont-email.me> <W4L5O.2$B%H7.1@fx43.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 14:10:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f691b7047aea81a5beb8faee29aae0f";
	logging-data="1761127"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gJSWEKPi99yhiAAxGRdLy"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eUq0/vHPS7yQjD1/EfBVMKB3KUU=
Bytes: 5708

On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-29 11:31 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Whether D'Oliveiro wants to admit it or not, Windows 2000 and XP both 
> looked like professional operating systems when they were released, and 
> they had a polished look which is often sorely lacking from Linux 
> desktop environments. 

You keep saying this, but what is the supposed "significant difference" 
between XP, Windows 2000, Windows 7, Windows 10 or 11 compared to Cinnamon, 
Xfce (the way LM sets it up) or Mate? Personally I like Cinnamon (or Mate or 
Xfce) more than its Windows counterparts, but I'm curious as to what you're 
seeing that I don't see. 

> Aside from Ubuntu which always manages to make 
> GNOME look great, the desktop environment of choice in most 
> distributions always has elements which simply don't look right. It's 
> still a fantastic environment which allows you to do every job you can 
> think of and more very effectively, but there is no reason to criticize 
> the way that any version of Windows has looked when the current crop of 
> Linux desktop environments don't look better at all.

I'm not a fan of Ubuntu, originally because of Unity and then the Gnome 3 
desktop — now I'm also not crazy about its use of Snaps. I'm also not a fan 
of moving my furniture around, just so my house "looks different." If you 
like Gnome 3, that's great. (I do have Ubuntu installed on a computer and I 
can get around on it, but I don't really like it. Choice is good.)

-- 
[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