Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Puzzled about KDE or GNOME or what?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts

unread,
Sep 19, 2009, 6:59:55 PM9/19/09
to
I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading about them on their
different websites.

One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it matters whether one
uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I realise that each probably has a
different feel, but is that all that there is that's different?

I was looking at the website for Linux Mint last night and rather liked the
look of XFCE. Now I don't know if one can use XFCE in any distro...


Also if I want to run an app that's distributed in binary form only, and is
written using Qt, does it follow that I can only run the app if I'm using
KDE?

Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "nnn" by "284".

andrew

unread,
Sep 19, 2009, 7:09:49 PM9/19/09
to
On 2009-09-19, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?

For example Slackware comes with kde, xfce, fluxbox, blackbox,
WindowMaker,fvwm2 and twm. Gnome is available by 3rd party.

Andrew

--
Do you think that's air you're breathing?

September Storm

unread,
Sep 19, 2009, 7:24:05 PM9/19/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

> I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading about them on
> their different websites.
>
> One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it matters whether
> one
> uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I realise that each probably has
> a different feel, but is that all that there is that's different?
>
> I was looking at the website for Linux Mint last night and rather
> liked the
> look of XFCE. Now I don't know if one can use XFCE in any distro...
>
>
> Also if I want to run an app that's distributed in binary form only,
> and is written using Qt, does it follow that I can only run the app if
> I'm using KDE?
>
> Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?
>
>
>

I've installed Gnome on a CentOS system, and then ended up switching to
KDE (I don't recall why, it just seemed better, it's been too long
since I've used Gnome to recall). Most of the stuff I do is in
shell/cli all day anyway, so I really don't use it a whole lot.
Personally, I would use KDE, but CentOS allows you to simply switch
back and forth and use whatever one you want, when you want. I'm sure
it's the same for others. It's been too long since I've used
fvwm2/xfce to comment on them and I've not used any of the rest. I'm
pretty happy in the cli, unless it's email, usenet or web surfing (for
which I use KDE 3.x) So, yeah, you can switch between the different
types.

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts

unread,
Sep 19, 2009, 7:26:37 PM9/19/09
to
Thanks for the reply.

andrew <and...@skamandros.invalid> wrote:

> On 2009-09-19, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
<jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?
>
> For example Slackware comes with kde, xfce, fluxbox, blackbox,
> WindowMaker,fvwm2 and twm. Gnome is available by 3rd party.

OK, but does "comes with" mean that in essence you choose one and live with
it? Win XP comes with Outlook etc, and if you once started using that it'd
be impractical to use other mail clients as well.

Or can you shut one desktop down and start another, then shut it and try
something else, then go back to the first...?

Or does choosing one have implications for the way some (or most or all)
apps will then get configured?

If you run a particular app under KDE, then shut KDE and start XFCE, can you
still run the same app? (I dare say it will look a bit different, but will
it function the same way?)

John Hasler

unread,
Sep 19, 2009, 7:38:51 PM9/19/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll writes:
> OK, but does "comes with" mean that in essence you choose one and live
> with it?

No, of course not.

> Or does choosing one have implications for the way some (or most or all)
> apps will then get configured?

No.

> If you run a particular app under KDE, then shut KDE and start XFCE, can you
> still run the same app?

Yes, of course.

> I dare say it will look a bit different, but will it function the same
> way?

Yes, of course. You can use any "desktop environment" or none at all.
--
John Hasler
jha...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Florian Diesch

unread,
Sep 19, 2009, 8:04:00 PM9/19/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
writes:

> I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading about them on their
> different websites.
>
> One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it matters whether one
> uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I realise that each probably has a
> different feel, but is that all that there is that's different?

That depends on you point of view. KDE, Gnome, XFCE etc. are desktop
environments build on top of GNU/Linux (or other Unix-like systems) and
the X Window System. They give you a different look & feel but have the
same system under the hood. How much they deffer depends on how you are
working with them.


> I was looking at the website for Linux Mint last night and rather liked the
> look of XFCE. Now I don't know if one can use XFCE in any distro...

Most of the major Linux distributions will let you use XFCE as desktop
environment. Some of them, like Xubuntu, use it as the default, while
with others you have to explicitly install it.


> Also if I want to run an app that's distributed in binary form only, and is
> written using Qt, does it follow that I can only run the app if I'm using
> KDE?

No. Qt is a library to build (GUI) applications. Qt applications run
on every desktop environment if you have Qt installed.

The XWindow-Overview-HOWTO
<http://tldp.org/HOWTO/XWindow-Overview-HOWTO/index.html> can give you
a nice overview about thing like that.


> Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?

Yes, with most major distributions you can install multiple desktop
environments and you choose at login time what you want to use.


Florian
--
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/software/shell-scripts/>

Jean-David Beyer

unread,
Sep 19, 2009, 8:46:44 PM9/19/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
> I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading about them on their
> different websites.
>
> One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it matters whether one
> uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I realise that each probably has a
> different feel, but is that all that there is that's different?

That is about it. Some have some different little applications built in, but
they do not matter very much.

I happen to use Gnome because I thought KDE was too complicated. I run Red
Hat Enterprise Linux on this machine and CentOS 4 on my other machine.

With these distros, you can load both of these, but use only one at a time.
If you load both, there is an item somewhere in the menus where you select
the one you want; each user can select a different one. The system remembers
which you select and you get it the next time. But you can switch anytime.


>
> I was looking at the website for Linux Mint last night and rather liked the
> look of XFCE. Now I don't know if one can use XFCE in any distro...
>
>
> Also if I want to run an app that's distributed in binary form only, and is
> written using Qt, does it follow that I can only run the app if I'm using
> KDE?

No; I have Qt loaded on my machine, and I never loaded KDE at all.


>
> Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?
>

Yes.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 20:40:01 up 23 days, 14:44, 3 users, load average: 4.81, 4.46, 4.33

ray

unread,
Sep 19, 2009, 9:26:40 PM9/19/09
to
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:59:55 +0100, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

> I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading about them on
> their different websites.

Why not boot up some of the Live CDs? It won't do a thing to your current
setup.

>
> One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it matters whether
> one uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I realise that each probably
> has a different feel, but is that all that there is that's different?
>

Pretty much.

> I was looking at the website for Linux Mint last night and rather liked
> the look of XFCE. Now I don't know if one can use XFCE in any distro...
>

Pretty much.

>
> Also if I want to run an app that's distributed in binary form only, and
> is written using Qt, does it follow that I can only run the app if I'm
> using KDE?

No - you just need the libraries. Most distros will handle the
dependencies when you install the program.

>
> Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?

Certainly. You install several, for example, in Ubuntu and there will be
a drop down list from which you can choose at the login screen.

Grant Edwards

unread,
Sep 19, 2009, 9:39:38 PM9/19/09
to
On 2009-09-20, Jean-David Beyer <jeand...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Also if I want to run an app that's distributed in binary form
>> only, and is written using Qt, does it follow that I can only
>> run the app if I'm using KDE?
>
> No; I have Qt loaded on my machine, and I never loaded KDE at all.

As long as it's a Qt app and not a KDE app, then all you need
is Qt and you don't need KDE.

That said, you can use KDE apps even if you're not _running_
KDE as your desktop (you will need the libraries installed.
Likewise for Gnome apps. In my experience the apps will
generally work, though sometimes a particular feature (e.g. the
help system), might not work if you haven't set up a few things
in the app's desktop environment.

I run XFCE as my desktop, yet I use both KDE and Gnome apps
sometimes.

--
Grant

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 20, 2009, 2:48:54 AM9/20/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
<jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading about
> them on their different websites.
>
> One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it matters
> whether one uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I realise that
> each probably has a different feel, but is that all that there
> is that's different?

No. They each require a lot of experience and study to learn to
use comfortably and what you learn about one won't necessarily
help you with the other.

>
> I was looking at the website for Linux Mint last night and
> rather liked the look of XFCE. Now I don't know if one can use
> XFCE in any distro...

Why not? They are just suites of graphical applications.

> Also if I want to run an app that's distributed in binary form
> only, and is written using Qt, does it follow that I can only
> run the app if I'm using KDE?

No. Usually you will need to install the kdelibs to run kde
apps, though.

>
> Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?
>

Why not? They are just suites of graphical applications.

You would be much better off to just do a minimal X install (just
a simple window manager and x-term plus the graphical apps you
want to run.) and learn to run Linux from the commmand line.
Takes just as much time and allows you to run Linux anywhere,
regardless of the distro.

You need a GUI, you do not need a GDE. They are invaders from
the Windows world and will just mess up your ability to run Linux
in the long run.

Sid

Ryan McCoskrie

unread,
Sep 20, 2009, 2:59:40 AM9/20/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

> I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading about them on
> their different websites.
>
> One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it matters whether one
> uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I realise that each probably has a
> different feel, but is that all that there is that's different?

Depends on what you consider to be part of the feel.
The Gnome teem are determined to remove anything that might confuse poor
old aunt Tilie. If you just want to be able to find all of your apps in the
menu it's what your after.

KDE on the other hand has pretty much all of the configuration options that
you could want[1]. The design philosophy is that they should all be placed
where you would expect them to be.

XFCE's main goal is to be vary sparing in how it uses the hard ware.
This makes it a little harder to use but it's still much easier than a
bare windowing manager like icewm.

> I was looking at the website for Linux Mint last night and rather liked
> the
> look of XFCE. Now I don't know if one can use XFCE in any distro...
>
>
> Also if I want to run an app that's distributed in binary form only, and
> is written using Qt, does it follow that I can only run the app if I'm
> using KDE?

> Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?

Generally you can change which one you use while logging in.

[1]Well KDE 3.5.x did. KDE 4.3.x has most of the missing ones back now and
some others as well.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 20, 2009, 9:10:15 AM9/20/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
> I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading about them on their
> different websites.
>
> One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it matters whether one
> uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I realise that each probably has a
> different feel, but is that all that there is that's different?
>
> I was looking at the website for Linux Mint last night and rather liked the
> look of XFCE. Now I don't know if one can use XFCE in any distro...
>
>
> Also if I want to run an app that's distributed in binary form only, and is
> written using Qt, does it follow that I can only run the app if I'm using
> KDE?
>
> Can one install multiple desktops and switch between them?
>
>
I believe so, BUT each distro that is more or less geared at end users
rather than people who like playing with computers, tends to gear a
complete suite of apps designed to work under one desktop manager.

Frankly the desktop manager is the least of my concerns. As long as it
has an easy way to launch programs, and resize windows, I really
couldn't give a toss.


>

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts

unread,
Sep 20, 2009, 5:49:47 PM9/20/09
to
Thanks to everyone for their replies, so far. Very helpful.

Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> You would be much better off to just do a minimal X install (just
> a simple window manager and x-term plus the graphical apps you
> want to run.) and learn to run Linux from the commmand line.
> Takes just as much time and allows you to run Linux anywhere,
> regardless of the distro.
>
> You need a GUI, you do not need a GDE.

Interesting; I've an IBM mainframe systems programming background so
command-lines etc do not particularly worry me. In fact I tend to loathe
GUIs that hide what's really going on, interpreting error messages for me,
hiding all the stuff in config files etc.

OTOH I have a feeling that getting started in Linux might be easier with
some sort of GUI, and I can explore config files etc when I feel like it.


Someone suggested trying some live CDs; I'm pondering that. One problem is
I have a chronic illness and concentration is hard a lot of the time. Lack
of data persistence on live systems makes it harder to keep notes in situ
that remind one of what one did last time...

Keith Keller

unread,
Sep 20, 2009, 6:37:40 PM9/20/09
to
On 2009-09-20, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> OTOH I have a feeling that getting started in Linux might be easier with
> some sort of GUI, and I can explore config files etc when I feel like it.

Personally, I think it doesn't matter one way or the other how you start
out. But if you want a browser like Firefox running, you need some sort
of X and window manager. But as many others have pointed out, you don't
need GNOME or KDE for this purpose.

> Someone suggested trying some live CDs; I'm pondering that. One problem is
> I have a chronic illness and concentration is hard a lot of the time. Lack
> of data persistence on live systems makes it harder to keep notes in situ
> that remind one of what one did last time...

There are at least two ways around this problem: 1) mount a writable
disk from within your live system, and write your notes there; 2) if
possible, find a live CD that supports booting from a pen drive or
similar, buy a bunch of them, and use them for testing.

--keith

--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

des...@verizon.net

unread,
Sep 20, 2009, 7:12:22 PM9/20/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
writes:

> Thanks to everyone for their replies, so far. Very helpful.
>
> Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You would be much better off to just do a minimal X install (just
>> a simple window manager and x-term plus the graphical apps you
>> want to run.) and learn to run Linux from the commmand line.
>> Takes just as much time and allows you to run Linux anywhere,
>> regardless of the distro.
>>
>> You need a GUI, you do not need a GDE.
>
> Interesting; I've an IBM mainframe systems programming background so
> command-lines etc do not particularly worry me. In fact I tend to loathe
> GUIs that hide what's really going on, interpreting error messages for me,
> hiding all the stuff in config files etc.

Fellow mainframer here.

I wouldn't pay much attention to Sid. He's really in a world of his own.

> OTOH I have a feeling that getting started in Linux might be easier with
> some sort of GUI, and I can explore config files etc when I feel like it.

Yes, that is the case.

> Someone suggested trying some live CDs; I'm pondering that. One problem is
> I have a chronic illness and concentration is hard a lot of the time. Lack
> of data persistence on live systems makes it harder to keep notes in situ
> that remind one of what one did last time...

Sorry to hear about your illness.

Booting up a live CD is not a commitment. It only takes a little while
and you can look around, see how your hardware is supported, etc.

As you get deeper, you'd definitely want to install on a hard disk though.

I'm still doing mainframe work and I use Linux every day.
The ISPF editor is great and all, but I can do so much more running
my mainframe development from my Linux desktop.

A Systems Programmer should find the Linux environment fascinating.
Come back and tell us what you think of SMP vs. Linux package management.

ray

unread,
Sep 20, 2009, 8:33:29 PM9/20/09
to
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:49:47 +0100, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

> Thanks to everyone for their replies, so far. Very helpful.
>
> Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You would be much better off to just do a minimal X install (just a
>> simple window manager and x-term plus the graphical apps you want to
>> run.) and learn to run Linux from the commmand line. Takes just as much
>> time and allows you to run Linux anywhere, regardless of the distro.
>>
>> You need a GUI, you do not need a GDE.
>
> Interesting; I've an IBM mainframe systems programming background so
> command-lines etc do not particularly worry me. In fact I tend to
> loathe GUIs that hide what's really going on, interpreting error
> messages for me, hiding all the stuff in config files etc.
>
> OTOH I have a feeling that getting started in Linux might be easier with
> some sort of GUI, and I can explore config files etc when I feel like
> it.
>
>
> Someone suggested trying some live CDs; I'm pondering that. One problem
> is I have a chronic illness and concentration is hard a lot of the time.
> Lack of data persistence on live systems makes it harder to keep notes
> in situ that remind one of what one did last time...

You might also consider installing a Linux in a virtual machine within
your current OS. It's much faster to bring up, then, than dual booting -
it's persistent - if you decide to get rid of it, it's quite easy.

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts

unread,
Sep 20, 2009, 8:33:45 PM9/20/09
to
Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:

> There are at least two ways around this problem: 1) mount a writable
> disk from within your live system, and write your notes there; 2) if
> possible, find a live CD that supports booting from a pen drive or
> similar, buy a bunch of them, and use them for testing.

Unfortunately neither my laptop nor desktop machines offer BIOS support for
booting from USB pen drives...

Ryan McCoskrie

unread,
Sep 20, 2009, 10:39:11 PM9/20/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading about
>> them on their different websites.
>>
>> One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it matters
>> whether one uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I realise that
>> each probably has a different feel, but is that all that there
>> is that's different?
>
> No. They each require a lot of experience and study to learn to
> use comfortably and what you learn about one won't necessarily
> help you with the other.

About five minutes of experimentation is enough to learn how to use
Gnome. Another fifteen would be required if you want to cover KDE.

[Sarcastic] That is allot of wasted time compared to the hour and a half
or more needed to learn the basics of the shell.

[Serious] Don't get me wrong here, knowing how to use BASH (at least) is
a very important skill, but starting with a desktop means that you'll be
doing _something_ constructive sooner.


> You would be much better off to just do a minimal X install (just
> a simple window manager and x-term plus the graphical apps you
> want to run.) and learn to run Linux from the commmand line.
> Takes just as much time and allows you to run Linux anywhere,
> regardless of the distro.
>
> You need a GUI, you do not need a GDE. They are invaders from
> the Windows world and will just mess up your ability to run Linux
> in the long run.

Sid, most people don't have the patience to learn that way.
Yes, I know that is how everyone learnt back in the day, but it was
only very determined people with allot of time who did.

Florian Diesch

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 12:20:32 AM9/21/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
writes:

> Thanks to everyone for their replies, so far. Very helpful.
>
> Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You would be much better off to just do a minimal X install (just
>> a simple window manager and x-term plus the graphical apps you
>> want to run.) and learn to run Linux from the commmand line.
>> Takes just as much time and allows you to run Linux anywhere,
>> regardless of the distro.
>>
>> You need a GUI, you do not need a GDE.
>
> Interesting;

Note that some people consider Sidney to be a troll.


> I've an IBM mainframe systems programming background so
> command-lines etc do not particularly worry me. In fact I tend to loathe
> GUIs that hide what's really going on, interpreting error messages for me,
> hiding all the stuff in config files etc.

Desktop environments give you some additional functions (and hide some
others), but there's always a terminal with your favourite shell and
your favourite editor if you want them.


> OTOH I have a feeling that getting started in Linux might be easier with
> some sort of GUI, and I can explore config files etc when I feel like it.

http://xwinman.org/ is a good starting point to see what's available.


> Someone suggested trying some live CDs; I'm pondering that. One problem is
> I have a chronic illness and concentration is hard a lot of the time. Lack
> of data persistence on live systems makes it harder to keep notes in situ
> that remind one of what one did last time...

Most major distributions let you install multiple desktop environments
and window managers in parallel so you can choose at login time what you
want to use.

Florian
--
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/software/pdfrecycle/>

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 1:21:44 AM9/21/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for their replies, so far. Very helpful.
>
> Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You would be much better off to just do a minimal X install (just
>> a simple window manager and x-term plus the graphical apps you
>> want to run.) and learn to run Linux from the commmand line.
>> Takes just as much time and allows you to run Linux anywhere,
>> regardless of the distro.
>>
>> You need a GUI, you do not need a GDE.
>
> Interesting; I've an IBM mainframe systems programming background so
> command-lines etc do not particularly worry me. In fact I tend to loathe
> GUIs that hide what's really going on, interpreting error messages for me,
> hiding all the stuff in config files etc.

The point about linux, is that whilst there is a dashboard, unlike MS
windows, the hood isn't welded shut, so you can see what's going on.


>
> OTOH I have a feeling that getting started in Linux might be easier with
> some sort of GUI, and I can explore config files etc when I feel like it.
>


Its very much part of the character, that the thing these days mostly
'just works' using the GUI tools.

That allows you to get up and working fast, and then delve into the
config files to solve specific issues.


>
> Someone suggested trying some live CDs; I'm pondering that. One problem is
> I have a chronic illness and concentration is hard a lot of the time. Lack
> of data persistence on live systems makes it harder to keep notes in situ
> that remind one of what one did last time...
>

Most peole have a 2-10 year old chassis with a bit of hard disk lying
around. Best to make a 'sandbox' and trial install some stuff.

>

September Storm

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 3:39:18 AM9/21/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> No. They each require a lot of experience and study to learn to
> use comfortably and what you learn about one won't necessarily
> help you with the other.

Seriously dumb thing to say. It takes NO TIME (i.e., LESS time) to
learn where a program is on a menu or by clicking an icon. No one said
it is the best way to do everything or never learn anything else, but
to say it requires any experience, let alone a "lot of" experience to
be "comfortable" clicking on icons or from a program menu, is just the
stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Ryan McCoskrie

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 4:11:22 AM9/21/09
to
Florian Diesch wrote:

> Note that some people consider Sidney to be a troll.

Where some is defined as everyone but Sidney who thinks that everyone
else here is either a troll or an evil, under cover agent.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 4:53:15 AM9/21/09
to
Ryan McCoskrie <ryan.mc...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
>> <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I've not tried a linux distro yet, but have been reading
>>> about them on their different websites.
>>>
>>> One of the things that puzzles me is to what extent it
>>> matters whether one uses KDE or GNOME or something else? I
>>> realise that each probably has a different feel, but is that
>>> all that there is that's different?
>>
>> No. They each require a lot of experience and study to
>> learn to use comfortably and what you learn about one won't
>> necessarily help you with the other.
>
> About five minutes of experimentation is enough to learn how
> to use Gnome. Another fifteen would be required if you want to
> cover KDE.
>
> [Sarcastic] That is allot of wasted time compared to the hour
> and a half or more needed to learn the basics of the shell.

This is only true because the Linux GDEs are clones of the
Windows/Mac interfaces you are already familiar with.

Given two people with no computer experience at all, it takes
about the same amount of time to learn either interface well
enough to operate the system.

But the person learning the shell interface will have much
more freedom and control of the OS.

> [Serious] Don't get me wrong here, knowing how to use BASH (at
> least) is a very important skill, but starting with a desktop
> means that you'll be doing _something_ constructive sooner.

Bullshit.

All you have to do, assuming X and your insternet connection
are up, which probably happenned at boot, is enter

$ firefox google.com &

at the prompt and you are on the Web, 'doing something useful'.

If you want to use another application, enter its name, and
you are doing something else useful.

There's no functional difference between clicking an icon
and entering a name at the command prompt.

>
>
>> You would be much better off to just do a minimal X install
>> (just a simple window manager and x-term plus the graphical
>> apps you want to run.) and learn to run Linux from the
>> commmand line. Takes just as much time and allows you to run
>> Linux anywhere, regardless of the distro.
>>
>> You need a GUI, you do not need a GDE. They are invaders from
>> the Windows world and will just mess up your ability to run
>> Linux in the long run.
>
> Sid, most people don't have the patience to learn that way.

Good thing for you you are wrong. That's how Linux was run,
exclusively, throughout its early years. If it wasn't for
tens of thousands of people running Linux that way there wouldn't
be any Linux.

What you mean is: There are a whole lot of lazy and spoiled
couch potato appliance operator jerks from the Windows/Mac
world who want to run Linux.

We shouldn't be catering to them. They can run Windows
or Mac if they want to use computers. We should not allow
them to turn Linux into a Windows clone.

> Yes, I know that is how everyone learnt back in the day, but it
> was only very determined people with allot of time who did.

More bullshit. Even you, in the very article, say it only takes
an hour and a half to learn the shell interface.

The idea that it is hard to run Linux from the command line is a
myth promoted by the ignorant or by technocrats (and wannabees)
who want them to learn a GDE and therefore become dependent on
those who know the shell interface.

http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://linuxreviews.org/beginner/abs-guide/en/
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
http://linux.about.com/cs/glossaries/a/aglossary.htm
http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/

http://axiom.anu.edu.au/~okeefe/p2b
for:
From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO
Building a Minimal Linux System from Source Code


Sid

Evergreen

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 4:53:15 AM9/21/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
<jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> Thanks to everyone for their replies, so far. Very helpful.
>
> Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You would be much better off to just do a minimal X install
>> (just a simple window manager and x-term plus the graphical
>> apps you want to run.) and learn to run Linux from the
>> commmand line. Takes just as much time and allows you to run
>> Linux anywhere, regardless of the distro.
>>
>> You need a GUI, you do not need a GDE.
>
> Interesting; I've an IBM mainframe systems programming
> background so command-lines etc do not particularly worry me.

Are you talking UNIX operating systems?

> In fact I tend to loathe GUIs that hide what's really going on,
> interpreting error messages for me, hiding all the stuff in
> config files etc.
>
> OTOH I have a feeling that getting started in Linux might be
> easier with some sort of GUI, and I can explore config files
> etc when I feel like it.

You are confusing me with your use of "GUI". I run a GUI, but
I do _not_ run a GDE (Graphical Desktop Environment) like kde
or gnome. They are very different things indeed.

A GUI is just a simple window manager that's available for X apps
to run in. You can run it from a plain term or from an x-term
within the window manager. A GDE is a massive suite of graphical
applications, libs, and utilities attempting to be a complete
user-interface.

With your experience I cannot imagine that it would take you
long to learn enough about the Linux OS to run this way. Less
time than it would take you to learn to use a GDE, I daresay.

Here are some links you will, hopefully, find helpful:

> Someone suggested trying some live CDs; I'm pondering that.

Why not? DSL, Damned Small Linux, will auto-configure itself
on almost any box.

> One problem is I have a chronic illness and concentration
> is hard a lot of the time. Lack of data persistence on live
> systems makes it harder to keep notes in situ that remind one
> of what one did last time...

I just mount the harddrive and write them to a file there.


Sid

Ryan McCoskrie

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 7:42:28 AM9/21/09
to
Let me describe what's going on my computer at the moment.

I'm logged into a KDE 4.3 session.
On the first desktop I have dolphin (the file manager) and konsole
(KDE's xterm equivalent) open to where I'm working on a virtual
machine for an ISA of my design.
On the second desktop I've got Zim open so that I can document the
working of the virtual machine.
Third desktop I have Amarok playing some music that I have picked out
to help me concentrate one what I'm doing[1].
The fourth desktop is communications.

You may think that running a DE is incorrect but notice that I'm
implementing my own ISA. There won't be a desktop there for quite
a while. Or even a proper shell.

Oh, and I'm running FreeBSD as well. You should give that a try.

[1] Beethoven, Pink Floyd, Guns and Roses etc.

Balwinder S Dheeman

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 7:58:56 AM9/21/09
to
On 09/21/2009 02:23 PM, Evergreen wrote:
[snip]

> Are you talking UNIX operating systems?
[snip]
[snip]

You still forget to mention a must read:
http://werc.homelinux.net/links/reference/unix_prog_design.pdf (Program
design in the UNIX� environment, Rob Pike and Brian W. Kernighan).

--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP
Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

Michael Black

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 10:23:53 AM9/21/09
to
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Sidney Lambe wrote:


> Given two people with no computer experience at all, it takes
> about the same amount of time to learn either interface well
> enough to operate the system.
>

Get real. Virtually nobody has no computer experience at all.

If they have limited experience, they've had that where there
are GUIs, ie a Windows machine or a Macintosh.

If they have no experience with computers, chances are good they
are five years old, and their first experience will be with their
parents computer which is either Windows or Mac. Those kids don't
need to learn the command line.

You will find very few people who are computer virgins at this point.
They may have limited experience, but it will be really hard to find
someone with no experience.

I keep seeing nonsense about "senior citizens" and computers, when
small computers have been around long enough that most people who are
past retirement age weren't particularly old when computers came
home, and rare would be the person who hasn't had some experience
with them by old age.

Since there are very few who don't have some experience, the reality is
that people can go zooming on the GUIs because the "basics" are the same,
even if there are finicky differences like where the menus are or how many
times you have to click the button. They don't have to learn anything,
they just have to familiarize themselves with the differences.

Michael

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 10:47:31 AM9/21/09
to
Evergreen <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> > Interesting; I've an IBM mainframe systems programming
> > background so command-lines etc do not particularly worry me.
>
> Are you talking UNIX operating systems?

No; VM/CMS about 30 years ago, and MVS->S/390 more recently.

I did use VMS (?) on a VAX around 30 years ago...

>
> > In fact I tend to loathe GUIs that hide what's really going on,
> > interpreting error messages for me, hiding all the stuff in
> > config files etc.
> >
> > OTOH I have a feeling that getting started in Linux might be
> > easier with some sort of GUI, and I can explore config files
> > etc when I feel like it.
>
> You are confusing me with your use of "GUI". I run a GUI, but
> I do _not_ run a GDE (Graphical Desktop Environment) like kde
> or gnome. They are very different things indeed.
>
> A GUI is just a simple window manager that's available for X apps
> to run in. You can run it from a plain term or from an x-term
> within the window manager. A GDE is a massive suite of graphical
> applications, libs, and utilities attempting to be a complete
> user-interface.

Hmm, I understand the difference between 'window manager' and 'desktop
environment', I think.

But to most users I'd have thought a GUI was simply any graphical
representation of a task, whether it was very basic or not.

Maybe the way you use the term is linux-specific?

notbob

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 10:54:26 AM9/21/09
to
On 2009-09-21, September Storm <it.i...@an.invalid> wrote:

> ....is just the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

If you're gonna reply to Sid often, you may want to keep that phrase
at the ready.

nb

des...@verizon.net

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 11:09:27 AM9/21/09
to
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
writes:

No, whoever you are replying to mis-defined GUI.
A GUI is any "drawn" application, even on Linux.

GDEs go beyond Window Managers in that they provide a bunch of
applications.

Most of those applications will run in any Window Manager
unless they take specific advantage of non-standardized things
(like the systray).

September Storm

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 12:43:07 PM9/21/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> This is only true because the Linux GDEs are clones of the
> Windows/Mac interfaces you are already familiar with.
>

What a complete shit head you are. You really want to claim that it's
just as "hard" to locate an icon on your screen for any number of
things that are categorized under areas of a menu as well, and that
remembering all of the names of the binaries in shell to launch are the
same for a "new person" to computers? You're just an impossibly stupid
person. I hope someone kicks your teeth out.

September Storm

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 12:47:35 PM9/21/09
to
Evergreen wrote:

> Sid

You forgot to change your sockpuppet name. You aren't a happy or sane
(or smart) person... you should kill yourself.

notbob

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 12:47:40 PM9/21/09
to
On 2009-09-21, September Storm <it.i...@an.invalid> wrote:

> What a complete shit head you are. You really want to claim that it's
> just as "hard" to locate an icon on your screen for any number of
> things that are categorized under areas of a menu as well, and that
> remembering all of the names of the binaries in shell to launch are the
> same for a "new person" to computers? You're just an impossibly stupid
> person. I hope someone kicks your teeth out.

His sole purpose of posting is to elicit just the type of response you
provided. Wise up.

nb

September Storm

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 12:50:09 PM9/21/09
to
notbob wrote:

> His sole purpose of posting is to elicit just the type of response you
> provided.  Wise up.
>
> nb

Don't get so worked up about someone refuting what he says. I actually
doubt he's trying to be proven wrong, his posting history shows how
desperate he is to try and convince people of what he's saying. Should
no one refute it all because they are scared they'll look like they are
"giving the troll what he wants", then it gives some (by silence)
potential credence to it (should no one call him on the obvious lies).
Wise up.

September Storm

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 12:50:58 PM9/21/09
to
notbob wrote:

I don't know why you're so concerned, but I really don't have any plans
to make this person my usenet buddy.

Jens Stuckelberger

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 1:02:40 PM9/21/09
to

What's wrong with such people? Do they perhaps get off when
(justifiably) insulted and abused in public? Is it a sort of immaterial
extension of masochism?

notbob

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 1:11:08 PM9/21/09
to
On 2009-09-21, Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuc...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> What's wrong with such people? Do they perhaps get off when
> (justifiably) insulted and abused in public? Is it a sort of immaterial
> extension of masochism?

I think you overly complicate the problem. I think it's simply that
he's crazier than a shit house rat. ;)

nb

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 1:26:09 PM9/21/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> There's no functional difference between clicking an icon
> and entering a name at the command prompt.

The "functional difference" is that a (especially "new") user is
unlikely to know what the name of the binary is to launch the
application. The GDE allows them to not have to know all of those
things. Speaking of, I've read the history and I don't see a single
person pushing GDE's on anyone, nor anyone trying to convince anyone
else to do anything *but* learn how to work their way around in shell,
so it's a wonder why you are all worked up about this issue.
Regardless, I'll save time and filter your posts out for now on anyway.
--
Not really a wanna-be, but I don't know everything.

jellybean stonerfish

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 1:51:21 PM9/21/09
to
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:09:27 +0000, despen wrote:

>> Hmm, I understand the difference between 'window manager' and 'desktop
>> environment', I think.
>>
>> But to most users I'd have thought a GUI was simply any graphical
>> representation of a task, whether it was very basic or not.
>>
>> Maybe the way you use the term is linux-specific?
>
> No, whoever you are replying to mis-defined GUI. A GUI is any "drawn"
> application, even on Linux.

Graphical User Interface.

In my brain that even applies to console programs such as mc.

des...@verizon.net

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 1:54:39 PM9/21/09
to
September Storm <it.i...@an.invalid> writes:

> notbob wrote:
>
>> His sole purpose of posting is to elicit just the type of response you
>> provided.��Wise�up.
>>
>> nb
>
> Don't get so worked up about someone refuting what he says. I actually
> doubt he's trying to be proven wrong, his posting history shows how
> desperate he is to try and convince people of what he's saying.

Uh no. Sidney's posting history goes back a lot further than you might
suspect. As far as anyone can tell, his sole purpose is to gain
attention. By replying, you are simply feeding him.

How do I know? People have been trying to reason with him for years.
Absolutly nothing works.

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 1:58:37 PM9/21/09
to
des...@verizon.net wrote:

>>
>> Don't get so worked up about someone refuting what he says.  I
>> actually doubt he's trying to be proven wrong, his posting history
>> shows how desperate he is to try and convince people of what he's
>> saying.
>
> Uh no.  Sidney's posting history goes back a lot further than you
> might suspect.  As far as anyone can tell, his sole purpose is to gain
> attention.  By replying, you are simply feeding him.

Sometimes letting a problem member run their mouths isn't helping
either. True, trolls don't respond to anything sometimes, but I don't
agree it's feeding a troll by pointing out they are stupid and what
they say is untrue (albeit, what good does any of it do, once a troll
decides to never relent, *nothing* matters (including "feeding them" or
not), so why debate it at all or act like anything's adding to the
problem that has already existed for so long?)

notbob

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 1:59:30 PM9/21/09
to
On 2009-09-21, des...@verizon.net <des...@verizon.net> wrote:


> Absolutly nothing works.

Same as with my aging mom. It's pointless to argue. She suffers from
2nd stage dementia.

nb

des...@verizon.net

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 1:59:35 PM9/21/09
to
jellybean stonerfish <stone...@geocities.com> writes:

I don't think so.
mc is character mode, full screen.
Sometimes called curses based or raw mode.

Normal shell interaction is line mode or cooked.

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 2:05:17 PM9/21/09
to
notbob wrote:

That's incredibly unfortunate. However, I wouldn't confuse someone
pointing out the flaws in someone's claims as meaning they are arguing
with the person making the claims. Arguing with someone that doesn't
understand is different from pointing out the problem with that
person's argument (since it's not just those two people in a room
alone, for example). Surely, it's pointless to argue with this troll,
but people aren't replying to him to argue *with him*. Agreed, it's
all pointless anyway, so long as people like him can run their mouths
freely on usenet, adding clutter, annoying people and just not
relenting, ever. If usenet wasn't dead for the most part anyway, I
might find it annoying (instead, I only find him in my killfile).

Keith Keller

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 2:55:44 PM9/21/09
to
On 2009-09-21, Wanna-Be Sys Admin <sysa...@example.com> wrote:
>
> Sometimes letting a problem member run their mouths isn't helping
> either. True, trolls don't respond to anything sometimes, but I don't
> agree it's feeding a troll by pointing out they are stupid and what
> they say is untrue (albeit, what good does any of it do, once a troll
> decides to never relent, *nothing* matters (including "feeding them" or
> not), so why debate it at all or act like anything's adding to the
> problem that has already existed for so long?)

I agree that someone needs to correct obvious factual errors in
''Sid's'' posts. Anything beyond that and/or humour is pointless.
(Unfortunately, ''Sid'' knows this, which is why many of his posts are
riddled with obvious factual errors, thus obligating somebody to
respond.)

--keith


--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 3:35:49 PM9/21/09
to
Keith Keller wrote:

>
> I agree that someone needs to correct obvious factual errors in
> ''Sid's'' posts.  Anything beyond that and/or humour is pointless.
> (Unfortunately, ''Sid'' knows this, which is why many of his posts are
> riddled with obvious factual errors, thus obligating somebody to
> respond.)
>

So, what to "correct" or not then? I didn't see the danger of
antagonization with people saying things like how it's ridiculous to
say that it's no easier to just click on an icon or use the program
menu over expecting someone to know the name of all of the binaries to
launch the programs they want to use. Makes sense, and so what if it
was interluded with "what a shit head you are", because everyone's fed
up with this jerkoff. Other than that, I don't think anyone's
disagreeing with anyone else, so why have all of the other members
argue, debate or even fight about it? If anything, that's what "Sid"
wants.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 3:51:59 PM9/21/09
to

Sure they do. Most users these days, because they think that
Windows-clone GDEs like kde and gnome _are_ Linux, are quite
ignorant of the Linux operating system.

There's no need for you to be as ignorant as they are.

GUIs have been around for about 40 years and are the basic
graphical interface platform.

GDEs, which have been around in the Linux world since 1996,
are suites of graphical applications that run _in_ GUIs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUI/History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Linux#history

> Maybe the way you use the term is linux-specific?

Linux/Unix-specific. Windows and Mac aren't built like Linux/Unix.
Linux has a base operating system that isn't graphical (I'm running
from it right now).

Then you have the _option_ of running a GUI, which I do whenever
I need to use firefox, for example. (Usually I use a text-mode
browser called "links" and a console (non-X) image viewer called
"zgv".)

The third layer, which no one needs at all, is the GDE, which
is about twice the size of the Linux OS all of itself. It is a
destructive invader from the Windows/Mac world.

I don't have time to read most of the other responses to
my post here (direct responses are given a 200 score in my
newsreader's display) and I can see that most of them are from
trolls and technocratic assholes who freak out whenever anyone
criticizes the GDEs, which they love because their use produces
Linux-ignorant users who are dependent on them.

Sid

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 3:52:00 PM9/21/09
to
Wanna-Be Sys Admin <sysa...@example.com> wrote:
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> There's no functional difference between clicking an icon
>> and entering a name at the command prompt.
>
> The "functional difference" is that a (especially "new") user is
> unlikely to know what the name of the binary is to launch the
> application. The GDE allows them to not have to know all of those
> things.

You don't need 100,000+ superfluous files (yes, that's how large
GDEs are) to provide a menu of applications to run.

Try this simple script.

#!/bin/bash

#menu.sh

# This script reads a list of commands in
# /etc/menu/menu.txt and creates a menu from them
# The commands should be one per line and be whatever
# you would put on the commandline. Limit 26. Press
# the letter corresponding to the command and it runs

set - a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

command=1

echo
while read line
do
echo "${1}) $line"
shift
eval var${command}=$line
let "command += 1"
done < /etc/menu/menu.txt
echo

read -s -n1 bb
echo

case "$bb" in

a) eval $var1 ;;
b) eval $var2 ;;
c) eval $var3 ;;
d) eval $var4 ;;
e) eval $var5 ;;
f) eval $var6 ;;
g) eval $var7 ;;
h) eval $var8 ;;
i) eval $var9 ;;
j) eval $var10 ;;
k) eval $var11 ;;
l) eval $var12 ;;
m) eval $var13 ;;
n) eval $var14 ;;
o) eval $var15 ;;
p) eval $var16 ;;
q) eval $var17 ;;
r) eval $var18 ;;
s) eval $var19 ;;
t) eval $var20 ;;
u) eval $var21 ;;
v) eval $var22 ;;
w) eval $var23 ;;
x) eval $var24 ;;
y) eval $var25 ;;
z) eval $var26 ;;

esac

Put the script in /usr/local/bin
and make it executable with:

$ chmod +rx menu.sh

alias the script to m in your bashrc

alias m='/usr/local/bin/menu.sh'

Then all you have to do to bring up the menu,
which would have a bunch of entries for the newbies, is
enter m at the prompt.

> Speaking of, I've read the history and I don't see a single
> person pushing GDE's on anyone,

Really? They are a part of the default install of most or all
of the major distros.

The install docs do not usually mention the option of running
Linux without them.

Instructions for running Linux without a GDE, once a part of
every Linux runners basic education, are not provided.

I call that "pushing" in a big way. An absolute way.

> nor anyone trying to convince anyone
> else to do anything *but* learn how to work their way around in shell,

Yes. It is quite clear that you have a very simplistic notion of
what is involved in the everyday maninpulating of people.

> so it's a wonder why you are all worked up about this issue.
> Regardless, I'll save time and filter your posts out for now on anyway.


Poor baby. All freaked out at the thought of having to take time
off from playing games and watching movies to do a little studying.

These are the kinds of losers from the Windows/Mac world that we
are being flooded with since the maturation of the GDEs.


Sid

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 4:45:59 PM9/21/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> Wanna-Be Sys Admin <sysa...@example.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>
>>> There's no functional difference between clicking an icon
>>> and entering a name at the command prompt.
>>
>> The "functional difference" is that a (especially "new") user is
>> unlikely to know what the name of the binary is to launch the
>> application. The GDE allows them to not have to know all of those
>> things.
>
> You don't need 100,000+ superfluous files (yes, that's how large
> GDEs are) to provide a menu of applications to run.

Since I forgot to add you yet, I'll reply to this post of yours. I
never said you need 100K+ files, and it doesn't take that anyway. If
you install everything along with the GDE, you might get that. That's
pretty irrelevant though.

> Try this simple script.
>
> #!/bin/bash

<snip>

That bash script doesn't really do anything, and so what? I never said
you shouldn't (or couldn't) use shell. YOU are the one saying no one
should use a GDE. Plenty of people use GDE's for some things, and even
use shell for everything else.

>
> Put the script in /usr/local/bin

(no thanks)

> alias m='/usr/local/bin/menu.sh'

Why would I want to do that? That lame script you've posted is nonsense
and pointless. I was making the point about a new user and how it's
not "just as easy" or "more easy" for them to try and get around in
shell over a GDE. Of course a GDE is easier, and that allows people to
get right into Linux and start using it. They can get around to do
everything they want or need, and allows them the ability to learn to
use shell (some people never need to, by the way, but everyone in Linux
encourages it, so I don't know what your problem is). Also, aliasing a
command to a single letter is just stupid. How about at least saying
to name is something relevant (an actual word)? Especially, something
not close to "mc", etc.

> Then all you have to do to bring up the menu,
> which would have a bunch of entries for the newbies, is
> enter m at the prompt.

Right, and what's the point of your "menu"? What do you think that
example is going to do to help some new user to Linux?

>> Speaking of, I've read the history and I don't see a single
>> person pushing GDE's on anyone,
>
> Really? They are a part of the default install of most or all
> of the major distros.

And those installs give the installer many options, such as NOT
installing a GDE. I work on thousands of servers and install for
runlevel 3, no GDE, no GUI, no X, nothing else. Everything is done in
shell. You can install a workstation, a home system, a router, a
server, and so on.

> The install docs do not usually mention the option of running
> Linux without them.

So what? And what difference does it make what YOU like or not? Why do
you think your personal opinion is so important to the Linux world? No
one gives you flack for not wanting to use a GDE, so why do you get so
stupid about people that want to? Anyway, all installs have an option
of what you want to install (if you don't want it, ensure it's not
selected). Of course any OS install default selects certain things for
people, depending on them installing a networking station, server, or
"other". Have them select a server install then, and they won't have
to deselect anything. Big fucking deal!?

> Instructions for running Linux without a GDE, once a part of
> every Linux runners basic education, are not provided.

Neither is provided on the install for how to use a GDE or not. And so
what? Linux is very shell user friendly, many thousands of people have
put in thousands of hours of time to provide info/man pages.

> I call that "pushing" in a big way. An absolute way.

So what if you want to call it that!? It's not. It's just making it
easy for the new users, so it doesn't alienate people that could
benefit from a GDE and slowly get into shell (if they want or need to).
Your rants have nothing to do with it. You aren't explaining why GDE's
are bad, and you go on about how you can do the same things in shell.
So? Why reinvent the wheel? How many of those people just want what
the GDE's already provide and don't need or want anything else? Why
force those people to use only shell and figure that out? Why do you
care if they know (in-depth) how Linux works? You clearly don't know
given your posts and examples. You seem to be very new to Linux and
you can't manage to give it a fair shake based on unfounded paranoia.

>> nor anyone trying to convince anyone
>> else to do anything *but* learn how to work their way around in
>> shell,
>
> Yes. It is quite clear that you have a very simplistic notion of
> what is involved in the everyday maninpulating of people.

I don't agree with you, I think you're dumb, and it's supposed to be
surprising that you want to claim the person you don't agree with to be
ignorant? I guess you're not just new to Linux, but usenet as well.

>> so it's a wonder why you are all worked up about this issue.
>> Regardless, I'll save time and filter your posts out for now on
>> anyway.
>
>
> Poor baby. All freaked out at the thought of having to take time
> off from playing games and watching movies to do a little studying.

Who is "freaked out"? Is that what you assume people must be feeling if
they say you're being stupid and don't agree with your paranoid rants?
Ironically, (and not that it matters at all anyway), I don't play games
and I rarely watch movies. I use my (Linux) system(s) for real work,
on thousands of servers, not to whine to people on usenet because I'm
too dumb to figure out what a GDE actually means and what impact(s) it
actually has.

> These are the kinds of losers from the Windows/Mac world that we
> are being flooded with since the maturation of the GDEs.
>
>
> Sid

Yes, I see you make that claim often, in fact, only and every time
anyone calls you on your bullshit or disagrees with you. Anyway,
you're right, the Linux world has basically come to an end, I agree
with others here, you should just kill yourself. I think there's some
web sites that can help you with that.

Keith Keller

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 4:58:06 PM9/21/09
to
On 2009-09-21, Wanna-Be Sys Admin <sysa...@example.com> wrote:
>
> So, what to "correct" or not then? I didn't see the danger of
> antagonization with people saying things like how it's ridiculous to
> say that it's no easier to just click on an icon or use the program
> menu over expecting someone to know the name of all of the binaries to
> launch the programs they want to use.

When I say "factual" I say, for example, that when ''Sid'' claims to
have written a dozen or so scripts to filter content from his newsfeed,
you can respond "...or simply use the filtering from leafnode and/or
slrn". Or (this is a more recent example) when he claims that you
should put a certain alias into /etc/profile, you can recommend strongly
against this, since there are valid techincal reasons not to do so (and
you should try to explain what they are, and in what situations it would
be valid to modify /etc/profile instead).

In other words, if his ''advice'' is liable to break someone's box,
correct him. Otherwise ignore him.

If you want a parallel between his GDE vs CLI crusade, think of it as
emacs vs vi--a religious war that can have no good end.

> why have all of the other members
> argue, debate or even fight about it? If anything, that's what "Sid"
> wants.

''Sid'' wants responses. Even this response will feed his ego, I'm
sure. :(

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 5:19:54 PM9/21/09
to
Keith Keller wrote:

...



> In other words, if his ''advice'' is liable to break someone's box,
> correct him. Otherwise ignore him.

Well, I disagree about that view, but I can respect it. I don't think
people should worry about exactly what they respond to, what with, or
how, when it involves a super-troll, since we all know it doesn't make
a difference anyway. It's not like if everyone ignores even every
single one of his posts, that he'll go away (won't make a damn bit of
difference), so why even debate about the content of people's replies?
Besides, why bother warning people about things he says that can break
their box (the global settings in profile could, sure, but it's not the
end of the world, after all), so why bother responding to anything he
says short of telling someone to use dd backwards, rm -rf on their root
file system partition, or anything else, if someone can't just respond
about how it doesn't make sense to claim shell is "easier" than a GDE
for someone that's never used a computer before?

Every member on every group has a different view/opinion, and what you
might think is going too far, someone might think you are, or maybe
it's not gone far enough. It goes both ways. As soon as you are
involved, it's too late. I doubt any single person has been able to
use usenet over all of the years without having the same problem.
People are fucking worthless sometimes, there's no way around it. Why
sweat the small stuff about who responds with what? If it's a problem,
ignore them, too. That's the only way to ensure you are personally
happy with what you read on usenet. Someone riles your feathes, if
it's too much to handle without getting emotional about it (even
slightly to the point where you want to say they are wrong, are
"feeding a troll", or anything else, it's had an emotional response
enough to make you chime in about what you think and how you feel, and
that's a sign that it's too much, so just ignore that person, too.)
You might end up ignoring everyone or everyone but a few people, but
then you'll be happier on usenet, it seems, so just do that.


> If you want a parallel between his GDE vs CLI crusade, think of it as
> emacs vs vi--a religious war that can have no good end.

That's not even a reasonably comparable example. In fact, I doubt
anything like a language or editor war even comes close to what this
retard is doing.



>> why have all of the other members
>> argue, debate or even fight about it? If anything, that's what "Sid"
>> wants.
>
> ''Sid'' wants responses. Even this response will feed his ego, I'm
> sure. :(
>
> --keith

Perhaps, but he also clearly does not want to be corrected or called on
his bullshit, so if he's posting his rants anyway, I personally don't
have a problem with him being miserable, so I think it's a positive
thing. No matter though, I don't think he's that interesting, even if
to make fun of, so he's already in my kf anyway. Not because I can't
deal with him, I just have better things to do with my time (and that
includes discussing how people respond to him, so I'll politely drop
out of this conversation/thread, too, while I'm at it).

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 5:21:54 PM9/21/09
to
Wanna-Be Sys Admin <sysa...@example.com> wrote:
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> Wanna-Be Sys Admin <sysa...@example.com> wrote:
>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no functional difference between clicking an icon
>>>> and entering a name at the command prompt.
>>>
>>> The "functional difference" is that a (especially "new") user is
>>> unlikely to know what the name of the binary is to launch the
>>> application. The GDE allows them to not have to know all of those
>>> things.
>>
>> You don't need 100,000+ superfluous files (yes, that's how large
>> GDEs are) to provide a menu of applications to run.
>
> Since I forgot to add you yet, I'll reply to this post of yours. I
> never said you need 100K+ files, and it doesn't take that anyway. If
> you install everything along with the GDE, you might get that. That's
> pretty irrelevant though.
>
>> Try this simple script.
>>
>> #!/bin/bash
>
><snip>
>
> That bash script doesn't really do anything, and so what?

Yes. It makes a menu from a list of a commands in a file.
No different than the menu made by KDE or XFCE except it
doesn't have all the eye-candy.

Duh <<<<<<<<<

You've got a _long_ way to go to becoming a sys admin.

[delete]


Sid


Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 5:21:54 PM9/21/09
to
Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Wanna-Be Sys Admin <sysa...@example.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>
>>> There's no functional difference between clicking an icon
>>> and entering a name at the command prompt.
>>
>> The "functional difference" is that a (especially "new") user is
>> unlikely to know what the name of the binary is to launch the
>> application. The GDE allows them to not have to know all of those
>> things.
>
> You don't need 100,000+ superfluous files (yes, that's how large
> GDEs are) to provide a menu of applications to run.
>
> Try this simple script.
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
> #menu.sh
>
> # This script reads a list of commands in
> # /etc/menu/menu.txt and creates a menu from them
> # The commands should be one per line and be whatever
> # you would put on the commandline. Limit 26. Press
> # the letter corresponding to the command and it runs

CORRECTION: the lines in /etc/menu/menu.txt have to
be enclosed in double quotes.

Sid

Aragorn

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 5:40:47 PM9/21/09
to
On Monday 21 September 2009 22:45, someone identifying as *Wanna-Be Sys
Admin* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/

> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> Yes. It is quite clear that you have a very simplistic notion of
>> what is involved in the everyday maninpulating of people.
>
> I don't agree with you, I think you're dumb, and it's supposed to be
> surprising that you want to claim the person you don't agree with to
> be ignorant? I guess you're not just new to Linux, but usenet as
> well.

Oh no, he has a longstanding reputation on Usenet already... as a total
netkook, an antisocial, narcissistic bully and an obsessive-compulsive
troll. ;-)

His method of operation...:

(1) Bring up unsubstantiated wild conspiracy claims about desktop
environments, and boast his (self-assumed) knowledge of the /bash/
commandline in the meantime, praising those of whom he accepts that
they know a lot of UNIX, or of whom he /believes/ that they never
use an X server, even if said people have already outspokenly
disagreed with him.

(2) When asked to prove his wild conspiracy claims, he ignores the
poster inquiring about it, failing each time to provide evidence
for his claims in a convenient way, i.e. he attacks the other
poster, not upon what they are saying but upon their person and
with outright namecalling.

(3) He has this "gagging" filter which he conveniently uses to stroke
his ego, i.e. it's like a killfile, but he can still see who has
replied to him without seeing their articles. He will then
repeatedly post follow-ups to his own posts in which he gloats
over the fact that someone has replied to him again. His
narcissism causes him to need to see that someone has given him
the attention of replying to him, and his cowardness and ignorance
can hide the reply from his view, so that he doesn't need to be
confronted with how terribly wrong he is and how he is asked to
provide evidence for his wild claims.

(4) He is so attention-starved that he hijacks threads which have
nothing whatsoever to do with any GDEs by telling the poster
that he knows the answer to his question but that he's not going
to give it - quite in contrast to his claims about evil companies
that are pouring billions of dollars into GDEs so as to keep the
users dependent on technocrats - and then changes the subject to
GDEs and adds a number of originally not addressed newsgroups to
the Groups field before sending off his reply.

(5) He regularly nymshifts - he has been known as Alan Connor, Sidney
Lambe, Tom Newton and another half a dozen aliases or so, and he
also posts here as "Evergreen" - and also regularly changes his
obsession. For about a couple of months now, it's been with GDEs
but he has earlier on had similar obessions - in the promoting
sense, not in the "disapproving" sense - with challenge-response
systems, of which he had set up one which obviously didn't work
the way he had hoped it would have, but of course his ego is too
big to admit to that.

(6) He falsely accuses everyone who replies to him - either on purpose
as a tactic or out of his paranoid delusions - of being one and the
same person, projecting his own habit of nymshifting onto the
replying poster, but in his great guru-ness, he is unable to tell
from the headers of the replies that the people who reply to his
posts are really all separate individuals from all over the world.
Must be a shorcircuit in his so incredibly genius brain, I guess.

(7) He is incredibly paranoid about just about everything, but he does
whatever his daily work is while logged in as root, which, together
with his loathing for anything GDE-related - and especially KDE
and Gnome, of which I'm sure he's never even seen or used them -
suggests that he used to be an MS-DOS user and possibly a Windows
user as well, who now feels and considers himself to be a member
of a superior technocratic elite, testimonial of which the fact that
he sucks up bigtime to anyone of whom he believes that they don't
use a GDE, even if those people don't agree with him or express
dislike over his behavior. Anyone who does use a GDE, even if they
extensively use /bash/ or another shell alongside of it gets berated
and treated like an enemy.

(8) Being polite to him is of no effect. If he's convinced you are the
enemy, he will treat you as such and won't spare a single bad word
in the book before (and after) he applies his "gagging" filter on
you, and then he arrogantly and childishly mocks you in his own
follow-ups to his own posts.

(9) He is a self-acclaimed witchmaster and apprentice sorcerer.

>> These are the kinds of losers from the Windows/Mac world that we
>> are being flooded with since the maturation of the GDEs.
>

> Yes, I see you make that claim often, in fact, only and every time
> anyone calls you on your bullshit or disagrees with you. Anyway,
> you're right, the Linux world has basically come to an end, I agree
> with others here, you should just kill yourself. I think there's some
> web sites that can help you with that.

In the best interests of mankind's posterity, we can only hope that the
man does not procreate or would have done so already.

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 5:45:05 PM9/21/09
to

CORRECTION: The menu will look better with this
line

echo "${1}) $line" | sed 's/\"//g'

instead of this one:

>> echo "${1}) $line"

Hey! I wrote that script in about 30 seconds.
Give me a break :-)

Sid


--
Sidney Lambe
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 5:52:31 PM9/21/09
to
Aragorn wrote:

> On Monday 21 September 2009 22:45, someone identifying as *Wanna-Be
> Sys Admin* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
>
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. It is quite clear that you have a very simplistic notion of
>>> what is involved in the everyday maninpulating of people.
>>
>> I don't agree with you, I think you're dumb, and it's supposed to be
>> surprising that you want to claim the person you don't agree with to
>> be ignorant? I guess you're not just new to Linux, but usenet as
>> well.
>
> Oh no, he has a longstanding reputation on Usenet already... as a
> total netkook, an antisocial, narcissistic bully and an
> obsessive-compulsive troll. ;-)

Perhaps when he started, like a GDE (or Linux CLI/shell), he never
bothered to learn what he was doing/using and it just "feels like" he's
new? :-)

>
> In the best interests of mankind's posterity, we can only hope that
> the man does not procreate or would have done so already.

I think there are a few bibles that talk about the end of the world.
I'm sure he's gobbling up our precious tax paying free cheese as we
speak.

Keith Keller

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 5:58:30 PM9/21/09
to
On 2009-09-21, Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
> Oh no, he has a longstanding reputation on Usenet already... as a total
> netkook, an antisocial, narcissistic bully and an obsessive-compulsive
> troll. ;-)
>
> His method of operation...:

[excellent and funny summary deleted]

We should all remember that this is just the persona that ''Sid''
projects. We have no evidence that he actually *does* the things he
claims to do (e.g., run as root). For all we know he's a l33t h4x0r
laughing at us for trying to correct the l4m0rz shell scripts that he
wrote a bot to write for him. ;-)

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 6:08:55 PM9/21/09
to
Keith Keller wrote:

> On 2009-09-21, Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>> Oh no, he has a longstanding reputation on Usenet already... as a
>> total netkook, an antisocial, narcissistic bully and an
>> obsessive-compulsive troll. ;-)
>>
>> His method of operation...:
>
> [excellent and funny summary deleted]
>
> We should all remember that this is just the persona that ''Sid''
> projects. We have no evidence that he actually *does* the things he
> claims to do (e.g., run as root). For all we know he's a l33t h4x0r
> laughing at us for trying to correct the l4m0rz shell scripts that he
> wrote a bot to write for him. ;-)
>
> --keith

That's a fun thing to consider, except the fact he spends so much time
doing this isn't just "fun" for him. Anyone that would act/say/do
these things has a problem. No intelligent person would go that far
for so long, even if just to mess with people. So, he's not a person
in a position to be laughing at anyone, but he's definitely no brighter
than a bot, regardless, so you're probably half right. For what it's
worth, I don't get the impression he does what he says (for the record)
either.

I bet he runs a Mac or Windows, or used a GDE on Linux. Afterall, by
what he says and what he posts (including this "shell script" that only
was worthwhile as a "menu" if a user ALREADY had the commands in the
file it pulls them from, which was also limited as in he had to add a
new function for each potential command (and to keep going if he wanted
more than 26 of them)), he is already super crippled in his own lack of
knowledge about the environment he insists everyone use.

In other words, he'd not be trolling usenet if he had to use shell to
manage to do it. Besides, either this fool only does a few simple
things and thinks that makes him a shell expert (it's possible that's
the case), or he is using the GDE's he hates to much if he does more
than that (which is likely the case), because either way, he'd not be
doing anything based on his poor skills (which is already the case). I
just don't think he could be emotionally stable or smart in any way,
just by the time he wastes here.

d.b. cooper

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 8:19:50 PM9/21/09
to

Golly gee Sid, I guess you don't know your way around as well as you
claim. It's an idiotic script anyway. Why continue to post updates to
this work of art?

--
d.b. cooper

Michael Black

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 8:39:03 PM9/21/09
to
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, d.b. cooper wrote:

>
> Golly gee Sid, I guess you don't know your way around as well as you
> claim. It's an idiotic script anyway. Why continue to post updates to
> this work of art?
>

He likes talking to himself?

But seriously, nobody else is going to try the stuff, so there's no
"community" of users who will provide feedback and improvement, so
he has to be the maker and the user in order for it to have any value as
open source.

Michael

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:19:51 PM9/21/09
to

I once had a man who had a business partner, who were my boses as it were.

One of them was a complete arsehole. He went out of his way to make
people dislike him. The other was a genial approachable type. Both
turned out to be crooks. However that is not pertinent. I asked the one,
'why is Dick such a complete cunt, why does he go out of his way to make
himself disliked'

'Arr,' he said 'Oi rackon Dick doesn't actually know much about people,
and he gets a bit confused as to whether or not he can trust em. If he
makes sure they hate his guts, he knows where he stands like, and feels
on safer ground'

I later discovered, that Dick actually had a slight conscience. He
didn't like ripping off people who liked him. If on the other hand, they
didn't, he felt it was suitable revenge. The other superficially nicer
guy simply didn't have a conscience at all.

I remember at the last meeting we had, where he discovered I had sold
some equipment left with me for repairs to cover the wages he hadn't
paid me, his outrage knew no bounds 'where d'you learn a trick like
that, I thought you was a college educated gentleman' 'I was' I said
'till I learnt better from you.'

'He's got you there, Tony' was the delighted response of the only other
witness..

Nowt as queer as folk..

d.b. cooper

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:22:09 PM9/21/09
to

Well of course you're right. I wouldn't touch a script of his for
anything, which is a shame because it's possible he does know something.
It's buried in all the paranoid muck going on in his head.


--
d.b. cooper

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:22:09 PM9/21/09
to
notbob wrote:

> On 2009-09-21, Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuc...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with such people? Do they perhaps get off when
>> (justifiably) insulted and abused in public? Is it a sort of immaterial
>> extension of masochism?
>
> I think you overly complicate the problem. I think it's simply that
> he's crazier than a shit house rat. ;)
>

Ah, but its the exact nature of his insanity that is so appealing.

I mean he's a paranoid, and likely schizophrenic, but why is he pissing
around on a Linux group?

> nb

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:25:06 PM9/21/09
to
d.b. cooper wrote:

> Golly gee Sid, I guess you don't know your way around as well as you
> claim. It's an idiotic script anyway. Why continue to post updates to
> this work of art?

hehe, this is pretty much what everyone has been saying. I just don't
get why he posted that. Even if it was a useful "menu" script, it's
broken, basic and doesn't mean jack if it doesn't already have the
features (commands) a user wants/needs, which was the point (the new
users wouldn't know). That was his solution to why shell can be as
easily used for a new computer user compared to an icon or graphical
menu on a GDE. It's shear nonsense. It's silly, he tried to boast,
show off and insult and he comes back with this pointless bash script
that has static functions one typed after the other, instead of being
flexible, dynamic or even having a list of commands and their
descriptions. Granted, not everything should need graphics to spice it
up, but it should be "as functional" and have some type of merit if the
script is supposed to supplant the graphical program menu shown in KDE
or Gnome (those being his two least liked environments). It's just all
silly.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:25:38 PM9/21/09
to
jellybean stonerfish wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:09:27 +0000, despen wrote:
>
>>> Hmm, I understand the difference between 'window manager' and 'desktop
>>> environment', I think.
>>>
>>> But to most users I'd have thought a GUI was simply any graphical
>>> representation of a task, whether it was very basic or not.
>>>
>>> Maybe the way you use the term is linux-specific?
>> No, whoever you are replying to mis-defined GUI. A GUI is any "drawn"
>> application, even on Linux.
>
> Graphical User Interface.
>
> In my brain that even applies to console programs such as mc.
>
well..no. It is generally referred to interface that use not (just) a
keyboard and a character screen, but have pixel mapped displays and some
kind of input device like a mouse or a tablet

Any program that does CAD or graphics of any sort, or indeed has wysiwyg
text in more than one font style is essentially running under a GUI of
some sort.

This is confusing for Sidney, who thinks GUI==GDE.

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:26:34 PM9/21/09
to
Michael Black wrote:

> But seriously, nobody else is going to try the stuff, so there's no
> "community" of users who will provide feedback and improvement, so
> he has to be the maker and the user in order for it to have any value
> as open source.

Nobody is going to try something this clown tried to whip out, because
there's better things out there now, including for the CLI, and by
people that actually know what they are doing. Having nothing to do
with Sid's little sarcasm project not evolving from lack of input from
the community (which wisely widely shuns him).

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:28:52 PM9/21/09
to
d.b. cooper wrote:

> which is a shame because it's possible he does know something.
> It's buried in all the paranoid muck going on in his head.

Problem is, none of his non conspiracy rants about GDE's are any better.
I think his entire attitude and trolling nature is purely based on his
own personal frustrations, because he's aware he's uneducated, lacks
skills or the mind to even eventually get somewhere, so he's here
trying to scream his way into being right. "Today's episode has been
brought to you by our sponsor: YELLING! ... Yelling -- the next best
thing to being right!"

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:28:47 PM9/21/09
to
As usual, a masterful summary.

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:31:56 PM9/21/09
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I mean he's a paranoid, and likely schizophrenic, but why is he
> pissing around on a Linux group?

Don't forget the magic(k) (that's with a "K", so you know it's
"Special") and Wicca group popularity he has a good following for as
well, apparently. Even those kooks shun him. That's what happens when
you're a shitty person, no matter where you go, people continue to
dislike and shun you. If he had any skills, knowledge or redeeming
qualities that he could contribute, it would be potentially bearable.
I mean, I bitch and moan as much as anyone else and tell people how it
is, but I also try and help people when the opportunity arises. He's
never once done such a thing (even if he does try, God love the fool
for trying), he insists on tacking on a sarcastic, loony, paranoid or
outright lie to knock on anyone that touches a GDE or doesn't agree
with him, so it's hard to respect that.

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 9:33:13 PM9/21/09
to
d.b. cooper wrote:

PS: I dig the name.

d.b. cooper

unread,
Sep 21, 2009, 10:52:42 PM9/21/09
to

You know, I feel sorry for the guy. He really seems to suffer. It's a
shame. He may know something, it's hard to tell, but it's all goobered up
in his sad little mind. I enjoy reading his posts, they're usually pretty
funny. It's weird to see someone all worked up about a Usenet post. I
mean really. I'm glad you like my name. Everyone thinks I died after I
bailed out of the plane, but I really came back just to pester Sidney
Lambe.

--
d.b. cooper

Keith Keller

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 12:16:11 AM9/22/09
to
["Newsgroups:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

On 2009-09-22, d.b. cooper <d...@cooper.net> wrote:
>
> Golly gee Sid, I guess you don't know your way around as well as you
> claim. It's an idiotic script anyway. Why continue to post updates to
> this work of art?

Did you *really* have to quote 140 lines of ''Sid's'' junk to add the
above two+ lines? Please try to trim your posts next time.

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 12:51:52 AM9/22/09
to
d.b. cooper wrote:

> Everyone thinks I died after I
> bailed out of the plane, but I really came back just to pester Sidney
> Lambe.
>

And, finally, all of the pieces fit together in Sid's conspiracy theory.
Damn it, now I have to apologize to him. It would figure if D.B.
Cooper came back, all planning (knowing way back from DARPA) that Sid
would come along and D.B. could be there to correct his rantings. Or,
wait, wouldn't it be awesome if Sid WAS Cooper!? I'd have to give him
props then.

Dan C

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 1:17:38 AM9/22/09
to
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:47:40 +0000, notbob wrote:

> On 2009-09-21, September Storm <it.i...@an.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What a complete shit head you are. You really want to claim that it's
>> just as "hard" to locate an icon on your screen for any number of
>> things that are categorized under areas of a menu as well, and that
>> remembering all of the names of the binaries in shell to launch are the
>> same for a "new person" to computers? You're just an impossibly stupid
>> person. I hope someone kicks your teeth out.
>
> His sole purpose of posting is to elicit just the type of response you
> provided. Wise up.

"September Storm" is very nearly as stupid as Sid/Alan, if that's even
possible.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 5:25:31 AM9/22/09
to
Wanna-Be Sys Admin wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I mean he's a paranoid, and likely schizophrenic, but why is he
>> pissing around on a Linux group?
>
> Don't forget the magic(k) (that's with a "K", so you know it's
> "Special") and Wicca group popularity he has a good following for as
> well, apparently. Even those kooks shun him.


Oh? he's in alt.magick as well?

See what you mean.

Curt

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 10:35:21 AM9/22/09
to
On 2009-09-22, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
> well..no. It is generally referred to interface that use not (just) a
> keyboard and a character screen, but have pixel mapped displays and some
> kind of input device like a mouse or a tablet

Like when running links2 in graphics mode with gpm?

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 12:50:43 PM9/22/09
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I guess, I've seen him mention it. Pretty odd stuff (I didn't bother
reading any of it). Looks like he has just as many problems with
everyone in every other group.

a rich Mc Coy

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 1:00:08 PM9/22/09
to
Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:52:42 +0000, d.b. cooper jacked :
...

> Everyone thinks I died
> after I bailed out of the plane, but I really came back just to pester
> Sidney Lambe.

nonsense !D)

though in a thread in the name of our "Sid (I aint the lamb) ad. min."
that would be quite 'normal' nonsense ,->

Baho Utot

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 7:53:19 PM9/22/09
to

Oh yes I remember that game...what a golf game that was but it did
require a windows to run it ;)

I have never ran it with gpm thou.

--
GNU/Linux runs on IBM mainframes and on the world's fastest supercomputers
Windows supercomputers on the other hand are called botnets. :0

Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 11:36:01 PM9/22/09
to
> Golly gee Sid, I guess you don't know your way around as well as you
> claim. It's an idiotic script anyway. Why continue to post updates to
> this work of art?

If that's Sid's level of shell scripting, he should start using a
GUI ASAP!


--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

Message has been deleted

Ren

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 11:46:03 PM9/22/09
to
On 23 Sep, 12:36, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>    If that's Sid's level of shell scripting, he should start using a
>    GUI ASAP!

His excuse is that he was in a hurry.

Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Sep 22, 2009, 11:47:50 PM9/22/09
to
On 2009-09-23, Ren wrote:
> On 23 Sep, 12:36, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ? ?If that's Sid's level of shell scripting, he should start using a
>> ? ?GUI ASAP!

>
> His excuse is that he was in a hurry.

If that were true he would have written it in a fraction of that
number of lines.

d.b. cooper

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 12:26:13 AM9/23/09
to
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:47:50 +0000, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

> On 2009-09-23, Ren wrote:
>> On 23 Sep, 12:36, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ? ?If that's Sid's level of shell scripting, he should start using a ?
>>> ?GUI ASAP!
>>
>> His excuse is that he was in a hurry.
>
> If that were true he would have written it in a fraction of that
> number of lines.

I really thought criticism would smoke Sid out. I'm very disappointed.
C'mon Sid!

--
d.b. cooper

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 3:34:58 AM9/23/09
to
Ren wrote:

> He can't cast spells --

How old are you people?

> and Sidney can't even configure a
> spell checker for SLRN

That's funny though. :-)

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 3:36:22 AM9/23/09
to
d.b. cooper wrote:

Give him a little bit, he needs to frantically search google for some
other irrelevant snippet or crappy shell scripting that he thinks will
impress people. Can't wait to see how unrelated and bad the next one
will be.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 6:42:35 AM9/23/09
to
On comp.os.linux.misc, Ren <ren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Sep, 12:36, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If that's Sid's level of shell scripting, he should start using a
>> A GUI ASAP!

I am using a GUI at the moment. And it doesn't help mine nor anyone
else's scripting one iota.

Scripting involves plain text files. Whether they are created or
edited in a console or an x-term is irrelevant.

As a supposed expert he should know that.

> His excuse is that he was in a hurry.

Poor Ren.

He thinks that attacking me on the Linux groups is going to drive
me off alt.religion.wicca.

You'd think that after a year of futile tactics like this he'd
learn that there is simply no way that a nasty little dickless
creep hiding in a room somewhere and running his sewer mouth
can make me do anything I don't choose to do.

Ren wants me to go away because I keep asking him awkward
questions like: "When are you going to demonstrate your
supposed magickal powers?"

Sid

Known as "Evergreen" on the magick/religious groups

Jean-David Beyer

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 7:52:44 AM9/23/09
to
Wanna-Be Sys Admin wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I mean he's a paranoid, and likely schizophrenic, but why is he
>> pissing around on a Linux group?
>
> Don't forget the magic(k) (that's with a "K", so you know it's
> "Special") and Wicca group popularity he has a good following for as
> well, apparently. Even those kooks shun him.

Ignoring the important parts of this thread, I must point out that _magick_
is an archaic, but correct, spelling of what is now called _magic_. For
example, Aleister Crowley wrote a book in 1929 entitled
_Magick: in Theory and Practice_ (that I have never read). I prefer the kind
of magic in _Harry Potter_ and _Little Big_.


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:40:01 up 27 days, 1:44, 3 users, load average: 4.77, 4.43, 4.33

Curt

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 8:29:55 AM9/23/09
to
On 2009-09-22, Baho Utot <baho...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:35:21 +0000, Curt wrote:
>
>> On 2009-09-22, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>> well..no. It is generally referred to interface that use not (just) a
>>> keyboard and a character screen, but have pixel mapped displays and
>>> some kind of input device like a mouse or a tablet
>>
>> Like when running links2 in graphics mode with gpm?
>
> Oh yes I remember that game...what a golf game that was but it did
> require a windows to run it ;)

Ah, golf links. No, I was referring to the browser, which you can run
in graphics mode from the console with the mouse as an "input device"
(gpm).

I just meant to illustrate the tenuous nature of the provided definition,
although I'm not certain what "pixel mapped displays" are as opposed to
pixel displays or mere unqualifed pixels, but there you go.

Or maybe when running links2 in graphics mode from the console with gpm
I _am_ in a GUI, and the definition intended to include such a case.

Anyway, the French have an expression for what we often end up doing
here--"enculer une mouche" (fscking a fly in the ass).

;-)

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 8:35:56 AM9/23/09
to
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> Wanna-Be Sys Admin wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> I mean he's a paranoid, and likely schizophrenic, but why is he
>>> pissing around on a Linux group?
>>
>> Don't forget the magic(k) (that's with a "K", so you know it's
>> "Special") and Wicca group popularity he has a good following for as
>> well, apparently. Even those kooks shun him.
>
> Ignoring the important parts of this thread, I must point out that
> _magick_ is an archaic, but correct, spelling of what is now called
> _magic_. For example, Aleister Crowley wrote a book in 1929 entitled
> _Magick: in Theory and Practice_ (that I have never read). I prefer the
> kind of magic in _Harry Potter_ and _Little Big_.
>
>
Crowley used a k to distinguish between that and illusionary (stage) magic.


Its been used by his wannabe followers ever since.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 9:22:52 AM9/23/09
to

Shell scripts are plain text files, idiot. Doesn't matter whether
they are created or edited in a console editor or a fancy
graphical editor.

>
> --
> Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
> Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
> A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
> 2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

Chris is your typical technocratic bully and fatheaded in the
extreme.

He just doesn't get it: shellscripting is something that anyone
can do. You don't have to be an expert to write scripts that
work.


Sid

Jean-David Beyer

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 10:27:20 AM9/23/09
to
I was unaware of that. I do not really consider stage magic to be real
magic, merely deception (without wanting to deprecate it: it is quite a
skill in itself).

>
> Its been used by his wannabe followers ever since.

I suppose so.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org

^^-^^ 10:25:01 up 27 days, 4:29, 3 users, load average: 4.52, 4.63, 4.53

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 12:40:43 PM9/23/09
to
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>> Wanna-Be Sys Admin wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I mean he's a paranoid, and likely schizophrenic, but why is he
>>>>> pissing around on a Linux group?
>>>> Don't forget the magic(k) (that's with a "K", so you know it's
>>>> "Special") and Wicca group popularity he has a good following for as
>>>> well, apparently. Even those kooks shun him.
>>> Ignoring the important parts of this thread, I must point out that
>>> _magick_ is an archaic, but correct, spelling of what is now called
>>> _magic_. For example, Aleister Crowley wrote a book in 1929 entitled
>>> _Magick: in Theory and Practice_ (that I have never read). I prefer
>>> the kind of magic in _Harry Potter_ and _Little Big_.
>>>
>>>
>> Crowley used a k to distinguish between that and illusionary (stage)
>> magic.
>>
> I was unaware of that. I do not really consider stage magic to be real
> magic, merely deception (without wanting to deprecate it: it is quite a
> skill in itself).

The problem is, that so called real magick, is also a form of deception
as far as I can tell. It deceives the subconscious rather than the
conscious though.


>>
>> Its been used by his wannabe followers ever since.
>
> I suppose so.
>

I know so..


Keith Keller

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 1:33:32 PM9/23/09
to
On 2009-09-23, Jean-David Beyer <jeand...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> I prefer the kind
> of magic in _Harry Potter_ and _Little Big_.

I like ImageMagick myself. :)

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 4:16:27 PM9/23/09
to
Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> On 2009-09-23, Jean-David Beyer <jeand...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> I prefer the kind
>> of magic in _Harry Potter_ and _Little Big_.
>
> I like ImageMagick myself. :)

ImageMagick is an excellent suite of console (non-X/non-GUI)
utilities for manipulating images.

But let's get back on-topic, shall we?

# Subject: Re: Puzzled about KDE or GNOME or what?

The Graphical Desktop Environments (GDE) for Linux are
massive (around twice the size of a fully-functional
Linux OS w/GUI) suites of graphical applications that
supposedly offer a complete user-interface to the
Linux that any lazy and not-very-bright person can
utilize.

They are clones of the Windows/Mac GDEs.

But on Linux and Unix they are optional, although a lot
of people want people to believe they are mandatory, the
only option.

The fact is that even the GUI is optional on Linux. I
rarely bring up X, doing most of my 'surfing' with
links, a console browser, viewing images with zgv,
and manipulating images with ImageMagick and netpbm.

Creating and maintaining the GDEs are enormously expensive
undertakings financed by various corporations. Why?

Because technical support is a trillion dollar industry
and they don't make tech support income from people
who understand their OS.

Plus, _they_ get to decide which applications and utilities
are easily accessible and they will provide technical support
for.

Try this: get to a command prompt and hit Tab twice. You'll
get something like this:

Display all 914 possibilities? (y or n)

That's how many executables I have on my Linux OS.

Now compare the figure you get with the number of
applications offered in the GDE menus.

The technocrats want you to believe that its extremely
difficult to run Linux from with the shell interface,
the command line.

They are lying. All you need to know is the basics of
how Linux works and the basics of the shell.

http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://linuxreviews.org/beginner/abs-guide/en/
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
http://linux.about.com/cs/glossaries/a/aglossary.htm
http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/

http://axiom.anu.edu.au/~okeefe/p2b
for:
From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO
Building a Minimal Linux System from Source Code


Let's take Linux back from the corporate lackeys.


Just Say No to their Windows-clone GDEs.


Sid

--
Shell Interface Mailing List
screening address: usenet4444
[AT] gmail (dot) com

Jean-David Beyer

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 4:59:01 PM9/23/09
to
I do not know enough about real magick to have an opinion. I am inclined to
disbelieve in it, but I am not sure. Were I convinced that the actions
depicted in Harry Potter stories to be physical reality, I would have to
believe in supernatural powers that these people exercised, or that they had
a much greater understanding, at some level, than classically trained
physicists possess. Luckily, the Harry Potter stories are clearly fiction,
so I need not deal with them on a "real" level.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org

^^-^^ 16:55:01 up 27 days, 10:59, 3 users, load average: 4.16, 4.38, 4.40

Wanna-Be Sys Admin

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 5:28:33 PM9/23/09
to
Jean-David Beyer wrote:

> I do not know enough about real magick to have an opinion.

Over thousands of years, no proof of "real magick" leads me to believe
it's a subject best left for children's books and kooks.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 6:10:25 PM9/23/09
to
Wanna-Be Sys Admin wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
>> I do not know enough about real magick to have an opinion.
>
> Over thousands of years, no proof of "real magick" leads me to believe
> it's a subject best left for children's books and kooks.

Well having studied it extensively, as part of something not
particularly related to it, I am inclined to believe that there is a
real psychological component, and the myths are simply oral tradition of
it handed down, mixed in with a lot of inter-cultural misunderstanding.
I.e. 'any science if sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic'


Of course, current quantum theory leaves a LOT more space for the
'paranormal' than classical physics did, and we may yet be surprised.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 7:34:21 PM9/23/09
to
Wanna-Be Sys Admin <sysa...@example.com> wrote:

> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
>> I do not know enough about real magick to have an opinion.
>
> Over thousands of years, no proof of "real magick" leads me
> to believe it's a subject best left for children's books and
> kooks.

What an incredibly stupid and ignorant statement.

You'd think he had a time machine and had spent the last
40 years exploring the entire world a decade at a time
up the timeline.

Junior, _no_one_ knows everthing that happens on this planet
even today, much less thousands of years ago.

The body of evidence supporting the existence of magick
(including 'psychic' abilities/ESP/reincarnation) that has
accumulated since the beginning of recorded human history is
staggering.

It is simply ignored by the mainstream physical science establishment.

These religious fanatics have decided in advance that such
things cannot possibly exist because they don't fit in with
their theories (religious beliefs). So like all true religious
fanatics, they turn a blind eye to them and mock them if the
subject comes up.

Note that one does not have to believe in darwinian evolution or
the physical science worldview to be a very good technologist.

A hammer works just as well regardless of whether one believes
that supposed 'physical laws' (whatever their current theories
are about those) are at work or it is the power of a god at work.

One does not have to buy the philosophy of physical science
(scientific materialism) in order to make use of the practical
value of some of its work.

Many of the brilliant technologists coming out of Asia are devout
Buddhists or Taoists who think the Theory of Evolution is bunk
and that the entire universe is alive and conscious and nothing
happens by chance.


Sid


Jean-David Beyer

unread,
Sep 23, 2009, 8:16:20 PM9/23/09
to
Wanna-Be Sys Admin wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
>> I do not know enough about real magick to have an opinion.
>
> Over thousands of years, no proof of "real magick" leads me to believe
> it's a subject best left for children's books and kooks.

The reason I have trouble with arguments like that are several.

There are a lot of things that escaped proof for centuries (e.g., Fermat's
Last Theorem, The Four Color Problem) that were later found to be true.

There are other things that were obviously true for millennia that turned
out to be false (e.g., the earth is flat, the earth is at the center of the
earth, solar system, etc.)

And recently, a class of things are known that are provably unprovable has
been discovered; they are not necessarily true, nor are they necessarily
false. Kurt Friedrich G�del, Alan Turing, and Whitehead & Russell proved
essentially equivalent theorems about this.

In the last 40 years or so, a lot of things that scientists consider so far
beyond the pale have been pretty much shown to exist, with the odds against
these results being due to chance are pretty phenomenal. See Dean Radin's
book, "The Intelligent Universe" for example. I have first-hand experience
with a little of this, though what any of this has to do with KDE or GNOME
escapes me.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org

^^-^^ 20:05:01 up 27 days, 14:09, 3 users, load average: 4.35, 4.34, 4.32

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages