Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Fri, 31 May 2024 04:51:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <v3bkvs$23f25$1@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>
 <v39qb3$1lnr7$14@dont-email.me> <iP_5O.635$RsQ5.140@fx42.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 06:51:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e277b9cb7c286d186849e5f08f72231a";
	logging-data="2210885"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zEIf1lEarjM1CbHr2iQje"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5FmvH8ms1vA5HKplgQHkwSncI2Q=
Bytes: 7922

On 2024-05-30, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 8:10 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Pure aesthetics, the point D'Oilveiro was pointing at. He was trying in 
> vain to insult Windows by poking at how it looked (through XP) and then 
> continued mocking Windows 2000. Meanwhile, both operating systems from 
> the turn of the century still look better than the typical Linux 
> desktop. I'm only talking about the looks.

I don't agree. I prefer Cinnamon's look over Windows. Not that it's that 
huge of a deal to me. 

>>> 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.)
>
> I'm not necessarily a fan of GNOME 3, but I became one because of how 
> much hate it used to get at the beginning for trying to change the way 
> people use their computers. People resistant change and GNOME, so I went 
> out of my way to use it and figure out how it worked when it was 
> released. I think that many of its ideas are smart ones.

That's what turned me completely off on Gnome 3. Basically their mindset was 
"We've decided that you SHOULD do it our way — even if you don't want to." 
In Windows you would have had to take or leave it (see Windows 8). In Linux 
I just moved to Linux Mint. Problem solved.

As for changing for the sake of changing, that never was "my thing."

One of the really big problems for Gnome 3 (at the beginning) was that there 
was no easy customization. Customization tweaks would be created and then 
abandoned when a newer versions of Gnome 3 came out. You really would have 
to go to terminal and tweak configuration files a lot if you wanted to make 
changes in you desktop. So Linux Mint developed Cinnamon. Gnome 3 in the 
background, with an easily customized desktop in the foreground. We could 
have it "our way" instead of being forced into learning the "new way" Gnome 
developers decided we HAD to adopt to. To me it was developer hubris. I 
don't like being pushed into something I don't want to do. I find an 
alternative instead. (I think it's the Irish in me.)

-- 
[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