Liste des Groupes | Revenir à col advocacy |
On 2024-05-28 7:36 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro 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:>
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 01:32 this Tuesday>
(GMT):>>
On Mon, 27 May 2024 23:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>I thought some people still use XP..>
But for what? Would you entrust mission-critical business operations
to obsolete, unsupported software?
No, because it's 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?
Yep, you're dense. You're purposefully jumping from one topic to another
in a vain effort to make Linux look good. For your information, _most_
Linux distributions still look no better than Windows 2000 did. KDE
imitates the 2000 look but adds amateur-looking effects and clunky
widgets, Cinnamon imitates the 2000 look, XFCE poorly imitates the 2000
look, LXDE/LXQT poorly imitate the 2000 look, and Gnome imitated the
2000 look until they decided to switch to 3.
>
The point here is that if you don't like the Fisher Price look, you
could use a more familiar one. Moreover, the familiar one in 2000
released in 1999 _still_ looks better than what you'll get from a Linux
distribution if aesthetics are that important to you.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.