What the hell is Linux?
Charlie Ebert
>
> From this group I have learned:
>
> Linux is not Xfree.
> Linux is not fonts.
> Linux is not Samba.
> Linux is not Staroffice.
> Linux is not Wine.
> Linux is not networking.
> Linux is not firewalls.
> Linux is not hardware support.
> Linux is not Netscape.
> Linux is not browsers in general.
> Linux is not kde.
> Linux is not Gnome.
> Linux is not cryptic man pages.
> Linux is not outdated How-To's.
> Linux is not ___________
> Fill in the blank with any stinky Linux attribute you like.
>
> So exactly what IS Linux?
Linux is specifically a kernel for an operating system.
The collection of free-software which hangs off this kernel is also
referred to as Linux or the collection of free software.
>
> Linux users seem to like to shift the blame for the crappy applications and
> hardware support to every other entity but the hallowed "Linux" itself (ie:blame
> the closed source hardware manufacturer).
And some of this is true. Closed source is mighty hard to write code
for you know.
At least you should know this.
> It's such a convenient technique for diffusing the obvious conclusion that Linux
> lacks in many areas.
I've been using it for 6-7 years. 3-4 of those are fulltime now.
Modern Linux makes W2K look like a very sick puppy.
>
> So now that we are all aware of what Linux is NOT, what exactly IS Linux?
>
> The kernel? That and $1.50 will get you a ride on the NYC Subway. See John
> Rocker's statements for a preview of that trip.
>
> Sponge
>
> "Win2k Rocks.....Linux Sux Rocks...try it and see for yourself"
Well okay sir. I just hope you enjoy using calculators after Microsoft
get's the guts ripped out of it.
See, Linux isn't crooked either. And that's why it will be around
longer.
Public trust and that sort of thing.
Charlie
simo...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>spo...@swamp.net wrote:
>>
>> From this group I have learned:
>>
>> Linux is not Xfree.
>> Linux is not fonts.
>> Linux is not Samba.
>> Linux is not Staroffice.
>> Linux is not Wine.
>> Linux is not networking.
>> Linux is not firewalls.
>> Linux is not hardware support.
>> Linux is not Netscape.
>> Linux is not browsers in general.
>> Linux is not kde.
>> Linux is not Gnome.
>> Linux is not cryptic man pages.
>> Linux is not outdated How-To's.
>> Linux is not ___________
>> Fill in the blank with any stinky Linux attribute you like.
>>
>> So exactly what IS Linux?
>
>
>Linux is specifically a kernel for an operating system.
>The collection of free-software which hangs off this kernel is also
>referred to as Linux or the collection of free software.
Looking at this group you would never know it though.
>>
>> Linux users seem to like to shift the blame for the crappy applications and
>> hardware support to every other entity but the hallowed "Linux" itself (ie:blame
>> the closed source hardware manufacturer).
>
>And some of this is true. Closed source is mighty hard to write code
>for you know.
True but if I need "x" application to perform a certain task I don't
care what it is as long as it works and I am given support for it.
I make far more money off of the applications I use to be concerned
with their purchase price. Heck, it's a tax write off anyway.
>At least you should know this.
>
>> It's such a convenient technique for diffusing the obvious conclusion that Linux
>> lacks in many areas.
>
>I've been using it for 6-7 years. 3-4 of those are fulltime now.
>Modern Linux makes W2K look like a very sick puppy.
If you are a command line junkie and like to manipulate data and
programs I would tend to agree with you that Linux provides that sort
of medium.
If you are a person interested in shrinkwrap applications that are
powerful and user friendly as well as being the standard in terms of
data format and general use, Linux is at least 5 years behind Windows.
>>
>> So now that we are all aware of what Linux is NOT, what exactly IS Linux?
>>
>> The kernel? That and $1.50 will get you a ride on the NYC Subway. See John
>> Rocker's statements for a preview of that trip.
>>
>> Sponge
>>
>> "Win2k Rocks.....Linux Sux Rocks...try it and see for yourself"
>
>Well okay sir. I just hope you enjoy using calculators after Microsoft
>get's the guts ripped out of it.
Personally I feel Microsoft is getting what they deserve, but I also
feel that the DOJ is unleashing a hydra that is going to be even more
powerful than before.
>See, Linux isn't crooked either. And that's why it will be around
>longer.
In the world of business, honesty will (sadly) get you nowhere.
>Public trust and that sort of thing.
The public could care less about Linux. According to a CNN poll they
care even less about Microsoft's troubles.
>Charlie
pac...@my-deja.com
simo...@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2000 01:09:43 GMT, Charlie Ebert <kd...@mmcable.com>
> wrote:
> If you are a command line junkie and like to manipulate data and
> programs I would tend to agree with you that Linux provides that sort
> of medium.
> If you are a person interested in shrinkwrap applications that are
> powerful and user friendly as well as being the standard in terms of
> data format and general use, Linux is at least 5 years behind Windows.
Internet time is different; I remember ten years ago thinking that
Microsoft was twenty years behind the industry. What Linux has
accomplished in the last year took Microsoft nearly a decade.
Except of course for the criminal racketeering part....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Charlie Ebert
> If you are a command line junkie and like to manipulate data and
> programs I would tend to agree with you that Linux provides that sort
> of medium.
> If you are a person interested in shrinkwrap applications that are
> powerful and user friendly as well as being the standard in terms of
> data format and general use, Linux is at least 5 years behind Windows.
> >>
I find all of your comments have merit.
Whilst I will still stay on the side of preserving cash as tax
write-off's
are no bargan, I will say I disagree with this one paragraph or so of
text.
Anyone who's tried Mandrake 7.0 {Air} or Suse 6.4 or even Caldera's
latest,
and can still say Linux is 5 years behind W2k must own Microsoft stock
to be
that biased.
I'll say that the KDE desktop on my edition os Suse 6.4 is superior to
W2K in any respect you care to debate.
So I'll open with this argument.
But, since I've used both, I suggest you experience the same first
before
you debate me.
I look forward to a good, honest debate between a modern Microsoft OS
and
a modern Linux distribution.
I find too many times people are citing Linux distributions in their
arguements
which were quite litterally out of the early 90's! I'm not accusing you
of this,
but certainly you can't be making these kinds of comments based off a
current
distribution.
Charlie
Pete Goodwin
>Anyone who's tried Mandrake 7.0 {Air} or Suse 6.4 or even Caldera's
>latest,
>and can still say Linux is 5 years behind W2k must own Microsoft stock
>to be
>that biased.
I have Linux Mandrake 7.0 Deluxe. I don't own Microsoft stock and I still
believe Linux lags behind Windows 2000. There's no bias there, it's my
humble opinion.
>I'll say that the KDE desktop on my edition os Suse 6.4 is superior to
>W2K in any respect you care to debate.
ROFL
X does not have anti aliased fonts as yet.
Cut, copy and paste do not exist on the KDE terminals.
Drag and drop is a little on the shaky side - I managed to end up with an
icon stuck on the background. The only way I could get rid of it was to
restart X.
The file manager is pretty slow at displaying a long list of files (I know
what's causing this one!).
These are the ones I've found so far, I'm sure there a quite a few more...
oh yes, the theme manager. The sticky desktop lost track of the edge of a
window on certain themes. Oops!
KDE is still evolving, it has a way to go as yet.
Pete
Leslie Mikesell
Pete Goodwin <pgo...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Cut, copy and paste do not exist on the KDE terminals.
What??? You can't 'cut' something out of a scrolling command
line screen or a program that is not X-aware, but you can copy
and paste just about anything just about anywhere. Perhaps
it is so easy you didn't notice it: left-click/drag to
highlight which has the side effect of copying, middle mouse
to paste. Snarf-n-barf... The only quirk compared to MS
style is that you can't highlight a 2nd selection to
replace with the pasted element. All of the KDE programs that
have any edit functions should allow you to 'cut' a selection
too.
>The file manager is pretty slow at displaying a long list of files (I know
>what's causing this one!).
There is a point where command line operations have their
virtues compared to visual ones. Do you really intend to
read all those filenames anyway?
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on Tue, 30 May 2000 20:35:05 -0400
<5tm8jsc4h10pu0rkn...@4ax.com>:
>From this group I have learned:
>
>Linux is not Xfree.
>Linux is not fonts.
http://www.xfree86.org
http://www.opengroup.org
>Linux is not Samba.
>Linux is not Staroffice.
>Linux is not Wine.
>Linux is not networking.
No, but the kernel contains network drivers.
>Linux is not firewalls.
No, but the kernel supports ipchains.
>Linux is not hardware support.
Eh? The kernel contains hardware drivers, therefore supports the hardware.
(In many cases, however, the hardware requires more than mere drivers;
a video card, in particular, requires X or libvga or GGI to use all
of its capabilities; a sound card will require an audio mixer program
(such as xmixer), and something like playmidi at the very least; network
drivers require ifconfig as a bare minimum.)
>Linux is not Netscape.
>Linux is not browsers in general.
>Linux is not kde.
>Linux is not Gnome.
>Linux is not cryptic man pages.
>Linux is not outdated How-To's.
>Linux is not ___________
> Fill in the blank with any stinky Linux attribute you like.
Riiiiiiiiiiight. Exactly how does software smell? I've not opened
up a hard drive (I have disassembled a floppy), and CDROMs have
no smell. :-)
(Are you trying to imitate Boris, perchance? :-) )
>
>So exactly what IS Linux?
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/vx.y/linux-x.y.z.tar.gz
Or, for those who don't recognize the above, it's the source code
(and the binary derivative(s) thereof) to the core kernel of a fair
number of distributions, RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, Debian,
SuSE, and Corel being but six of them.
>
>Linux users seem to like to shift the blame for the crappy applications and
>hardware support to every other entity but the hallowed "Linux" itself
>(ie:blame the closed source hardware manufacturer).
>It's such a convenient technique for diffusing the obvious conclusion that
>Linux lacks in many areas.
Linux -- more precisely, the distributions -- *do* lack in many areas.
And excel in many others.
One primary area in which they are lacking is ubiquity, a trait
that Microsoft has excelled at (and exploited to its benefit).
This is not A Bad Thing, to be sure, by itself. Another thing that
they lack is acceptance -- a lack that is slowly eroding as Linux
makes inroads on the Microsoft rock which many companies have to support.
(A rock which occasionally reminds one of a Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote
short, as said coyote usually finds a projection or balancing rock
to either fall off of as said projection breaks, or balance off the
fulcrum to fall on his head. :-) )
One area that Linux distributions excel in is reliability. When
Linux apps fail (and they do fail), it's usually obvious. :-)
Another illustration of NT's oddities, BTW: My associations for .HTML
files point to Internet Explorer. If one closes an IE window after
doubleclicking on a .HTML file (thereby showing the arrow/hourglass)
which hangs, the rather peculiar error message (from memory) ensues:
"There was a problem connecting to the application."
(No shit, Microsoft! Now can you tell me what the problem *is*?)
>
>So now that we are all aware of what Linux is NOT, what exactly IS Linux?
>
>The kernel? That and $1.50 will get you a ride on the NYC Subway.
Damn. It doesn't cost 15 cents to ride the MTA anymore? :-)
"Well he may never return no, he'll never return, and his fate
is still unlearned [poor old Charlie]...he may ride forever
'neath the streets of Boston...he's the man who never returned." :-)
>See John Rocker's statements for a preview of that trip.
>
>Sponge
>
>"Win2k Rocks.....Linux Sux Rocks...try it and see for yourself"
To adapt a saying from another newsgroup:
"If you don't like Linux, don't use it."
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- Disclaimer: I don't do W2K yet; I'm an NT (often)
and Win95 (occasionally) user.
simo...@earthlink.net
>Internet time is different; I remember ten years ago thinking that
>Microsoft was twenty years behind the industry. What Linux has
>accomplished in the last year took Microsoft nearly a decade.
After being a Wordperfect 5.1 junkie, and using Brief for a while as
well, when I first tried MS Word way back in the 1980's I thought
Microsoft would never make it anywhere near as far as it had. My chips
were with Wordperfect and Borland.
>Except of course for the criminal racketeering part....
They are crooks, no doubt and even knowledgeable Windows users will
agree with that statement.
Leslie Mikesell
>>> Fill in the blank with any stinky Linux attribute you like.
Linux is not in the courts for violating anti-trust regulations.
Linux is not about taking as much money as possible from the
customers and locking them into always having to use the same
product to access their own data.
>>> So exactly what IS Linux?
>>
>>
>>Linux is specifically a kernel for an operating system.
>>The collection of free-software which hangs off this kernel is also
>>referred to as Linux or the collection of free software.
>
>Looking at this group you would never know it though.
That is because many people in this group have found exactly
what they need in this huge collection, and others haven't (yet).
>>And some of this is true. Closed source is mighty hard to write code
>>for you know.
>
>True but if I need "x" application to perform a certain task I don't
>care what it is as long as it works and I am given support for it.
>
>I make far more money off of the applications I use to be concerned
>with their purchase price. Heck, it's a tax write off anyway.
But do you really want to bet your business on a platform where
installing some other, unrelated application has a fair chance
of overwriting a DLL and breaking the application that is making
your money?
>>Modern Linux makes W2K look like a very sick puppy.
>
>If you are a command line junkie and like to manipulate data and
>programs I would tend to agree with you that Linux provides that sort
>of medium.
And even more so if the job can be fully automated. If you can
run a job as a command line operation with input/output in
files or over a network, you can do scheduled runs, hook it
to email or web activity and go away. The lack of pretty
screen fonts won't bother you a bit as the machine does all
the work for you.
>If you are a person interested in shrinkwrap applications that are
>powerful and user friendly as well as being the standard in terms of
>data format and general use, Linux is at least 5 years behind Windows.
By Windows timeline that would be correct. However, if you follow the
rate of advancement of Linux applications, it looks like it
will catch up in a year and there is no reason to expect it to
slow down then.
>Personally I feel Microsoft is getting what they deserve, but I also
>feel that the DOJ is unleashing a hydra that is going to be even more
>powerful than before.
If the company is split, how well they fare will depend entirely
on how long it takes them to learn how to cooperate with unrelated
companies.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Pete Goodwin
<8h33m0$2tu0$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>:
>What??? You can't 'cut' something out of a scrolling command
>line screen or a program that is not X-aware, but you can copy
>and paste just about anything just about anywhere. Perhaps
>it is so easy you didn't notice it: left-click/drag to
>highlight which has the side effect of copying, middle mouse
>to paste. Snarf-n-barf... The only quirk compared to MS
>style is that you can't highlight a 2nd selection to
>replace with the pasted element. All of the KDE programs that
>have any edit functions should allow you to 'cut' a selection
>too.
I'll try that now that I know that's there. But, er, the menu on a KDE
terminal does not list Edit | Copy, Paste, so naturally 8) I assumed that
function wasn't there!
>There is a point where command line operations have their
>virtues compared to visual ones. Do you really intend to
>read all those filenames anyway?
No, but this is a common feature of GUI's in general. How do you display a
large number of items, the answer is, you don't. Windows does this, KDE
does not.
Pete
JEDIDIAH
>l...@Jupiter.mcs.net (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
><8h33m0$2tu0$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>:
>>There is a point where command line operations have their
>>virtues compared to visual ones. Do you really intend to
>>read all those filenames anyway?
>
>No, but this is a common feature of GUI's in general. How do you display a
>large number of items, the answer is, you don't. Windows does this, KDE
>does not.
Actually, the display of large collections of items isn't horribly
well done under Windows either. Windows doesn't actually do it any
'better'.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
Lars Gullik Bjønnes
| It seems that in X copy-paste is THE exception. As far as I know, every
| other mouse or keyboard action is interpreted by a client, whether the WM
| or a "regular" client. But it looks like copy-paste is done by the X
| server itself (am I correct in this?).
No, not really.
The application (a1) must track the selection and put it in a X clipboard.
then other apps (a2) can request that clipboard from X. a1 then gets a
notification that its data has been used and can take action (if
wanted).
(not very precise... I know)
Lgb
David Steinberg
: I'll try that now that I know that's there. But, er, the menu on a KDE
: function wasn't there!
Somehow, "assume makes an ass out of u and me" comes to mind. :)
To be fair, it is not at any point revealed to the user that this is the
basic cut-and-paste mechanism of X. And that's bad for learnability. On
the other hand, it is a very good shortcut for speed of use, (compare, for
instance, to highlight, click edit|copy, place cursor, click edit|paste),
which is a very good thing. And, it's universal -- that's extremely good.
Compare the application-dependant shortcuts of Windows...why doesn't the
telnet client support the standard copy and paste shortcuts?
It seems that in X copy-paste is THE exception. As far as I know, every
other mouse or keyboard action is interpreted by a client, whether the WM
or a "regular" client. But it looks like copy-paste is done by the X
server itself (am I correct in this?). Hence, universality and
simplicity, andno way to announce itself to the user.
I think this is a fairly reasonable trade-off, as long as the copy-paste
mechanism is described in documentation, especially the short variety that
a frustrated newbie might turn to first: FAQ's and such.
And, of course, you can always ask in cola (if you've got your flame-proof
suit on). :)
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
stei...@interchange.ubc.ca _\_v
Bob Hauck
<pgo...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>No, but this is a common feature of GUI's in general. How do you display a
>large number of items, the answer is, you don't. Windows does this, KDE
>does not.
Just for fun, you ought to try using Windows Explorer to display a
directory that's remotely connected over the Internet via ISDN. Since it
doesn't seem to believe in incremental display (at least on NT4 SP3) you
get to look at a blank screen for many minutes while it downloads the
directory structure. Yeah, it's real fast after that (having cached
everything) but the 20 minute initial wait sort of negated any benefit.
OTOH, the old File Manager and the command line both work fine in this
situation.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
Pete Goodwin
<8h3u8k$eem$1...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>:
>To be fair, it is not at any point revealed to the user that this is the
>basic cut-and-paste mechanism of X. And that's bad for learnability.
>On the other hand, it is a very good shortcut for speed of use,
>(compare, for instance, to highlight, click edit|copy, place cursor,
>click edit|paste), which is a very good thing. And, it's universal --
>that's extremely good. Compare the application-dependant shortcuts of
>Windows...why doesn't the telnet client support the standard copy and
>paste shortcuts?
Is this X style copy/paste compatible with CTRL-C/CTRL-V in Edit boxes by
any chance?
Pete
David Steinberg
: The application (a1) must track the selection and put it in a X clipboard.
: then other apps (a2) can request that clipboard from X. a1 then gets a
: notification that its data has been used and can take action (if
: wanted).
Wild. So, does that mean that X application developers have been better
about implimenting the standard behaviour than Windows application
developers, including those Windows application developers at Microsoft?
I have never seen an X application in which this standard mechanism
doesn't work.
Thanks for the info.
John Hill
spo...@swamp.net wrote in message
<5tm8jsc4h10pu0rkn...@4ax.com>...
>From this group I have learned:
Can't imagine you have learnt anything - that would be like
the blind seeing.....
>
>Linux is not Xfree.
>Linux is not fonts.
>Linux is not Samba.
>Linux is not Staroffice.
>Linux is not Wine.
>Linux is not networking.
>Linux is not firewalls.
>Linux is not hardware support.
>Linux is not Netscape.
>Linux is not browsers in general.
>Linux is not kde.
>Linux is not Gnome.
>Linux is not cryptic man pages.
>Linux is not outdated How-To's.
>Linux is not ___________
> Fill in the blank with any stinky Linux attribute you like.
>
>So exactly what IS Linux?
>
>Linux users seem to like to shift the blame for the crappy applications and
>hardware support to every other entity but the hallowed "Linux" itself
(ie:blame
>the closed source hardware manufacturer).
>It's such a convenient technique for diffusing the obvious conclusion that
Linux
>lacks in many areas.
>
>So now that we are all aware of what Linux is NOT, what exactly IS Linux?
>
>The kernel? That and $1.50 will get you a ride on the NYC Subway. See John
Leslie Mikesell
Lars Gullik Bjønnes <lar...@lyx.org> wrote:
>stei...@interchange.ubc.ca (David Steinberg) writes:
>
>| It seems that in X copy-paste is THE exception. As far as I know, every
>| other mouse or keyboard action is interpreted by a client, whether the WM
>| or a "regular" client. But it looks like copy-paste is done by the X
>| server itself (am I correct in this?).
>
>then other apps (a2) can request that clipboard from X. a1 then gets a
>notification that its data has been used and can take action (if
>wanted).
>
But note that the 'application' may be an xterm running a character
mode program, possibly even telnet or rlogin to a different
host. The selection process copies whatever happens to be on
the xterm screen in the selected area, and the paste operation
pushes the characters into the character mode program as though
they were being typed in. For example you can paste into vi
as long as you get into insert mode before the paste operation
even though vi knows nothing about X (yes I know about gvim...).
Also, it is a very handy way to program routers and other
devices that accept commands over telnet, using either some
saved text as the source or perhaps copying from another
router in a different window (Ciscos are especially good at
displaying their configuration in exactly the form you would
need to paste into another one).
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Leslie Mikesell
Pete Goodwin <pgo...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>To be fair, it is not at any point revealed to the user that this is the
>>basic cut-and-paste mechanism of X. And that's bad for learnability.
>>On the other hand, it is a very good shortcut for speed of use,
>>(compare, for instance, to highlight, click edit|copy, place cursor,
>>click edit|paste), which is a very good thing. And, it's universal --
>>that's extremely good. Compare the application-dependant shortcuts of
>>Windows...why doesn't the telnet client support the standard copy and
>>paste shortcuts?
>
>Is this X style copy/paste compatible with CTRL-C/CTRL-V in Edit boxes by
>any chance?
Usually. Sometimes the apps that provide the menu based options
have their own internal clipboard to retain a copy even
after it becomes unselected. This may be handy if you stay
in that app, but it can be confusing as to what remains in
the real X clipboard when you are moving among windows with
different apps. Moral: learn the 'undo' function of the
editors early on so you won't be afraid to try things.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Roberto Alsina
pgo...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.netcomuk.co.uk (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> l...@Jupiter.mcs.net (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
> <8h33m0$2tu0$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>:
>
> >line screen or a program that is not X-aware, but you can copy
> >and paste just about anything just about anywhere. Perhaps
> >it is so easy you didn't notice it: left-click/drag to
> >highlight which has the side effect of copying, middle mouse
> >to paste. Snarf-n-barf... The only quirk compared to MS
> >style is that you can't highlight a 2nd selection to
> >replace with the pasted element. All of the KDE programs that
> >have any edit functions should allow you to 'cut' a selection
> >too.
>
> terminal does not list Edit | Copy, Paste, so naturally 8) I assumed
that
> function wasn't there!
Well, it doesn't really make much sense to put copy there, since when
you select the text, before going to the menu, it's already copied :-)
A case could be made for paste, though.
> >There is a point where command line operations have their
> >virtues compared to visual ones. Do you really intend to
> >read all those filenames anyway?
>
> No, but this is a common feature of GUI's in general. How do you
display a
> large number of items, the answer is, you don't. Windows does this,
KDE
> does not.
I don't get it. If you don't display the large number of items in the
GUI, how do you manipulate them?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
John Culleton
a directory? I don't understand what it is that limits a Linux
display of items. If you display items (files that is) in a kfm
window and there is not enough physical space you get scroll
bars. Or you can have a virtual desktop of very large size and
slide around in it. Or you can have multiple virtual desktops.
So what is this limitation?
Last time I looked these were common features of X Window for
years. Does any version of Microsoft Windows have multiple
virtual desktops?
In article <8h60dr$2ub$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Roberto Alsina
<ral...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8F45CD6D6Go...@195.8.69.73>,
> pgo...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.netcomuk.co.uk (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>> l...@Jupiter.mcs.net (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
>> <8h33m0$2tu0$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>:
>>
>>
>> No, but this is a common feature of GUI's in general. How do
you
>display a
>> large number of items, the answer is, you don't. Windows does
this,
>KDE
>> does not.
>
>I don't get it. If you don't display the large number of items
in the
>GUI, how do you manipulate them?
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
jim...@my-deja.com
the market (kudos to Open VMS). Half of the real estate market gets all of
their listing info from a UNIX system. Obviously the detractors are all
pawns for Microsoft (can you say...MONOPOLY!!!)