Re: My 138 $ Amazon order ( for 6pm today ).

On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:15:55 +0000, RonB wrote:

On 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On Sun, 12 May 2024 08:14:48 +0000, RonB wrote:
>

On 2024-05-11, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2024 07:25:15 +0000, RonB wrote:
>

On 2024-05-10, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On Fri, 10 May 2024 16:33:51 +0000, RonB wrote:
>

On 2024-05-09, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
royalties:
>

On 2024-05-08 6:06 p.m., rbowman wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2024 12:04:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
 

At least Windows doesn't display non-working app menu items,
as Linux used to do a LOT.  Click them and nothing happens.
Resolving them was FAR more troublesome than the Registry fix
I showed.

 
When was 'used to do'?  1998?

>
Actually, DFS showed this to be the case recently, and many
times over the last few years. This is not an old problem; it's
a problem Linux distributions have yet to iron out. The lack of
polish is very noticeable.

>
Name the offending apps, please.

 
In other words, they don't look like Windows' apps.
 
That's all surface. More of DFS' GUI obsession.

>
It's not a matter of looking like Windows apps; it's that they
often look like something made by a blind 12-year-old. They ARE
often ugly,
and there is really no denying that. However, they _do_ the job,
and that's what they should be evaluated on.

 
I'm denying that they're ugly. What applications are you talking
about?
Maybe it's only the ones I don't use.

>
I already mentioned a few to Chris Ahlstrom like Calibre, GIMP and
Handbrake. Since I'm not using the system at this moment, I can't
come up with more yet.

 
Well that's... three. And I already spoke about Calibre (what's wrong
with its GUI?) and GIMP — which, like I said, has a LOT of features.
I'm guessing if I used it I would be able to learn it. But the same
goes for PhotoShop, which just looks like a confusing mess to me.
 
Far cry from ("the Linux GUI is ugly") that DuFuS claims. And, by the
way, Calibre is the same in Windows and MacOS (and more people use it
in Windows than they do in Linux).

>
The argument is being applied to open-source software, regardless of
whether it is available in Windows or not. Most open-source software is
available in Windows, I think Evolution is the one exception. Calibre
looks alright since it works well, but the point is still that the
interface is ugly in the eyes of a typical Windows or MacOS user who
considers looks first, and functionality last.
>
I'll give you a quick example. Back around 2012-2013, I wanted my
students to take an interest in Linux since I was sold on the idea of
open-source. I would freely use the operating system in class and
project it on the screen, but nobody wondered why it looked different
than Windows or anything else they were accustomed to. Then, I turned
on the wobbly windows feature of KDE. Suddenly, everyone was interested
because it was "cool." That's the typical user: the one who doesn't
care that the system is more lightweight or stable, but wants something
cool to happen when they move a window.

 
I'm kind of the opposite. I'm the kind of person who would NEVER move
the furniture if I wasn't married. The Desktop is there to get you to
the application and I don't care if there are wobbly windows at all. I
guess it goes further than that. I really don't like wobbly windows. I
think that's partly why I'm not a huge fan of KDE. For years the mouse
pointer bounced up and down when opening an application. Just seemed
"gimmicky" to me. (Does it still do that?)

I have no idea. I tried liking KDE but never could. Even back in the late
90s and early 2000s when it looked better than Gnome, I could never really
get into it.