Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Do Microsofts Copilot+ PCs Require Linux?
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 16:34:44 -0400
Organization: None
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <v3ant4$1rcde$2@dont-email.me>
References: <Jeff-Relf.Me@May.24--8.34pm.Seattle.2024>
 <dd545j9s32ugnbptlsp0pd6anbpjlh9j0h@4ax.com>
 <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> <QDE5O.17083$8CY1.7172@fx37.iad>
 <v37pqs$18058$3@dont-email.me> <geL5O.4$Inzb.3@fx13.iad>
 <v39nrm$1lipm$5@dont-email.me> <mE_5O.630$RsQ5.174@fx42.iad>
 <v3a5qb$1oc32$1@dont-email.me> <As26O.14039$G7Za.7906@fx10.iad>
Reply-To: OFeem1987@teleworm.us
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 22:34:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3b13b446919fd3f0b1dcb7fa6636dba7";
	logging-data="1946030"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18vBUwxVG/qneSuqba2bAIe"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kcTJ0vg4mhaN/lUPJ5fnk1usP/U=
X-User-Agent: Microsoft Outl00k, Usenet K00k Editions
X-Slrn: Why use anything else?
X-Mutt: The most widely-used MUA
Bytes: 4138

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-30 11:26 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> On 2024-05-30 7:27 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> <brevsnip>
>>>
>>>> I'm glad you agree with my assessment of Windows :-).
>>>
>>> I agree only that while being a lot more functional than Windows for
>>> much of its existence, Linux still looks like a Pontiac Sunfire.
>> 
>> "Linux" has all kinds of looks:
>> 
>>      -   Plain text-only terminal screen with multiple virtual consoles.
>>          Can also run tmux or GNU screen to get multiple consoles and
>>          panes.
>
> That's only for real men like Larry Pietraskiewicz though. I can't 
> imagine how strong the smell of testosterone must be in his mother's 
> basement!
>
>>      -   Generic old-style GUI with something like TWM.
> >
>>      -   Manual and dynamic tiling window managers like i3 or Sway, DWM or
>>          AwesomeWM.
>>      -   Simple-looking overlapping window managers like OpenBox or FluxBox.
>>          They can be customized with other components for the taskbar, slot,
>>          etc.
>>      -   Desktop built for kids: Sugar (started with the OLPC, has
>>          a GTK+ theme engine as well)
>>      -   The whole gamut of desktops: Lxde, Xfce, GNOME, Cinnamon, Mate,
>>          KDE.
>> 
>> Not to mention all the theming engines available, along with icon sets, mouse
>> cursors, stand-alone menus and taskbars.
>> 
>> So no, there's no single look to "Linux".
>
> You're right, except that every one of those environments still manages 
> to look worse than Windows 2000 did, hence my point.

Sorry, but that's your take. I will say that GUIs that don't hide scrollbars
(until you hover near them), that have some depth to them to indicate controls
versus non-functional areas, and don't have invisible functional areas that you
have to stumble onto to find them, are better. In that regard, the Win 2000
desktop qualifies.

Still, the look is archaic, to me.

Nothing more elegant than an empty desktop that will show nothing but your
running apps. Eh, enough opinionting from me.

-- 
You never have to change anything you got up in the middle of the night
to write.
		-- Saul Bellow