Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 1/19/2011 10:43 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> The difference is that open source server software has been 'feature
>>> complete' for ages and the standards processes that change
>>> client/server interactions are very, very slow - so outdated versions
of server
>>> software is not a problem as long as bug/security fixes are made.
>>> That's not true for desktop applications and environments. If you
>>> don't have something current you are missing the improvements that many
>>> thousands of man-hours of work have made. Personally, I use Windows at
>> <snip>
>> I'll disagree here: I've seen hardly any "improvements" in any of the
>> (admittedly not a lot) of software I run. As a definition of this, let
>> me note that in '95, PC Mag ran a review of word processors, and noted
that
>> 90% of the users (then) used only 10% of the features, and the other 10%
>> of users who *did* use those features only used them about 10% of the
>> time.
>
> You are biased by having learned to live with the restrictions of old
So, what I like how something works is all "old cruft", and I should get
with the program, and not have opinions on what I want and how I want it
to work? That *is* what you're saying to me, to which I respond with "take
your opinion and shove it".
> cruft. At the very least you have to be able to exchange data files and
> view all common media files on a desktop. What do you do when someone
> gives you a docx or xlsx file?
openoffice opens both. And I have no idea what "features" M$ added, or
whether, as usual, it was just a change to the file format solely and
exclusively to force people to buy the latest versions of their crap.
And upgrades to open them I'd file under "bugfix", after M# introduced bugs.
>
>> The last "oh, I like this" feature I can remember was when firefox
>> introduced tabs. On the other hand, a *lot* of "improvements" I find
>> more and more objectionable, such as thunderbird trying *very* hard to
look
>> and act more and more like Lookout, er, Outlook, and I *LOATHE* the latest
>> versions of Outlook.
>
> Sorry, but Outlook 2003 and 2007 are huge improvements over earlier
> versions - and lacking tight integration between messaging and
> calendar/scheduling has been one of the places where free software
> really missed the boat.
No, they are *NOT* "huge improvements", they are absolute *shit*, that
make any of the minor things I occasionally want/need to do *far* harder.
And I thought I hated 2003, but 2007 I despise with a passion.
>
> And remember that firefox/openoffice are rare exceptions in RHEL/Centos
> in that they have had major-version updates since the distro release,
> even though they still are far behind 'current' now. The rest of the
> distro is much older and doesn't do much of what people do with desktops
> today (subscribing to podcasts, media playing, serving media to other
> devices, etc.).
Huh? I have no problem with streaming media, or playing pretty much any
media that I care to. What media is difficult to serve?
Sorry, but in *my* opinion, you've swallowed the Kool-Aid to the dregs.
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
