Ron Matthews wrote:

>>>You don't need both desktops and windowmanagers.
>
>>In theory, I guess could do this by minimizing windows with a
>>window manager,
>
> You wouldn't have to minimize any windows. You should really take
> a look at how windowmanagers work.
>
> In theory? You are not only running 12 desktops, you are running
> 12 windowmanagers.


You keep using that word "windowmanagers" but I do not think
it means what you think it means.

:-)


Duke

Duke Robillard <duke@nospamio.com> wrote:
> Ron Matthews wrote:

> > In theory? You are not only running 12 desktops, you are
> > running 12 windowmanagers.

> You keep using that word "windowmanagers" but I do not think
> it means what you think it means.

Oh. What do you think we mean when we say "windowmanagers?"

cordially, as always,

rm

Eugenia Loli-Queru <eloli-AT-hotmail-DOT-com> says...

[snip]

>Eugenia

Please reas these web pages, Eugenia.

Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

Why bottom-posting is better than top-posting
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

+What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/

The advantages of usenet's quoting conventions
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccau...ks/uquote.html

Why should I place my response below the quoted text?
http://allmyfaqs.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl...bottom-posting

Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
http://www.xs4all.nl/%7ewijnands/nnq/nquote.html

Eugenia Loli-Queru <eloli-AT-hotmail-DOT-com> says...

>The last paragraph is talking about a possible general future direction.
>About innovation, engineering and not just a repackaging distro. The
>"differentiation" part means the ability to offer something not only better,
>but also different taste-wise than other distros. Because that's how you can
>sell more: by being compatible and also have that "little tick" that makes
>you different than the next distro.

Ah. I understand where you are coming from.

Please consider this; while it is a Good Thing that different
Linux distributions have different "taste-wise" features, it's
also important that at least one distribution doesn't have any
added "taste-wise" features at all. Such a distribution would,
for example, give you KDE exactly as you would see it if you
got it from the KDE developers and installed it using the
default settings. That's the Slackware philosophy - no "little
tick" that makes it different than the next distribution is
added or desired.

It's also a Good Thing if at least one distribution doesn't try
to "sell more." The Slackware philosophy is to appeal to the
limited audience that wants a simple, reliable, and non-customized
Linux distribution. For those who don't want that, there are
plenty of other distributions available, and the Slackware community
tends to suggest not using Slackware to those who want innovation
and differentiation out of the box. On the other hand, Slackware
is an excellent choice for those who wish to create their own
innovation and differentiation, because there is no need to undo'
someone else's attempt to customize Linux.


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

John <zeppelin@hiwaay.net> says...

>What have you been smoking, or where have you been lately?

>Perhaps if you're a complete and total moron, or are illiterate,

John, I must take exception to three things about your post.

[1] You injected insults and personal attacks into a technical
discussion in a technical newsgroup. We don't play that
game here.

[2] You top posted. See http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
to find out why this is wrong.

[3] you replied to the "cordially, as always" pgp troll. He is to
be ignored, not responded to.

Please correct these deficiencies in your posting style, or you
will find that your posts get no replies because you are in the
killfiles of all of the knowledgable participants here.

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
> Eugenia Loli-Queru <eloli-AT-hotmail-DOT-com> says...

> >The last paragraph is talking about a possible general future
> >direction. About innovation, engineering and not just a
> >repackaging distro. The "differentiation" part means the ability
> >to offer something not only better, but also different
> >taste-wise than other distros. Because that's how you can sell
> >more: by being compatible and also have that "little tick" that
> >makes you different than the next distro.

> Ah. I understand where you are coming from.

> Please consider this; while it is a Good Thing that different
> Linux distributions have different "taste-wise" features, it's
> also important that at least one distribution doesn't have any
> added "taste-wise" features at all.

The difference in features is not a matter of taste. It's a matter
of convenience. The features, whatever they are, in some way
enhance the OS.

> Such a distribution would, for example, give you KDE exactly as
> you would see it if you got it from the KDE developers and
> installed it using the default settings. That's the Slackware
> philosophy - no "little tick" that makes it different than the
> next distribution is added or desired.

There is no "Slackware Philosophy." Mr. Volkerding put together a
distribution that had more features than any other version of linux
at the time. He found out that he could keep a decent user-base
without having to modernize it much so he didn't bother. At one
time it was the most feature rich distro. The reason it is no
longer is because Volkerding didn't put any more time into it.

> It's also a Good Thing if at least one distribution doesn't try
> to "sell more." The Slackware philosophy is to appeal to the
> limited audience that wants a simple, reliable, and non-customized
> Linux distribution.

There is no philosophy. Slackware exists because of a loyal
following of old-timers who can't be bothered learning anything
new. Newbies come along and, thinking there is something magical
about the command line, take it up as well. But slackware does not
have a philosophy. In fact you could say it is anti-philosophical.

> For those who don't want that, there are plenty of other
> distributions available, and the Slackware community tends to
> suggest not using Slackware to those who want innovation and
> differentiation out of the box. On the other hand, Slackware is
> an excellent choice for those who wish to create their own
> innovation and differentiation, because there is no need to undo'
> someone else's attempt to customize Linux.

There is absolutely _no_ single reason for a new user to choose
slackware over any other distro. Once set up, all linux distros
are essentially the same, the only difference being that most of
the other distros use a more elegant initialization scheme.

cordially, as always,

rm

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

> added "taste-wise" features at all. Such a distribution would,
> for example, give you KDE exactly as you would see it if you
> got it from the KDE developers and installed it using the
> default settings. That's the Slackware philosophy - no "little

as a person currently compiling and modifying kde's official slackbuild
scripts i can assure you that kde does NOT come as is from the kde
developers

oh and i love the new realtime spell checker in 3.2b2

--
"I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."

> > One of the things i appreciate the most about XFree86 is the
> > ability to have several desktops and running one or a few
> > applications in each. I really feels this gives me a very "clean"
> > and less confusing desktop.
>
> Can you give us an example of where you would use several desktops?
> Could you please tell us what applications you feel you need to
> spread amongst several desktops?
>
> You don't need both desktops and windowmanagers.

I almost always have at least three desktops open. One for what I'm
actually doing, one for gaim to talk to friends, and one for
Longplayer while I'm still rating and categorising my music
collection.

>> > One of the things i appreciate the most about XFree86 is the
>> > ability to have several desktops and running one or a few
>> > applications in each. I really feels this gives me a very "clean"
>> > and less confusing desktop.

I use Windows in my work and the lack of several desktops
is a problem for me. I like to organize my workspace on several
desktops.

>> Can you give us an example of where you would use several desktops?
>> Could you please tell us what applications you feel you need to
>> spread amongst several desktops?

I usually use 4 desktops:
1- main desktop for file managers, GIMP, one terminal etc.
2- Internet: Web browsers, communicators etc.
3- coding - all programs needed for writing programs ;-) i.e.
terminal, Vim, Anjuta, etc.
4- root: here I have always 1-2 root terminals opened for
admin operations.

In that way I have a clear workspace, without too many
windows on one desktop.

Best regards

--
Mateusz £oskot, mateusz (at) loskot (dot) net
GNU/Linux (Slackware 9.0) http://counter.li.org #220771