Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software BSD Linux

Linux Users Try FreeBSD 5, Windows 762

Posted by michael
from the painful-experiences dept.
uninet writes "Most people know what GNU/Linux is, but fewer know about BSD and fewer still have actually used one of the major BSD variants (other than the highly customized Mac OS X). Ed Hurst, a writer and a long time GNU/Linux user, decided to give FreeBSD a try. Will Ed join the ranks of happy FreeBSD users? Find out at OfB.biz." And our own Roblimo, Windows-free for five years, has spent a week learning Windows XP.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Users Try FreeBSD 5, Windows

Comments Filter:
  • Alternate viewpoint on "switching from Linux to Windows".

    Some background: I had been a Windows user for a short time back in the Win 3.1 (and prior days). I had a 386SX-16 with 5mb of RAM so Windows wasn't terribly good. I used a lot of DOS programs and Desqview for task switching. I decided it was time to go to something decent and I switched to OS/2. It was a dream world for me, ran DOS, Windows, and OS/2 (and unix-based applications compiled for it). Then I went to Linux and stayed there from 1996
    • by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:24AM (#7183251)
      I was 100% against MS's evil empire and Bill's attempts to takeover the world.

      I think this says something about the nature of Linux users' hatred of Windows. Most of the fanboys seem to think that dislike of windows for technical reasons is evidence that MS is evil, and that the fact that Windows is ahead in the "desktop war" means that Windows is terrible. No wonder so many people don't take you guys seriously, if you don't understand that those connections aren't logical.

      If you want to believe that Linux is technically better than Windows, fine. I happen to agree on that point. If you think that Microsoft is the evil empire, that's OK; you can form your own opinions. If you can't seperate the two ideas in your mind, then there's a problem, and you probably ought to reexamine your conclusions (or at least your mode of evangelism.)
      • by JohnTheFisherman (225485) on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:18AM (#7183864)
        It seems to partly go the other way around, but just as illogically - their hatred of the "Evil Empire(TM)" causes them to nit pick or outright fabricate technical issues with Windows. And the "popular == bad" theme is certainly tangible. It reminds me of Indie Rock Pete from Diesel Sweeties. ;)

        Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V is universal to Windows, Mac, and Linux. Deal with it. Windows Update lets you pick which items to install or not install. You can make yourself a non-priveleged user in WinXP too. And holding Linux up as an ease-of-install bar for Windows to meet is a joke.

        There are certainly issues (default user is admin, IE sucks, OE sucks...) but I don't know how a lot of these "Linux guy using Windows" complaints get created.
      • by gidds (56397) <slashdot@@@gidds...me...uk> on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:21AM (#7183906) Homepage
        Most of the fanboys seem to think that dislike of windows for technical reasons is evidence that MS is evil

        Some probably do, and as you imply, there's little reason for that.

        However, some of us think that M$ is evil for their business practices. Is it ethical to systematically buy out or destroy their competition? To deliberately spoil users' experience for the sake of market share? To use their massive cash pile and their monopoly in one field to (try to) gain it in others? To deliberately flout the legal system? And so on, and so on - the details have been debated enough already.

        (For example, what does it say about them that their most credible remaining competitor in the OS market is one that can't be bought out, sued to oblivion, 'partnered' into docility, embraced and extended, or any of their usual tactics?)

        If M$ behaved ethically, then their technical failings wouldn't be such a problem; people would be able to use alternatives, and M$ (like everyone else) would have the choice of improving their products or losing out. It's their immoral and illegal business practices that make such deep technical problems possible in the first place.

      • Extremists... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by msimm (580077)
        Are in every camp. NBD. Don't let the few color your view of us all.

      • by bigman2003 (671309) on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:58AM (#7184332) Homepage
        The author of the article referred to was obviously a Linux fanboy/zealot. And, I wonder if he has problems using a computer under ANY operating system.

        1- He complains that Windows Update doesn't tell him what it is doing. This is absolute crap- a lie. You have the option to see information about every patch it is applying, you can remove patches, there are direct links to very informative security bulletins telling you what the patch is all about. If the author considers himself technically minded, but didn't actually READ what was on the screen, that was his problem. But- he succeeded in installing the patches- and that is what is important. See- it's set up so even morons like him can do it.

        2- He couldn't figure out how to add icons in the 'bottom panel' (Taskbar) in Windows. Well, if he had tried to drag and drop, wonderful things would have happened. But, instead he sat there like a slack-jawed idiot, looking for problems. It takes about 2 seconds to add something to the taskbar, or the start menu.

        3- Once again, feigning (or proving) total ignorance, he didn't understand what these 'pop-up' ads are all about- and why can't IE get rid of them? True- IE out of the box will display pop-ups, but when you add the Google Toolbar (free) not only will it block pop-ups, but it will give you some awesome IE/Windows only tools right in your browser. The Google Toolbar is better than any similar thing I have seen in other browsers. The answer is out there. And it's free, and it's good.

        There were a lot of other problems I saw with his article. But because he was already preaching to the choir, most of it will just be greeted with silly smiles, and lots of head shaking. It must make him feel good to be surrounded by people who think the same way he does, and only make his half-hearted attempts at looking at other options.

        • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday October 10, 2003 @02:24PM (#7185297)


          The author of the article referred to was obviously a Linux fanboy/zealot. And, I wonder if he has problems using a computer under ANY operating system.


          What's amusing about this article is that it is usually the other way around. It is quite often the Windows-centric viewpoint (and occaional "fanboy" or "zealot") making some half-true observations about a Linux desktop environment. Sometimes the observations are accurate. More often they show a lack of understanding or experience with the environment in question. And if the forum allows it, they are often followed by a string of replies from more experienced Linux users addressing the various issues outlined in the article.

          The article and discussions will be intermixed with additional banter. There will almost always be a Linux elitist disparaging the abilities of the author. And its just as likely that there will be a true Windows fanboy/zelot making snide comments about "defaults" and "standards" and "grandma" users being unable to make use of the information mentioned in the article responces.

          The interesting thing is that we're now to a point where names "Linux" and "Windows" are almost interchangable in these desktop environment conversations.
      • Good post.

        I think that where Linux and BSD may get into the desktop is by starting on the server and workstation. If these two can prove their value in those arenas (and Linux clearly has on the server, BSD can but doesn't have the widespread use), I see an easier transition to the desktop.

        From my personal vantage point, the lack of thorough Java support on the BSDs is the biggest issue I have. There's SOME support, but not enough. We're a UNIX/Linux Java/J2EE shop (for the most part, there's some .n

    • by reallocate (142797) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:26AM (#7183271)
      Odds are you'll be pummeled for that post, but -- as I sit at my Linux box -- it occurs to me that I can't think of one desktop-oriented thing I do in Linux that I can't do in Windows or OSX.

      It is easy to find fault with Microsoft and Windows. Most of it is deserved. But, Linux has faults, too. One big problem is part and parcel of its evelopment modeL: Because there's no single entity setting and enforcing standards, the highly touted benefits of "choice" often become a crapshoot of conflicting libraries, packaging schemes, and software compiled by God-Knows-Who in God-Know-Where.

      • by garcia (6573) * on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:30AM (#7183302)
        oh I know you *can* do the same things with Linux and I spent countless hours doing just that.

        It was just far easier to click on a movie and have IE open it (including downloading the codec) rather than having to compile mplayer (with GUI options), make sure it worked fullscreen with X options, and make sure I had the codecs.

        Or how about opening a Word document and making sure it looks identical to the one that was saved elsewhere?
        • It was just far easier to click on a movie and have IE open it (including downloading the codec) rather than having to compile mplayer (with GUI options), make sure it worked fullscreen with X options, and make sure I had the codecs.

          Uh huh. Sorry, but I tried a DivX-encoded movie on Windows XP two days ago and got a nasty "codec download failed" message, which required heading to divx.com and doing codec downloading and installing before I could see video. And I seriously doubt Sorenson quicktime movi

        • Or how about opening a Word document and making sure it looks identical to the one that was saved elsewhere?


          This is what PDF, DVI, TeX, etc. are for. Not having the same font or printer settings goes and mangles everything.
      • Nit-pickers... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by msimm (580077) on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:37AM (#7184101) Homepage
        Windows bashings aside (it is getting old) but the new found fashionability of 'Linux' bashing is pretty silly.

        Can't think of one thing you can't do on Windows (95/98/NT/2000/XP)? Let me give you a hand: Fire up Mplayer to watch any video you want. Interpolate with a large number of different machines. Secure your network. Remote X Session over ssh.

        I'm just throwing out what's on the top of my head, but you get the point. 'Linux' isn't perfect, of course not. But it isn't less then Windows and has strengths that make a highly technical group very fond of it.

        Linux bashers and Windows apologists are just as pointless as their Linux/BSD/Mac counterparts.
    • by molarmass192 (608071) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:33AM (#7183329) Homepage Journal
      Well, GnomeMeeting works with Netmeeting quite nicely, StarOffice is just as good if not superior to Office, and Mozilla renders pages faster than IE. Things have changed a bit since November 2002. The one thing I will give you is that XP does have more extensive hardware support but that's easily overcome by doing a little homework before buying any periphs. I don't know about XP having a "superior experience" to Linux, it's all about what you do with your OS, but it's certainly a different experience.
      • by garcia (6573) * on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:54AM (#7183571)
        Things changed a lot in the 6 years I was using Linux. Things had changed a lot in Windows as well.

        Windows doesn't crash anymore, Windows is easily updated, Windows is fast, etc.

        Linux has some application support, Linux *can* be easily updated, Linux is getting better, etc.

        They both have their good and bad points. That wasn't my intention for writing the post. It was to a) show that Windows is better for me than Linux b) that Roblimo was overly obnoxious in his review of his switch and c) using Windows in a Windows-world is far easier than trying to get Linux to stumble along in that same Windows-world.
      • "StarOffice is just as good if not superior to Office"

        Are you just making that statement up or do you have facts? From my experience, Office is head and shoulders above *any* other office suite.

        "Mozilla renders pages faster than IE."

        My anecdotal and scientific evidence says otherwise. IE is *still* almost twice as fast at rendering nested tables, and IE loads pages faster than Firebird on my school's old computers.
    • This is the same old troll I've heard for years. It's a simple variant of the "reformed user" that's "learned the error of his ways" and switched. But invariably these trolls demonstrate little evidence they ever used Linux much in the first place and typically read like a Microsoft press release.

      I'd love to see a post from someone who's actually used Linux for years and gone to Windows for one reason or another, but I don't believe this is one of them.

      • After reading some of garcia's comment history, neither do I.

        Way too many "I love Linux, but MS rocks" comments. And he always seems to get modded up for them. I suppose he has a well-established circle of moderator buddies.
      • by odie_q (130040) on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:04AM (#7183682)
        I'd love to see a post from someone who's actually used Linux for years and gone to Windows for one reason or another

        I use Windows XP Pro at work, whilst being a long time Slackware user at home. Before Slackware I used various proprietary BASICs and a little DOS. At first I hated working in Windows. Nothing works the way you want it to. Printer drivers (I have never installed a single printer driver on my machine at home, my old HP Laser just works anyway) conflicting with each other, not being able to set the right screen frequency, because I need a monitor driver and so on.

        After learning all the little quirks (there are probably just as many oddities with GNU/Linux that I don't notice) I can now work efficiently with XP , but would never let it replace my beloved unix at home. As long as you're doing something anticipated by the programmers, Windows is beautifully simple to use. When you are trying to ad lib, your screwed. I suppose you could set Windows with lots of little helper programs and registry tweaks, but im Linux I don't have to.

        Examples:

        Get a file from a Mac user, who doesn't tag .doc and .xls on his Office file names and don't know what it is? Most unix filesystem browsers use file magic, and identify these files correctly.

        Want your MOD.* files to open with ModPlug Player when you click on them? Windows Explorer can't grok prefixes.

        Want to download a URL to a local file? Write an HTML document with a link, or download the Windows version of the standard GNU/Linux utility wget.

        Windows package management just simply sucks.

        Want to set reasonable defaults for new users, like how their Start Menu behaves or what theme they get? There might be a way to do this, but I still haven't figured out how.

        I have no idea how to download streamed media so I can watch it behind our corporate firewall. At home, this is my preferred way of watching online movies, due to bandwidth uncertainty.

        I have seen less than ten GNU/Linux crashes in my eight years of Linux experience. Last week, some program or other in my XP box had a BSoD shootout with my printer, but aside from that, I get perhaps one crash every two or three months, which is still a lot. This is not, I believe, caused by Windows, but rather by poor applications and drivers. Somehow, though, Windows seems to attract poor applications and drivers.

        Granted, a lot of my problems stem from me not knowing my way around the system, but I think this is why you don't see many "I switched to Windows" stories. People tend not to do this to themselves voluntarily.

    • by syrinx (106469) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:39AM (#7183399) Homepage
      That's interesting that you say you like IE over Moz.. while I do use Windows most of the time (FreeBSD the rest of the time; I never got into Linux much), I can't stand IE. It's to the point where I keep a copy of Firebird on my USB drive so I can quickly copy it to another computer I happen to be using, because IE is just so clunky and horrible to use. IMNSHO, of course. :)

      As for Office being better than WP, have you tried OpenOffice? Recently? It's been good for awhile, and still getting better. I haven't used WP since 5.1 for DOS, so I can't really comment on how well it works. But I had some bad experiences with MS Office a couple years ago, switched to OpenOffice, and haven't had any problems since then, with interoperability or anything else.

      Upgrading Windows is definitely easy (when it works and doesn't break stuff, that is). It took me a long time to figure out how to upgrade FreeBSD successfully, and I never really did figure it out for Linux.

      Basically, I rather like Windows 2000 and XP, they're very stable, and when you turn off all the extra flashy GUI shit, they're pretty nice to use. The main thing that keeps me from using FreeBSD as my main desktop system is hardware compatibility... I tried it for awhile, but everything always felt like it *sort of* worked, but not as well as it should be.

      However, Windows is the only MS product I use. I can't stand IE, like I said before, and I have no problems with not using MS Office. I don't even have MS hardware (I've always liked Logitech's stuff better).

      My $0.02.
      • "It's to the point where I keep a copy of Firebird on my USB drive so I can quickly copy it to another computer I happen to be using, because IE is just so clunky and horrible to use."

        IE really isn't so bad. Heck, when you switch IE into "standards" mode (by specifiying the DOCTYPE as XHTML in the first line of the file), it is actually reasonably CSS compliant.

        People who say they can't design standards-based websites that work in IE and Mozilla are full of bull. IE doesn't have any problem rendering my C
        • IE is only faster because it's pre-loaded and never seems to get completely swapped out. I've seen a situation where coming back from Quake3 at a lan party Notepad swapped to come up, but IE was there instantly. They can't possibly make a browser with less footprint than notepad so I assume they simply tweak swapping to keep IE available. Once IE and Mozilla are both up and fully out of cache the performance is only noticable when rendering test pages (tables in tables in tables, etc). I find that IE is fas
      • I'm primarily a WordPerfect user. However, I've also had WinWord (and DOSWord) for as long as I've had WP, usually concurrent versions, and Word was my first GUI word processor, so I'm not speaking from lack of exposure or use.

        Word is okay if you only do simple documents, or have someone else program complex stuff for you. Conversely, WP is designed to handle complex documents much more easily, and is far more capable of doing so without needing a macro programmer on staff.

        My primary use for a GUI wordpro
      • I don't even have MS hardware (I've always liked Logitech's stuff better).

        IIRC, MS hardware is made by Logitech...
    • I was sending out my resumes as a TXT email or printed from Wordperfect for Linux.

      Why? Plain text is not going to make you look good and people may not be able to read WP. I always send documents like that as PDFs. I sent out dozens of CVs (resumes) last and only one person had trouble reading it (and most people replied so they had read it).

      IE from Mozilla (not a problem, Mozilla is slow, clunky, and doesn't support anything as easily as IE on Windows)

      This one is a matter of teast, I use both daily a

    • by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:41AM (#7184136)
      Rob's article was incredibly biased. His first complaint is about copying and pasting, which is simply a result of the fact he's used to the other method. No method is greater than the other.

      Then he says Windows "ordered" him to download patches, and that it didn't tell him what they were or whether or not he could install them. This is COMPLETELY FALSE. Windows Update, whether in IE or in the system tray, allows you to view every patch. If it's the system tray app, it lets you uncheck any patch you don't want. If it's the website, you can click the button to remove it from installation.

      Then he complains that Windows doesn't come with office productivity software, which is a little bizarre considering you know he'd be bitching about Microsoft and their monopolistic practice of including an office suite. They're damned either way.

      He mentioned installing mIRC didn't require a root password, and goes on to mention spyware problems. Of course, his account is set up with administrator privileges, and if he was set to a limited account, he could prevent installation and so forth. The standard Slashdot argument against this is that installation should ask you to do this by default, but since we're dealing with RobLimo the Suse Linux user, you'd think that'd be the first thing he do anyway due to Linux experience with managing user accounts. But, of course, now it is a "security risk."

      Then his complaints are with mIRC and his inability to uncheck the dialog box so it stops popping up. At this point, I stared at the screen with my jaw dropped. Was RobLimo purposely being stupid? I've used xchat and mIRC, and mIRC wins hands-down as an IRC client. Even if you don't like mIRC, it's so customizable you can create your own IRC client using its scripting capabilities. xchat is godawful, interface-wise and customizability-wise.

      But, again, that has nothing to do with Windows. In fact, xchat for Windows works just fine (and retains the ugly-ass GTK widgets), so RobLimo should have stuck with it, but he needed something to complain about, right?

      He rightfully complains about Internet Explorer, but then waits four hours before bothering to get Mozilla (Opera is the best one anyway, just not free). He just needed to bitch about Internet Explorer for a paragraph, when most Linux users switching to Windows wouldn't bother with IE to begin with. He's purposely dumbing down his using experience to complain about Windows.

      He does the same for Outlook Express. Why would he use Outlook Express if he just downloaded Mozilla? Again, he's purposely dumbing down his using experience to have more complaints. His spam comments don't even affect me since I use Outlook 2003 which has great built-in junk mail filtering.

      Windows Messenger is easy to disable from starting up. Especially for an advanced Linux user like RobLimo. Another biased complaint.

      Apparently, RobLimo's only slowdown problem is CTRL-C and CTRL-V. Of course, for Windows users, those are incredibly fast shortcuts for them. I use them all the time. If this is all he can offer alongside pointless IE/OE bitching, there is no other point for his article than to be Windows flamebait. In fact, I find it amusing he complains about the copy/paste shortcuts and ignores the fact that Linux can barely copy/paste anything between apps. With Windows, it's almost sickening what you can play around with and copy between apps. But that never gets mentioned. In fact, there are no real positives mentioned.

      RobLimo vaguely mentions "slowdowns" and "idle time" problems. Huh? Nice specifics, there. I've experienced weird little quirks in all Linux distributions as well. I chalked it up to cache flushes, swap space, whatever. Since RobLimo never, ever mentions what exactly he's talking about, we'll never know what he meant.

      Then he goes on to mention "little specialty programs" that he would have to pay for on Windows, which, of course is false. There is tons of freeware for Windows,
  • by reallocate (142797) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:16AM (#7183188)
    Betcha they don't.
    • Betcha they don't.
      The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. (GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix"; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".) Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as "Linux", they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems.
      They do now.
  • by bconway (63464) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:18AM (#7183203) Homepage
    It's not a review of Windows XP, but rather a series of old stereotypes and jokes about Windows that we've heard a million times. If you want a serious, objective review of XP in the same manner that you see Linux distributions reviewed, you should look elsewhere.
    • No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Soulfader (527299) <sig@s[ ]pace.net ['igs' in gap]> on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:28AM (#7183288) Journal
      The smarmy attitude got to me after a few paragraphs. "What's this 'Microsoft Internet Explorer' thing that I keep hearing about? It's profoundly inferior to everything I've ever used. People say it's popular, but they must be lying to me because it doesn't have tabbed browsing, and who can use the web without tabbed browsing?"

      Sorry, but that gets old awfully damned fast. I've been using Red Hat at home exclusively for the last 7 months or so (since I got laid off and had time to really learn to use it), and while I much prefer it to Windows--even Win2k, of which I am rather fond--the difference isn't so incredibly huge that I would rather eat a Windows CD than install it.

      Also, half of his problems seem to be with Windows APPS, rather than Windows. Nothing is keeping you from using a lot of the same apps in Windows, friend. When I do log in to my wife's Win2k box at home, I use OpenOffice, XChat, Gaim, and Mozilla Firebird--the same apps I use on my RH box.

      How about some honest advocacy on the strengths of alternate operating systems? That would do more to show options to people who don't know they've got them. This kind of drek doesn't help anyone.
      • Bah (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Soulfader (527299)
        I'm still reading. This annoys me greatly:

        The bottom panel on my KDE desktop is filled with icons for my 'daily use' applications. No matter how covered my screen is with applications windows (and it is almost always fully covered), I can click on a panel icon and open a new app. I haven't figured out how to put app icons on the Windows bottom panel. I don't even know if it can be done. Perhaps it can only be done by smart Windows geeks, but not by simple-minded Linux people like me.

        This attitude really

        • by garcia (6573) *
          I haven't figured out how to put app icons on the Windows bottom panel. I don't even know if it can be done.

          This coming from the guy who thinks that CTRL-C/CTRL-V is so difficult.

          Drag the icons to the taskbar, they stay there, you can run applications from there. TOUGH stuff.
      • half of his problems seem to be with Windows APPS, rather than Windows

        I noticed this, too, but I thought that he was making a point. One of the reasons that people say they stay on Windows is "because my apps don't run on Linux". I think his point is that it's a two-way street - Windows has better apps than Linux in some areas, and vice versa.

      • Re:No kidding (Score:4, Informative)

        by _xeno_ (155264) on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:09AM (#7183755) Homepage Journal
        I'm really, really, really honestly hoping that this article was a parody of the "I tried Linux after being a Windows user for 23 years!" type of articles we see in the "mainstream press." (And, yes, the number of years is intentionally wrong.)

        If taken in that light, it could be a kind of amusing parody showing someone coming from the Linux viewset getting annoyed at features that Linux applications have that Windows applications do not. Like authors who seem to go out of their way to not understand some Linux-ism, he's going out of his way to strictly apply the way Linux works to a Windows desktop, and showing where it fails.

        Given articles decrying Linux basically for being Linux, a parody article decrying Windows for being Windows could be rather amusing. I'm hoping this article was a joke, but I can't find anything within it that would suggest that it was. If it's not a joke, then I agree with you 100% - this article was annoying drek and not worth the time I spent to read it.

    • by Kyouryuu (685884) on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:23AM (#7183934) Homepage
      Yeesh, no kidding. I haven't heard someone kick and scream so loudly about ctrl-c and ctrl-v before. At least Windows has this support consistent across programs - I've had more than a few weird idiosyncracies between differing Linux programs and cutting/pasting to and from them, though it's much improved with today's distributions than before.

      It's hardly an objective review for several reasons. One, a lot of major programs available for Linux are likewise available for Windows. Even though I run Windows XP most of the time, most of the applications are free, open-source alternatives like Gaim, Mozilla, and OpenOffice. These are all nearly effortless to install under Windows. Unless they come as a package or has a nice install script, it's not as quick or easy to install most programs under Linux. But really, he can't complain about Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, or any of those. He has just as much choice as on a Linux system to pick a different program to suit his needs.

      He couldn't figure out how to add things to the taskbar. Click and drag. You might have heard of this amazing technique before. Now, admittedly, I think taskbar optimization is a bit easier under Linux (especially under KDE), but let's not kid ourselves - it's not horrendously difficult under Windows.

      He complains about forced downloading of patches, which is something you can disable. But let's be honest - critics of Microsoft can't have this both ways. They complain when it pesters the user about updating, and then they complain when people don't update because of the bugs that proliferate. It's circular damned-if-I-do-damned-if-I-don't logic. Dare I say, to fully update a distribution like Red Hat 9.0 takes little over 300 megs worth of downloads. Thankfully, you can save the patches off in both OSes for a later point in time and burn them to CD.

      Lastly, he doesn't play computer games, which is perhaps the single greatest reason why people would choose a Windows desktop over a Linux desktop. There just aren't many professional games being written around Linux. Linux mainly gets ports or has to run them through Wine or WineX. Epic Games, at least for UT2003, made the smart move of bundling the Linux version on the Windows CDs (albeit it only worked for NVidia cards and had a clunky install procedure). As time passes, we'll definitely see this trend change, but for now most games are very Windows-centric. There aren't enough Linux users to warrant a store carrying a seperate boxed edition, so what Epic did was the best solution.

      For what the writer of the article needs his PC for, Linux is certainly more than enough. It is superb for day-to-day office work, e-mail, and Internet browsing. It is superb as, in general, a desktop operating system. But for the gamer like me, it's hard to switch away from Windows since most games are written for Windows.

  • Site Slashdotted (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sir Haxalot (693401) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:18AM (#7183207)
    Google Cache of main page here [216.239.59.104]
  • by Strudelkugel (594414) * on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:23AM (#7183242)

    First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it. This is fast, easy, and takes little hand motion on my laptop keyboard. All this Ctrl key action slows me down. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I need to work quickly if I want to earn a living, and I don't see why Windows wants me to go through all those extra hand motions just to paste a URL into a story.

    A week goes by and he couldn't figure out how to use the 2nd mouse button? Is this review a spoof?

    • It's not just that. It's the first time I hear a Linux user complaining about keyboard shortcuts. In general it's a lot faster to work with the keyboard than with the mouse.
      • That, and autocopy means that you can't copy something, do a little editing (involving selecting) and then paste. Basically, you select far more than you copy, so autocopy is a bad feature of X, not a good one.
    • aren't the ctrl+c/v/x a rip off from ye olde macintosh apple key+c/v/x?

      and I agree with the other reply that says using keyboard shortcuts is fast...

      Until you go to another country... I recently went to an internet cafe in Spain and was *really* confused for a couple of seconds when trying to open a webpage using ctrl O. it brought up the favourites. :) ctrl A was open a new page.

    • If you couldn't tell, you obviously need to read a bit more than the first paragraph.

      I know, I know, this is Slashdot... but it's funny enough to be worth it.
    • I find the ctrl-c/v thing very funny. I use those in most Linux apps just fine. I don't know where he got the idea that they were foreign from... Oddly enough Roblimo sounds more like a GUI freak than the average windows user, not wanting to do KB shortcuts. Most people I know that use Windows as part of their job like to use keyboad shortcuts over mouse ones.
  • Copy/Paste (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrEldarion (114072) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:25AM (#7183262)
    First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it. This is fast, easy, and takes little hand motion on my laptop keyboard. All this Ctrl key action slows me down. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I need to work quickly if I want to earn a living, and I don't see why Windows wants me to go through all those extra hand motions just to paste a URL into a story. Geh.

    You do realize that in Windows you can highlight the text, then right click on it to bring up a menu with Undo, Cut, Copy, Paste, Delete, and Select All, right?

    -- Dr. Eldarion --
    • No, I didn't! Thanks!

    • Not the point (Score:2, Informative)

      by vasqzr (619165)
      Count the movement:

      Drag mouse over text
      Right-Click
      Select 'Copy'
      Move cursor to new location
      Right-click
      Select 'Paste'

      Drag mouse over text
      Move cursor to new location
      Click both buttons

      3 less clicks
      • The click count argument sounds really pretty, until you have a working scroll-button on your mouse and wind up unintentionally pasting into the middle of a file while you're scrolling through it.
    • clearly he hasn't used RH 9 recently. in GUI mode you cannot just select text and hey presto its in the clipboard.

      i used to find this annoying (at times). often i'll highlight a bit of text in a console to distinguish it and read it - i did NOT want it copied over what was previously in my clipboard.
    • You do realize that in Windows...

      Thanks, Clippy!

    • I would guess that his point is that you in X won't have to select copy from the "right click menu" (context), and then later select paste from the "right click menu". You just select the text, then click where ever you want to paste, and middle click to do the acctual pasting.

      Pretty fast.

  • I don't really care if he's an editor or not, writing a "review" of Windows XP whose basic premise is "It's not like Linux, and all the Linux software I like is different on it" is drivel.

    He just went from a manual stickshift to an automatic and is still expecting to control the shifting as usual. I'd call this stupid user behavior, except that I know he's not stupid. He's just trying to make a (redundant) point in a (troll) heavy-handed fashion. Which is fine I suppose, except that it seems a little be
    • I don't really care if he's an editor or not, writing a "review" of Windows XP whose basic premise is "It's not like Linux, and all the Linux software I like is different on it" is drivel.

      Well, I think it's amusing because I still remember the various "reviews" of Linux that basically made the same "It's not like Windows therefore it sucks" comments.

    • Did you finish reading the whole Linux-to-WinXP "review"? By the time you got to the section where he was astonished at this strange, new Internet Explorer browser that 90% of web surfers used, it should have been obvious that it was satire.

      Michael's only oversight was failing to add the "It's funny. Laugh." icon to the story.
    • [Trolling] seems a little beneath the editorial bar for the front page of Slashdot.

      You're new here, aren't you?

    • Which is fine I suppose, except that it seems a little beneath the editorial bar for the front page of Slashdot.

      You are new here, aren't you?
    • ... writing a "review" of Windows XP whose basic premise is "It's not like Linux, and all the Linux software I like is different on it" is drivel.

      You completely missed the point. This is a parody of the ``reviews'' of Linux whose basic premise is that: ``it's not Windows, and all the Windows software I like is different on it.'' Are they drivel? More so than this article, which can at least claim to be parody, and thus has some merit.

    • I don't really care if he's an editor or not, writing a "review" of Windows XP whose basic premise is "It's not like Linux, and all the Linux software I like is different on it" is drivel.
      Well, most people claim they won't switch from Windows to Linux because it's "different". Is that drivel?

      It's a big step to switch operating systems. He just went a different way than most people, and I can't quite contemplate going that way.
  • What's so special about Ports? I've been using FreeBSD lately, and I'm an experienced Debian user.

    Some /. readers rave about Ports, but after using it for several weeks, I still prefer apt-get. Unless I'm missing someting, ports is not as automated. apt-get automatically finds the software, downloads, and installs the debs. apt4rpm does the same. Fink does the same. Ports has extra steps.

    Anyone want to "enlighten" me?

    Disclaimer: I'm running a stable server and installing binary packages. I'm not i
    • Are you using the ports tree, or are you using packages? If you want to just install binary packages, `pkg_add -r foo` will do the job for you, including fetching any necessary dependencies.
    • so get the binary packages of all the ports. If done correctly, all dependencies will be handled, and if something needs to be downloaded, it will (although in that case I think it compiles the source).

      Also, regardless of whether you want to compile source or not, ports (particularly gentoo's emerge) is just as automated as apt-get. If you don't want to compile, then that's your argument against emerge and ports, not the lack of automation.
    • Re:Ports vs. Apt-get (Score:4, Informative)

      by UnassumingLocalGuy (660007) on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:03AM (#7183664) Homepage Journal
      Go install portupgrade (/usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade). Then, cvsup your ports tree, and run "portsdb -Uu". (You need to do this after every time you cvsup the ports tree.) After that, installing ports is as easy as typing in "portinstall foo". You say you like packages? Add the -P switch, as in "portinstall -P foo" to look for a package, and install from source if that fails, or "portinstall -PP foo" to install exclusively from a package.
  • Slack to BSD (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Follis (702842) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:30AM (#7183310)
    When I was a freshman I started running servers for me and my friends (and about 30 other users). This was mostly an experimental network, for my, and other's learning purposes. I started out using slackware (which is STILL the only linux I will use) on all of my servers. This did work well, until Netatalk stopped working with the latest version of slack (I think they changed TCPWrappers and NetaTalk hadn't cought up yet). I then was forced to move to FreeBSD. I will never, ever, ever go back. System Admin under BSD is silky smooth and DAMN fast. The way I think about it is that BSD has had 30 years of lazy system admins working on it. Linux has a few years to go.
    • I'm a diehard Slack user.. A few months ago I had to install some FreeBSD boxes for a frame-relay network (Linux's FR stack doesn't support Cisco LMI, or I would have stuck with Slackware.)

      I found that FreeBSD's NAT leave a lot to be desired - it runs in user-space, and so requires a significantly faster CPU in order to be usable.. I had to upgrade all of the boxes (which had been running Linux) just to get it to work at all, and the latency is still higher on the FreeBSD boxes.

      There's no real difference
  • The ONLY valid criticism in that whole freaking review is that part about Internet Explorer not having tabs. Instead, you have to open a new window and switch between them using the taskbar. Big friggin deal. All other complaints were due to ignorance. I would be just as ignorant if I made the switch to Linux, but at least I would be open-minded enough to realize that I'm a newbie and it'll take time to adjust.

    -Lucas

  • by John_Booty (149925) <johnbooty&bootyproject,org> on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:33AM (#7183334) Homepage
    The first thing that happened after I fired up Windows XP is that it virtually ordered me to download a series of patches. I did so, but it wasn't like a SuSE update where you see every patch available and can say "yes" or "no" to each one if you like. The Windows update process told me nothing except that it was happening, and that I needed to reboot when it was over. A Windows-using friend said, "Yes, that's the way it works, and if you don't do the updates your computer keeps annoying you, so you have to do them even if they take hours like they sometimes do."

    I don't know what he's talking about. By default (a stock Windows XPPro install) Windows will download updates in the background, and let you know when they're ready to install. You then have the option of saying "yes, install them now", "no, install them later", or you can click a button (labeled "Details...", I think) to see exactly which updates have been downloaded, and choose precisely which ones you'd like to install. I don't often give a lot of love to Microsoft, but I actually like the way they've handled the Windows Update thing- it's automatic and painless by default but you can have fine-grained control (or disable it totally) if you like.

    So I find his claims really false- it sounds like he missed the "Details..." button. It's possible that the pre-installed copy of XP on his laptop was configured by the OEM (Toshiba) to work differently than a "stock" WinXP install, but if he's gonna write an article (and presumably get paid for it) then it's really his duty to figure that out.

    I don't know if that's the case, just saying it's possible. In my opinion, anybody who is going to review an OS should really be reviewing a stock install, not some pre-configured OEM install that might differ from the "standard" experience.

    At any rate, I'm only a couple of paragraphs into his review, and already I can't take anything he says seriously because there's such a glaring error right off the bat. Nice job.
    • by John_Booty (149925) <johnbooty&bootyproject,org> on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:50AM (#7183524) Homepage
      More problems with the review.

      My copy of Windows XP Pro seems to have a program included with it called 'Windows Messenger' that, as far as I can tell, is some sort of ad delivery mechanism. I haven't figured out how to turn it off. It is very annoying. Linux doesn't have anything like this program, or if it does I've never installed or used it. In any case, I lived for many years without being bombarded by 'Windows Messenger' ads that pop up in the middle of whatever I'm trying to do, and I won't miss them when I go back to Linux.

      Okay... Windows Messenger is a horrible, horrible feature and I hate how it's enabled by default. Still, Control Panel-->Admin Tools-->Services-->Windows Messnger. Then pick "disable". Not terribly intuitive, but incredibly easy to do... and if you type "disable Windows Messenger" in Google there are ZILLIONS of results telling you how to do this.

      If he wants to bash Windows for including this feature, fine. Agreed. But to say he couldn't figure out how to do it is complete nonsense. Has he heard of Google?

      Not only that, I found the program much harder to use and less intuitive than XChat. Even after a week, I still haven't figured out how to add a new network to it easily, a function that is simple as pie in XChat. Given a choice, I'd rather pay for XChat than for mIRC. It's better software.

      Is he joking? You can add new networks to mIRC right from the dialog box you use to connect to a server, unless they've radically changed it in the last year or so. It also has a nice online help file. Saying "he couldn't figure it out in a week" makes me wonder how he learned how to *breathe*, much less *run an operating system*.

      As for XChat simply being "better" than mIRC, that's highly subjective and I won't come down on one side or the other from lack of experience with XChat. However, mIRC has some incredibly deep features such as an extremely powerful built-in programming language. To say "XChat>mIRC" right off the bat, when you haven't even figured out how to add a server, is ridiculous.

      One of the worst articles I've read from the Slashdot crew, and that's saying a lot. He makes a lot of good points (bashing IE/Outlook) but they're lost in the din of his obnoxious cluelessness.
    • by frankie (91710) on Friday October 10, 2003 @12:15PM (#7184507) Journal
      I find his claims really false- it sounds like he missed the "Details..." button.

      Duh. That's the whole point of the article. IT'S SATIRE. His Linux-to-Windows review is written from exactly the same perspective as the many Windows-to-Linux reviews that you see in the mainstream press. The viewpoint of someone who is not an alpha geek and doesn't feel comfortable wandering around this strange new OS. Did you notice his intentional usage of the phrase "not ready for the desktop"?

      An ordinary person (raised on some mythical Microsoft-free island) using an OEM-default Windows PC would have an experience 95% like Roblimo's.
  • Man oh man, I was reading this review and I tell you, I would be offended if I was a Macintosh user, never mind a Windows XP user. This guy is so "it ain't Linux and all the software I'm used to" that it makes me sick. I applaud him for his desire to try out Windows XP, but I think he's whining too much really.

    Once you get used to something, no matter what operating system it is, it is easy to use. Period. End of discussion. When you've trained for 4 years on Linux and move to a very different platfor
    • Well, with OS X, it'd be "it ain't Linux, but it's all the software I'm used to, and it looks sweet, and - and it's a BSD box - but it's got Microsoft Office on it, and Photoshop - and I'm - I'm confused - I'm - ....*pop*"

      You see, switching OSes actually gives some people brain fever. Remember, kids. It's not clever.

  • "First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it."

    Id blame your mouse driver, you shoudl be able
    to remap if you want, otherwise try right click
    and select, if your copying that much text a day
    that the second click will cost you time then i woudl rel
  • by drix (4602)
    Uhh, for real?:
    If you're reading this, and you want me to send you $20, just say the word
    Hrm free money... what to do?! I challenge you to locate a single person on this planet who would say no. Either Rob did think that proposition through very well, or he's bluffing.
  • I just finished reading the whole article as it was pointed out by a troll in another BSD story:

    http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/10/1 2 28205&mode=thread&tid=122&tid=126&tid=172&tid=185& tid=190&threshold=-1#7182480 [slashdot.org]

    Coincidence?
  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:45AM (#7183453)
    I orginally got my start in Web-site, ecommerce, consulting in particluar hardware. FreeBSD has been my #1 choice as a *iux based server for years. I tried ditching Windows for Linux and along came OSX. So when it came time to replace my Sony laptop, I purchased an iBook.

    Recently my business partner and I moved to an office, we were getting enough business, so I decided that I'd DL the latest FreeBSD ISO's and formatted over my Linux drive with FreeBSD 5-Current. Gee, with KDE 3 and everything, I couldn't notice any whopping difference. The OSS desktop community doesn't cater to FreeBSD as FreeBSD proably still has its place on my Racks as a server, but when we hire a secetary, looks like she will get the FreeBSD tower with Openoffice instead of Linux.

    Biggest thing I think, is that FreeBSD still has the old text based installer, but its not as ass backwards as say 2.2 or 3.4. For most noob's the YaST in SuSE and whatever it is on RH is very pleasing and better to use. Plus Linux gets support for the latest and greatest in hardware with drivers, etc.

    But if your just looking for a nice, stable, OS, you can't loose with either FreeBSD or Linux. Especially if you use Gnome or KDE. Looks the same, and proably 99.95% of the people would never know.

  • by Mwongozi (176765) <slashthree@david ... g ['r.o' in gap]> on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:46AM (#7183480) Homepage
    Aside from the really obvious massive bias that Roblimo has, he's completely anti-Windows even before he starts, lets rebut a few points:

    (Note: I'm defending Windows in the interests of fairness. I am in fact a Macintosh user.)

    1. mIRC does not blink "Your evaluation time is up", it's just a registration reminder. In fact, you can use it forever without registering, although this is morally and legally questionable, it never stops working.

    2. He couldn't work out how to add a new network to mIRC in two weeks? I honestly do not believe him. He's either lying, not trying, or really, really dumb.

    3. "I have heard that over 90% of all Web-connected people in the world use this browser, but I find this hard to believe." You do? No, of course you don't. You're just trolling. (Although the point about Mozilla being superior is well taken. It is.)

    4. "My copy of Windows XP Pro seems to have a program included with it called 'Windows Messenger' that, as far as I can tell, is some sort of ad delivery mechanism." It was at this point that I realised this was not a genuine attempt to learn Windows, it's mostly a giant Windows flame-fest.

    Even the sarcastic comment about Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V at the top is rendered utterly pointless by the end of the story, where he admits that in fact it's simply what you're used to.

    What a waste of time that article was.
    • In fairness to Roblimo, I think the article is a bit of a joke, however I've read alot of linux reviews that are just as biased the other way, complaining about silly little things that windows has that linux doesn't (I can't hit windows+e to open an explorer window?). Furthermore I think he makes some good points, if you had never used windows, some of these things might trip you up, or you wouldn't know where to go for the configuration (like quick launch which is off by default in windows xp) If you'd n
  • "What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons"
    In Windows you can right click copy right click paste. Fast and simple

    " virtually ordered me to download a series of patches. I did so, but it wasn't like a SuSE update where you see every patch available and can say "yes" or "no" to each one if you like."
    I have never been forced to upda
  • by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:51AM (#7183527) Journal
    I've never used Free or NetBSD. In fact, I'd not used the BSDs at all (apart from SunOS 4.x which is BSD-derived) until recently. I've been using Linux since January 1992.

    What I felt about OpenBSD? Having heard of OpenBSD's security reputation, and the goodness of 'pf', I wanted to evaluate it to replace a CheckPoint FireWall 1 system (expensive software rental that MS can only dream of). I had already determined that OpenBSD will do all the things we currently do with CheckPoint.

    Installation - it felt like installing SLS or Slackware back in 1994. Now that's not all negative - I had OpenBSD installed and ready in minutes and all off a single CD. Deciding to investigate further features of OpenBSD, I started doing a desktop install - put X on first (and got X and fvwm95 - I'd forgotten how fast X is with a simple UI). I then decided to install KDE from ports as I was missing Konqueror too much.

    Evaluation: Ports is nice, but apt-get is better.
    KDE works pretty much like it does under Linux.
    Compiling stuff from source seems to all work the same way. Mostly you can find it in ports, but I've built a few other things too.

    Things I miss: Other than Debian's apt, I really miss the /proc filesystem and 'killall '. Also, the ability to run User Mode Linux (or in this case, it'd be User Mode OpenBSD).

    However, for the real eval, I was mostly looking at pf and altq.

    I think OpenBSD shines here. The syntax of pf rules in pf.conf is far clearer than Linux iptables. Also, altq (for queuing and traffic control) has much easier syntax than the Linux equivalent. I don't have to go diving for the FAQ - the manual page for pf.conf is clear, concise and understandable and makes constructing the pf.conf rules file a piece of cake.

    Generally, I'm impressed with OpenBSD, particularly having a compact default install which is very useful if you want something as a firewall or a server. Although I will stick with Linux (Debian for servers, RedHat for desktops), for firewalling, my future installations will be OpenBSD due to the ease of use and power of pf and altq.
    • I use OpenBSD on my personal web and mail server, but for a project involving building a wireless access point out of a Soekris board (they're 486-based embedded system platforms; I think they were featured here on /. before) I chose Linux. The AP has to do authentication, and NAT those connections that are authenticated.

      I looked at OpenBSD, but--and I'll admit, I'm not that familiar with pf--if I'm not mistaken it isn't possible to actually set the index of a rule for evaluation like one can do with ipt

  • First, ctrl-c and ctrl-v are not the only ways to copy and paste. You can use the menu at the top of most programs or right click with the mouse.

    Second, Windows Update most certainly does tell you which patches it wants to install, what they do, with the option of unselecting any of them.

    If you want to add new programs to the windows taskbar panel, just drag and drop them!

    If you want to see a calendar, just double click the clock in the lower right hand corner!
  • Roblimo just dropped XP on his system and then installed all his familiar Linux programs. That may be what he was trying to do, but it doesn't really give a good idea of the "typical" user's experience with the operating system, now does it? If you really want to go all-out, you can drop in Cygwin and it'll feel almost exactly like running a half-retarded version of Linux with an obnoxious window manager. But that's not what the average windows user does.

    I've watched Windows evolve from 1.0 and I've gotte

  • Maybe you'll read this at some point, so...I'm sorry, Rob, but that article was a complete waste of time.

    You spend almost 2000 words going over every single problem you can find, and spend 300 words in a couple paragraphs giving a lukewarm appraisal of "Some nice things about Windows XP"- most of which seems spent pondering how Windows has better apps than Linux in some areas, but you don't see a need to use (or pay for) any of them.

    And then, you dive right back into the bashing, coming up with some rathe

  • when you complain that the calendar/clock won't pop up or that you can't get quickbar icons to appear on the start bar - it seems like you're just trying to fill space. XP has plenty of faults, many of which you pointed out very well.
    So i can't imagine why trying to say these features don't exist (they certainly do) or are impossible to figure out (they aren't) is necessary.

    i mean, maybe you'd like to see the quickstart bar enabled by default - that's fine say that. or that you'd like the calendar/clock t
  • by Brett Glass (98525) on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:56AM (#7184315) Homepage
    FreeBSD 5.x is clearly documented as being still "alpha-quality" and is certainly not for newcomers. 4.8-RELEASE (preferably with patches, since 4.9 is almost done) or 4.9-RELEASE (due in a week) would have been the proper platform for this new user.
  • by Trailer Trash (60756) on Friday October 10, 2003 @12:16PM (#7184517) Homepage

    First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it. This is fast, easy, and takes little hand motion on my laptop keyboard. All this Ctrl key action slows me down.

    Try this with your "quick" Linux way of doing it. Grab a URL into your clip board. Now, in your web browser, replace the URL in the address bar with the one you just copied. Not so quick now, eh?

    Most software designers realize that the act of highlighting text may not be indicative of a will to copy that piece of text. I might just want to delete it, or paste something in its place. It is impossible to paste over in the standard X way of doing it. Thankfully, most modern apps keep a separate clipboard so that I can use the keys, too. But if I'm stuck with a lame system that automatically copies my text to the clipboard when I highlight it, I'm screwed.

    A lot of what I read in this is, not surprisingly, the same sort of goofy stuff that I read about people trying to come to Linux from Windows. Rather than think about why something works the way it does, they automatically assume it's stupid because it's not exactly the way they've always done it.

    Windows users think Macs are lame because they have only one mouse button. Unix users think both are lame because they don't have three buttons. And yet, oddly, people are able to accomplish tasks on all three.

    And I hate to say it, but surely there's a free irc client for Windows. Hell, even Microsoft used to have one (comic chat) that passed as a pretty good irc client (you could disable the comic characters).

  • Copy and Paste (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr_Silver (213637) on Friday October 10, 2003 @12:20PM (#7184558)
    First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original,
    (emphasis mine)

    The problem here is that "almost all" isn't good enough.

    At least in the Windows world, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V work on "all" applications - none of this "almost" stuff.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...