Linux as a Desktop

[slave]

quote: i know how even to use xpiss thats were i figured out its smb problems, it wouldn't share to a win98 machine

It shares fine with the Win98 machine next to me.

All this ranting means nothing; admit it, Linux needs a new display manager.  X is very old, and it needs to be put down.  Why don't you have a read here.

[choasforages]

agian true, x11 is quite odd but it doesn't need to be put away yet, and it does have problems, read the fortune cookie files, theres plenty of good jokes about xwindows in there. then again if i had money/*come one im only 15 and 9 months old, in my state that has some signifigance*/ i would have a mac, aqua is deffenitly awsome,

[Chooco]

quote:XP Luser said this:
If someone could make an operating system that was as powerful as Windows XP or Mac OS X but ran on a 486, I would worship them as a programming god. Desktop Linux needs at least a 800 mhz processor and about 512 mb RAM, which is quite sad. (unless you use Window Maker or TWM) (cringe)

ok that's just a LITTLE bit wrong
-WinXP is not fast, it takse 5 minutes for my AthlonXP 1700+ with 512MB DDR RAM to boot
-Linux DOES run on a 486, notice how things are named whatever_i386 or whatever_i486
-my Celeron 500 runs as a good desktop when it's not running a game server in the background to lag the thin down (server has extreme priority so if people start doin stuff i can feel the lag). my Celeron is actually faster than my Athlon for what i do in the desktop.....the scrolling is laggy though because ATI video cards are not supporting worth a crap  
-my Celeron 500 has 384mb of PC100 SDRAM and according to KDE process manager, 250mb or so is unused and 100% of the pagefil is still free

[Calum]

the person who started this thread did so in a sensible and intelligent fashion.

XP Loser has dominated the replies with half baked nonsense that is phrased so as to sound as convinving as possible.

It only remains for me to apologise on behalf of the forums for allowing windows xp user to do this when people come here genuinely asking for help.

At this time i can only request that people ignore xp user in the hope of getting some sort of coherency out of these forums. This thread i feel is too far gone, filled as it is with lies and insults. I am ashamed that a sensible question could have been treated in such a disrespectful way.

If i had my way, xp user would have left these forums a long time ago. Free speech however is a relative concept.

[choasforages]

can you screem fire in a movie theater?
can you make prank calls to the cops?
can you lie to people?
can you wear something with the work fuck on it in public?

you can do these things but there are consequense for doing them. besides i have more fun trying to help people figure out what is wrong and sharing my knowledge with others. i think that most feel the same way.  i would rather be part of a sensible post then a flamewar, i will not respond to flamebait in the future, no matter how tempting. i think that most should take calums advice on this matter

[slave]

quote: -WinXP is not fast, it takse 5 minutes for my AthlonXP 1700+ with 512MB DDR RAM to boot
 

WTF??? 5 MINUTES??  I have an athlon 2100+ and it takes closer to 5 seconds to boot up.  Even on my 600 mhz it takes no longer than 15 seconds to boot up.

I'm not "spreading lies;" it's true that KDE is just as slow if not slower than any Windows UI.  Anyone who thinks of X as "cutting-edge" technology needs his head examined.  Why do you think Linux handheld makers had to ditch using X windows on embedded devices?  Because X is slow and bloated.

[slave]

Calum cut the condescending crap; if you're going to respond to my posts at least make it something other than "ignore him, he knows not what he says."

[Calum]

quote:XP Loser:
some shit designed to ruin the format of this thread and infuriate people

Of course you define condescending, XP Loser, so you should at least know what it is. I have no objection to you posting inflammatory garbage, no matter how pseudosensible you phrase it, but do not ruin a perfectly good "please help" thread with propaganda. This is the reason you should be banned.

[slave]

You want me banned because you can't handle it when I insult KDE.

PS These other people are just as liable as me; they took my one beginning post and had a fit over it and therefore forced me to reply to their replies; it takes two to argue you know.

[Calum]

no i want you banned because the guy asked for help and you posted propaganda.

I agree totally about taking two to argue, hell i am responding to you right now, that's two posts from me and at least two from you we could have done without for a start, but i figure you've fucked this thread up so much now, what the hell...

This thing you have of being so obnoxious that dozens of people can't help but flame you is why i want you off. If you kept it to nontechnical threads then i would have no problems and would join in the discussion but, as i have stated MANY times, and i'm sure you won't understand it this time anyway, if somebody asks for help, especially if they are new to the site, i think it is only fair to allow that thread to contain only help and general discussion, not arguments and propaganda (bullshit).

Since you seem unable to post without inciting a riot, i think you should stay out of "help me" threads. If you don't i think you should be banned.

Very simple.

[slave]

I can't win!

If I start a thread you close it, and if I post in someone else's you threaten to ban me.

My original post wasn't meant to inflame people (obviously it did) it was just my opinion of the major Linux distributions and how I have a problem with their speed.  I was saying he could go with either that or the more advanced (gentoo, debian, etc) but they are harder to configure.  Debian and gentoo are faster than mandrake and red hat, am I right??  You know some people don't have 1.5 ghz machines with 512 mb ram, and KDE can be a little annoying when you have a 400 mhz machine with 128 mb ram.

[Calum]

a lot of your first post was a load of crap, and it was written in such an arrogant tone that people are obviously going to respond.

I am not threatening to ban you, i cannot, and if the webmaster doesn't (and he is a staunch supporter of free speech) then fair enough to you, also i will not be closing any of your threads unless they have racist, sexist, or illegal content.

You've started tons of threads in the last few days that nobody has closed or deleted.

You did not provide any help, all your suggestions were negative, please do think before you post. It's your choice, but people will only ignore you and dislike you if you do not get your so called facts straight and speak to the point in a non-general thread.

[voidmain]

Ok, without downloading any *other* software, how do I execute any graphical or non-graphical application on my windows server and have the application displayed on my windows client, utilizing the processing power of my windows server?

Seems, Xwindows has been able to do this since before M$ ever thought about writing a two bit GUI.  X11 is still around because it works great, and because it is more capable than *anything* M$ has ever put out.  And I can run multiple copies of it on one machine, it can serve desktops out from the server to the clients.  It wasn't until recently that M$ "bought" a half baked solution to accomplish only some of the tasks that X11 has always been able to accomplish. That would be Terminal Services and with third party apps from Citrix.  I don't have to buy some special server edition of any software to have this capability, I don't have to install any brain dead client software to access the servers.  I don't have to pay anyone for this privelage.  I can run apps on *any* operating system running Xwindows and display the applications on my Linux client running Xwindows, utilizing the power of the server for resource intensive apps.  I have yet to see a better graphical environment.  The day it comes out, it will replace X11.  But like BSD, it's still around because it was well thought out from the beginning.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[Calum]

[a polite round of applause]
i liked that post.

So, M$windows cannot serve multiple graphical environments to multiple terminals? that's pretty useless, but of course it also means that each terminal must actually be a machine itself, and that machine... must be running a copy of Microsoft windows.

So on one hand there are 200 terminals in a building all getting served desktops from one machine requiring the owner of the system to purchase (or acquire for free) ONE EULA,

and on the other hand next door's building has 200 machines serving their own graphical desktops to themselves and only sharing data between themselves, requiring 200 EULAs (and you can bet those will be high priced ones too)...

am i on the right track?

i'm sure everybody here can see the benefits inherent in such a setup...

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]

[choasforages]

yes, voidmain you would be correct. but x11 is odd. like the accossing remote machines. and some have come to curse it. but the most fun i had with ssh/x11 /*the window manager, i don't know x11 the person personaly*/ is connecting to my friends computer and configureing it for him, and my way round bess. maybe that will be another howto hehe

ps, i am looking on ebay for an xtermanil, would you happen to know a company that makes a good one??

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]