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: Fri, 31 May 2024 14:23:45 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <v3cmhh$28jem$10@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>
 <v3bkvs$23f25$1@dont-email.me> <d_h6O.18243$Dsz1.2782@fx14.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 16:23:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e277b9cb7c286d186849e5f08f72231a";
	logging-data="2379222"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19O6itMuLfYbGa9zaAWBOqC"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fgnYpCwj+jiOsiS7/0S7jKeqF1c=
Bytes: 9126

On 2024-05-31, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-31 12:51 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> GNOME 3 was a response to a problem nobody had. Cinnamon was the 
> solution to the problem caused by GNOME responding to those imaginary 
> original complaints. I don't find it particularly pretty, but I have to 
> admit that Cinnamon does everything it needs to do right.

I wanted to stay with Gnome 2, so originally I went to Mate. And, at the 
beginning of Linux Mint, Mate was actually more "mature" then Cinnamon 
(customization was easier) But I tried Cinnamon and it won me over a couple 
(maybe four or so?) years ago. But I still have Mate installed so I can 
support my father and I've installed Xfce on the Wyse thin clients because 
it's a bit lighter on resources. Linux Mint does a good job making all three 
of their desktops similar in visual design. So it's pretty easy to move from 
one to the other.

-- 
[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