Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ol advocacy |
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.