Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #78550 > unrolled thread

Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-12-09 11:18 +0000
    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-12-09 23:30 +0000
      Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-09 23:58 +0000
        Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-12-10 10:30 +0100
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 05:16 -0500
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 11:23 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-10 12:18 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 22:34 -0500
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-12-11 12:13 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-11 03:17 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 01:06 -0500
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-11 22:22 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-12-12 09:59 -0500
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 11:21 +0000
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-10 11:35 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 12:35 +0000
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 08:58 -0800
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 17:17 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 01:03 -0500
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 09:43 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-12-11 12:15 +0100
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 12:44 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 22:50 -0500
                  Freighters "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-12 12:15 +0100
                    Re: Freighters rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 19:33 +0000
                      Re: Freighters "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-13 13:24 +0100
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 12:43 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-12-13 15:17 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released bonkmaykr <bonkyboo@canithesis.org> - 2025-12-13 09:30 -0600
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 10:46 -0500
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-12-13 16:02 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 16:08 +0000
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 12:27 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-13 23:46 +0100
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-14 02:05 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-14 11:33 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-14 20:25 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 01:31 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-12-15 10:43 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-15 01:06 +0100
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-15 03:41 +0000
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 03:49 +0000
                      Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-15 04:05 +0000
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-17 23:46 +0100
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-14 22:14 -0500
        Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released CtrlAltDel <Altie@BHam.com> - 2025-12-10 23:58 +0000
      Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 11:19 +0000
        Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-12-10 10:45 -0600
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-11 04:06 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 01:25 -0500
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 09:38 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-11 22:36 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 23:41 -0500
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 08:15 +0000
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-12 22:36 -0500
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 11:45 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 19:59 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 00:28 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-15 00:41 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 00:45 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-15 01:14 +0000
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 02:59 +0000
                      Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-15 03:41 +0000
                        Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 04:46 +0000
                          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-16 04:17 +0000
                            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-16 21:52 +0000
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 00:07 -0500

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#79124

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:06:59 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2025-12-14 12:33, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> Le 13-12-2025, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
>>> On 2025-12-13 13:27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>>> Now, considering the easiest way to do stuff to manage your computer
>>>> is another question. I've used successfully the command line to make
>>>> changes on thousands of files which would have required me hours or
>>>> days to take care with a graphical tool with. I have no example of
>>>> stuff which would have been easier with a graphical tool. But for
>>>> someone who doesn't know the CLI it wouldn't be so easy because he
>>>> would need to learn the right commands first.
>>>
>>> It is easier to edit scripts in the GUI desktop than it is in the
>>> console. Renouncing to the GUI desktop is ridiculous.
>> 
>> For me, the difference between the GUI and the CLI is the use of the
>> keyboard or the use of the mouse. Of course, I'm launching my terminals
>> in GUI. And as a text editor, I'm using neovim. So, I'm always fully
>> inside a graphical environment but, I'm using CLI as much as possible.
>> Of course, I won't browse websites with links but I'm using qutebrowser
>> to be able to use my keyboard on well designed website.
>> 
>> Of course, I'm not telling others to do the same. I'm only telling, for
>> managing my computer, I see no graphical tool that can do something I
>> can't do on the CLI. Discovering the CLI is more difficult than
>> discovering the GUI, but well, I'm using Linux from more than thirty
>> years now and back in those days, the CLI was almost mandatory so I'm
>> not discovering it.
> 
> But you are doing the thing I say to do. You are not contradicting me.
> You are running terminals in a GUI. Using CLI editors or GUI editors
> doesn't matter. I also use CLI editors, and the command line a lot.
> 
> What I refuse to do is use the console unless I need to. Console, not
> terminal. Different thing. Console is the text mode display.
> 
> I saw someone at uni using a GUI desktop to edit files in 1987 or
> thereabouts. One window for the editor, and another for the program he
> was testing. Another terminal for something else. At the time, I only
> had MsDOS. I was astonished.

https://www.hanselman.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-a-console-a-
terminal-and-a-shell


I agree with "In the software world a Terminal and a Console are, for all 
intents, synonymous."  I'm old enough that, while I use the terms loosely, 
a 'terminal' is an ADM-3A.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-3A

Technically xterm, foot, Konsole, and so forth are terminal emulators. 
Take your pick.

https://terminaltrove.com/terminals/

I replaced the HDD in the old netbook with a SSD and installed Linux Mint 
Cinnamon rather that the MATE I did previously. However I then installed 
i3 and logged into an i3 session. Different color scheme since I prefer 
dark type on a light background and vim is on the right but my setup is 
similar to the one labeled 'i3 with vim and terminals open'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I3_(window_manager)

In the upper left I run arduino-cli to handle compilation, upload,,library 
acquisition, and so forth. Bottom left is used for minicom if I'm using 
the Serial package on the board. Right hand is vim, editing the ino code. 

Is it a set of GUIs? Perhaps in a pedantic sense. Does it look remotely 
like the Cinnamon DE that most Mint users prefer? Not even a little bit. 

The Fedora and Endeavour boxes have sway, which is essentially i3 for 
Wayland. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79125

On Dec 14, 2025 at 8:41:30 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
<mq9eb9Fq0keU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:06:59 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-12-14 12:33, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>> Le 13-12-2025, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
>>>> On 2025-12-13 13:27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>>>> Now, considering the easiest way to do stuff to manage your computer
>>>>> is another question. I've used successfully the command line to make
>>>>> changes on thousands of files which would have required me hours or
>>>>> days to take care with a graphical tool with. I have no example of
>>>>> stuff which would have been easier with a graphical tool. But for
>>>>> someone who doesn't know the CLI it wouldn't be so easy because he
>>>>> would need to learn the right commands first.
>>>> 
>>>> It is easier to edit scripts in the GUI desktop than it is in the
>>>> console. Renouncing to the GUI desktop is ridiculous.
>>> 
>>> For me, the difference between the GUI and the CLI is the use of the
>>> keyboard or the use of the mouse. Of course, I'm launching my terminals
>>> in GUI. And as a text editor, I'm using neovim. So, I'm always fully
>>> inside a graphical environment but, I'm using CLI as much as possible.
>>> Of course, I won't browse websites with links but I'm using qutebrowser
>>> to be able to use my keyboard on well designed website.
>>> 
>>> Of course, I'm not telling others to do the same. I'm only telling, for
>>> managing my computer, I see no graphical tool that can do something I
>>> can't do on the CLI. Discovering the CLI is more difficult than
>>> discovering the GUI, but well, I'm using Linux from more than thirty
>>> years now and back in those days, the CLI was almost mandatory so I'm
>>> not discovering it.
>> 
>> But you are doing the thing I say to do. You are not contradicting me.
>> You are running terminals in a GUI. Using CLI editors or GUI editors
>> doesn't matter. I also use CLI editors, and the command line a lot.
>> 
>> What I refuse to do is use the console unless I need to. Console, not
>> terminal. Different thing. Console is the text mode display.
>> 
>> I saw someone at uni using a GUI desktop to edit files in 1987 or
>> thereabouts. One window for the editor, and another for the program he
>> was testing. Another terminal for something else. At the time, I only
>> had MsDOS. I was astonished.
> 
> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-a-console-a-
> terminal-and-a-shell
> 
> 
> I agree with "In the software world a Terminal and a Console are, for all
> intents, synonymous."  I'm old enough that, while I use the terms loosely,
> a 'terminal' is an ADM-3A.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-3A

Those were indestructible.

...

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79128

On 15 Dec 2025 03:49:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

> On Dec 14, 2025 at 8:41:30 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
> <mq9eb9Fq0keU1@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:06:59 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2025-12-14 12:33, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>>> Le 13-12-2025, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>> On 2025-12-13 13:27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>>>>> Now, considering the easiest way to do stuff to manage your
>>>>>> computer is another question. I've used successfully the command
>>>>>> line to make changes on thousands of files which would have
>>>>>> required me hours or days to take care with a graphical tool with.
>>>>>> I have no example of stuff which would have been easier with a
>>>>>> graphical tool. But for someone who doesn't know the CLI it
>>>>>> wouldn't be so easy because he would need to learn the right
>>>>>> commands first.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is easier to edit scripts in the GUI desktop than it is in the
>>>>> console. Renouncing to the GUI desktop is ridiculous.
>>>> 
>>>> For me, the difference between the GUI and the CLI is the use of the
>>>> keyboard or the use of the mouse. Of course, I'm launching my
>>>> terminals in GUI. And as a text editor, I'm using neovim. So, I'm
>>>> always fully inside a graphical environment but, I'm using CLI as
>>>> much as possible. Of course, I won't browse websites with links but
>>>> I'm using qutebrowser to be able to use my keyboard on well designed
>>>> website.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course, I'm not telling others to do the same. I'm only telling,
>>>> for managing my computer, I see no graphical tool that can do
>>>> something I can't do on the CLI. Discovering the CLI is more
>>>> difficult than discovering the GUI, but well, I'm using Linux from
>>>> more than thirty years now and back in those days, the CLI was almost
>>>> mandatory so I'm not discovering it.
>>> 
>>> But you are doing the thing I say to do. You are not contradicting me.
>>> You are running terminals in a GUI. Using CLI editors or GUI editors
>>> doesn't matter. I also use CLI editors, and the command line a lot.
>>> 
>>> What I refuse to do is use the console unless I need to. Console, not
>>> terminal. Different thing. Console is the text mode display.
>>> 
>>> I saw someone at uni using a GUI desktop to edit files in 1987 or
>>> thereabouts. One window for the editor, and another for the program he
>>> was testing. Another terminal for something else. At the time, I only
>>> had MsDOS. I was astonished.
>> 
>> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-a-console-
a-
>> terminal-and-a-shell
>> 
>> 
>> I agree with "In the software world a Terminal and a Console are, for
>> all intents, synonymous."  I'm old enough that, while I use the terms
>> loosely,
>> a 'terminal' is an ADM-3A.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-3A
> 
> Those were indestructible.

They didn't much like being dropped and a .30-06 will punch right through 
the CRT and out the other side.  Shooting old appliances is frowned on 
these days anyway.
> 
> ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79401

On 2025-12-15 04:41, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:06:59 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-12-14 12:33, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>> Le 13-12-2025, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
>>>> On 2025-12-13 13:27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>>>> Now, considering the easiest way to do stuff to manage your computer
>>>>> is another question. I've used successfully the command line to make
>>>>> changes on thousands of files which would have required me hours or
>>>>> days to take care with a graphical tool with. I have no example of
>>>>> stuff which would have been easier with a graphical tool. But for
>>>>> someone who doesn't know the CLI it wouldn't be so easy because he
>>>>> would need to learn the right commands first.
>>>>
>>>> It is easier to edit scripts in the GUI desktop than it is in the
>>>> console. Renouncing to the GUI desktop is ridiculous.
>>>
>>> For me, the difference between the GUI and the CLI is the use of the
>>> keyboard or the use of the mouse. Of course, I'm launching my terminals
>>> in GUI. And as a text editor, I'm using neovim. So, I'm always fully
>>> inside a graphical environment but, I'm using CLI as much as possible.
>>> Of course, I won't browse websites with links but I'm using qutebrowser
>>> to be able to use my keyboard on well designed website.
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm not telling others to do the same. I'm only telling, for
>>> managing my computer, I see no graphical tool that can do something I
>>> can't do on the CLI. Discovering the CLI is more difficult than
>>> discovering the GUI, but well, I'm using Linux from more than thirty
>>> years now and back in those days, the CLI was almost mandatory so I'm
>>> not discovering it.
>>
>> But you are doing the thing I say to do. You are not contradicting me.
>> You are running terminals in a GUI. Using CLI editors or GUI editors
>> doesn't matter. I also use CLI editors, and the command line a lot.
>>
>> What I refuse to do is use the console unless I need to. Console, not
>> terminal. Different thing. Console is the text mode display.
>>
>> I saw someone at uni using a GUI desktop to edit files in 1987 or
>> thereabouts. One window for the editor, and another for the program he
>> was testing. Another terminal for something else. At the time, I only
>> had MsDOS. I was astonished.
> 
> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-a-console-a-
> terminal-and-a-shell
> 
> 
> I agree with "In the software world a Terminal and a Console are, for all
> intents, synonymous."  I'm old enough that, while I use the terms loosely,
> a 'terminal' is an ADM-3A.

In the context of Linux, a terminal is a terminal application like 
xterm, gnome-terminal, konsole, etc, running inside the GUI. While 
console is the text mode display, what you get normally after doing 
[ctrl][alt][F1..f6]

...

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79122

On 12/14/25 06:33, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 13-12-2025, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
>> On 2025-12-13 13:27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>> Now, considering the easiest way to do stuff to manage your computer is
>>> another question. I've used successfully the command line to make
>>> changes on thousands of files which would have required me hours or days
>>> to take care with a graphical tool with. I have no example of stuff
>>> which would have been easier with a graphical tool. But for someone who
>>> doesn't know the CLI it wouldn't be so easy because he would need to
>>> learn the right commands first.
>>
>> It is easier to edit scripts in the GUI desktop than it is in the
>> console. Renouncing to the GUI desktop is ridiculous.
> 
> For me, the difference between the GUI and the CLI is the use of the
> keyboard or the use of the mouse. Of course, I'm launching my terminals
> in GUI. And as a text editor, I'm using neovim. So, I'm always fully
> inside a graphical environment but, I'm using CLI as much as possible.
> Of course, I won't browse websites with links but I'm using qutebrowser
> to be able to use my keyboard on well designed website.
> 
> Of course, I'm not telling others to do the same. I'm only telling, for
> managing my computer, I see no graphical tool that can do something I
> can't do on the CLI. Discovering the CLI is more difficult than
> discovering the GUI, but well, I'm using Linux from more than thirty
> years now and back in those days, the CLI was almost mandatory so I'm
> not discovering it.

   For a long time I install a GUI - pref LXDE or XFCE.
   For remote units I can use a vnc and ssh server.

   However I *use* CLI stuff quite a lot. Edit most
   config files and short pgms with nano.

   The GUI utilities CAN be quite nice, easy editing and,
   for system stuff they can adjust a bunch of config
   files at the same time just by checking a box or
   whatever. Big time/angst saver.

   So, I'm not going to cuss either. Each has its
   best place in the scheme of things.

   Now an outwards-facing biz server ... MIGHT want
   to either stick to CLI or, alt, rig the GUI to
   not start automatically since they make things
   TOO easy for intruders. Most modern little hacks,
   it's kind of like a Gen-Z/A2 kiddie trying to
   steal a car with a manual transmission ... they
   Just Don't Get It  :-)

   Give 'em the "three on the tree" challenge !

   Some can't even figure out rotary-dial phones ...
   hell, some can't even read an analog CLOCK.
   "Quarter past two" = "Huh ???"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78725

On Tue, 09 Dec 2025 23:58:50 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:

> Because the "tools" are totally unnecessary.
> 
> What "tools" can a DE offer that cannot be provided by various CLI or
> other software?
> 
> Answer: None.
> 
> Also, the DE requires an integrated software environment that adds both
> bloat and insecurity.  To link all the DE applications together requires
> constantly running "services" and that, IMO, is not a good idea and a
> complete waste of computing resources.
> 
> A DE is only a method of dazzling the digitally ignorant,
> but because magic does not really exist a DE requires enormous resources
> that the digitally competent can do without.
> 
> A window manager is the CLI elevated to a graphical level, and that,
> also IMO, constitutes total computing perfection.

One could transport themselves with 4 wheels, a couple of poles, with a 
piece of plywood laid on top with maybe a strong stick to shove themselves 
along with too.

But, why not just buy a modern car?  It has many advantages and isn't 
nearly as difficult or time consuming to operate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78667

On 09/12/2025 23:30, vallor wrote:
> BTW, I've tried to get Wayland running two times, and both times
> it was inscrutable.  I guess I could switch to Cinnamon, but then
> I'd have to set it up, and ICBB right now.  So: oh noes, I'm
> staying with X11.

If that is your experience then fine. At the moment there is the choice.

X is good enough for desktop 'puter loaded to the gunwales with RAM and 
sinking under the weight of its Intel/AMD CPU.

And its super power hungry GPU.

> 
> So that's the question:  In your opinion, what's wrong with DE's,
> which are just collections of tools built around a window
> manager?

Nothing.

-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78708

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> vallor wrote:
>>
>> BTW, I've tried to get Wayland running two times, and both times
>> it was inscrutable.  I guess I could switch to Cinnamon, but then
>> I'd have to set it up, and ICBB right now.  So: oh noes, I'm
>> staying with X11.
>
>If that is your experience then fine. At the moment there is the choice.

Right, and that's what is important.

>X is good enough for desktop 'puter loaded to the gunwales with RAM and 
>sinking under the weight of its Intel/AMD CPU.
>
>And its super power hungry GPU.

People were running X just fine, decades ago, on single-core CPU's
running at 200 MHz.

-- 
"This choice thing is a joke."  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78746

On 2025-12-10, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> vallor wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, I've tried to get Wayland running two times, and both times
>>> it was inscrutable.  I guess I could switch to Cinnamon, but then
>>> I'd have to set it up, and ICBB right now.  So: oh noes, I'm
>>> staying with X11.
>>
>>If that is your experience then fine. At the moment there is the choice.
>
> Right, and that's what is important.
>
>>X is good enough for desktop 'puter loaded to the gunwales with RAM and 
>>sinking under the weight of its Intel/AMD CPU.
>>
>>And its super power hungry GPU.
>
> People were running X just fine, decades ago, on single-core CPU's
> running at 200 MHz.

In the latter 1980s, ran X quite nicely on a Sun 386i at either
12MHz or 16MHz and around 12MB or maybe 16MB of RAM.  IIRC, the
bolt-on expansion HDD was 91MB.

Each work day at 5pm, (most of) the team joined in an intramural
game of xtrek, with an Ultrix machine acting as the central
coordinating server, because it had the required form of (IIRC)
shared memory IPC.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78760

On 12/10/25 23:06, Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2025-12-10, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> vallor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I've tried to get Wayland running two times, and both times
>>>> it was inscrutable.  I guess I could switch to Cinnamon, but then
>>>> I'd have to set it up, and ICBB right now.  So: oh noes, I'm
>>>> staying with X11.
>>>
>>> If that is your experience then fine. At the moment there is the choice.
>>
>> Right, and that's what is important.
>>
>>> X is good enough for desktop 'puter loaded to the gunwales with RAM and
>>> sinking under the weight of its Intel/AMD CPU.
>>>
>>> And its super power hungry GPU.
>>
>> People were running X just fine, decades ago, on single-core CPU's
>> running at 200 MHz.
> 
> In the latter 1980s, ran X quite nicely on a Sun 386i at either
> 12MHz or 16MHz and around 12MB or maybe 16MB of RAM.  IIRC, the
> bolt-on expansion HDD was 91MB.
> 
> Each work day at 5pm, (most of) the team joined in an intramural
> game of xtrek, with an Ultrix machine acting as the central
> coordinating server, because it had the required form of (IIRC)
> shared memory IPC.


   Similar experience. 'X' does NOT horribly
   bog down even low-scale systems. PIs run
   perfectly zippy using 'X'.

   For the cutting-edge high-rez video games
   maybe Wayland IS better ... but I don't
   do that stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78776

On 11/12/2025 06:25, c186282 wrote:

>    Similar experience. 'X' does NOT horribly
>    bog down even low-scale systems. PIs run
>    perfectly zippy using 'X'.
> 
It seems to need about 256MB of RAM tho.

Back in the day we ran it on 8MB PCS and SPARCS.

Dunno whether it's X itself or the desktop managers.

>    For the cutting-edge high-rez video games
>    maybe Wayland IS better ... but I don't
>    do that stuff.
> 

-- 
Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
  – Will Durant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78853

On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 01:25:33 -0500, c186282 wrote:

>    Similar experience. 'X' does NOT horribly bog down even low-scale
>    systems. PIs run perfectly zippy using 'X'.

As I pointed out yesterday my RPi5 with the Raspberry Pi OS runs perfectly 
zippy using Wayland.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78869

On 12/11/25 17:36, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 01:25:33 -0500, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Similar experience. 'X' does NOT horribly bog down even low-scale
>>     systems. PIs run perfectly zippy using 'X'.
> 
> As I pointed out yesterday my RPi5 with the Raspberry Pi OS runs perfectly
> zippy using Wayland.

   And would with 'X' as well ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78885

On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 23:41:45 -0500, c186282 wrote:

> On 12/11/25 17:36, rbowman wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 01:25:33 -0500, c186282 wrote:
>> 
>>>     Similar experience. 'X' does NOT horribly bog down even low-scale
>>>     systems. PIs run perfectly zippy using 'X'.
>> 
>> As I pointed out yesterday my RPi5 with the Raspberry Pi OS runs
>> perfectly zippy using Wayland.
> 
>    And would with 'X' as well ...

Sure, but I'm not the one pissing on Wayland.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78960

On 12/12/25 03:15, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 23:41:45 -0500, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> On 12/11/25 17:36, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 01:25:33 -0500, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>>      Similar experience. 'X' does NOT horribly bog down even low-scale
>>>>      systems. PIs run perfectly zippy using 'X'.
>>>
>>> As I pointed out yesterday my RPi5 with the Raspberry Pi OS runs
>>> perfectly zippy using Wayland.
>>
>>     And would with 'X' as well ...
> 
> Sure, but I'm not the one pissing on Wayland.

   Until it's a clear all-around standout I'll
   keep moisturizing Wayland  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78915

On 11/12/2025 22:36, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 01:25:33 -0500, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Similar experience. 'X' does NOT horribly bog down even low-scale
>>     systems. PIs run perfectly zippy using 'X'.
> 
> As I pointed out yesterday my RPi5 with the Raspberry Pi OS runs perfectly
> zippy using Wayland.
How much memory does a bare desktop use?

-- 
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to 
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#78947

On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:45:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 11/12/2025 22:36, rbowman wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 01:25:33 -0500, c186282 wrote:
>> 
>>>     Similar experience. 'X' does NOT horribly bog down even low-scale
>>>     systems. PIs run perfectly zippy using 'X'.
>> 
>> As I pointed out yesterday my RPi5 with the Raspberry Pi OS runs
>> perfectly zippy using Wayland.
> How much memory does a bare desktop use?

The Pi is using 1.8 Gi with Chromium and VS Code up. The Fedora box is 3.6 
Gi with KDE, The Endeavour is 2.0 Gi with Sway, and the hog is Ubuntu with 
7.6 Gi but it has a lot of stuff open. 

I killed Firefox on the Endeavour box and it's down to .87 Gi. Sway is 
about as bare as it gets. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79108

On 11 Dec 2025 04:06:26 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> Each work day at 5pm, (most of) the team joined in an intramural
> game of xtrek, with an Ultrix machine acting as the central
> coordinating server, because it had the required form of (IIRC)
> shared memory IPC.

This is an example of the state of Unix fragmentation as a result of
the “Unix wars” of the time, is it not.

Aren’t we glad those days are over?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79110

On 2025-12-15, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2025 04:06:26 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>
>> Each work day at 5pm, (most of) the team joined in an intramural
>> game of xtrek, with an Ultrix machine acting as the central
>> coordinating server, because it had the required form of (IIRC)
>> shared memory IPC.
>
> This is an example of the state of Unix fragmentation as a result of
> the “Unix wars” of the time, is it not.

That could be.  I don't know much about the history of the 'Unix
wars' of the time.

> Aren’t we glad those days are over?

If by that you mean that Linux has more-or-less unified the
mainstream, I'll wait to pass judgement until I see how much
damage the systemd Trojan horse and Wayla[ni]d do.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79112

On 15 Dec 2025 00:41:17 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> If by that you mean that Linux has more-or-less unified the
> mainstream, I'll wait to pass judgement until I see how much damage
> the systemd Trojan horse and Wayla[ni]d do.

I don’t know why you see them as causing “damage”. People only use
them because they are better than the alternatives -- and those who
disagree continue to use something else.

Linux is all about choice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web