On 1/19/2011 12:03 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> 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's not the point. You've had years to learn how to make a computer
work like a slightly smarter typewriter, and for a long time that was
about all they could do and everyone was happy with it. But that's not
what someone starting today should expect.
> That *is* what you're saying to me, to which I respond with "take
> your opinion and shove it".
OK, now it's my turn to misinterpret your position: you are saying that
all of the work that the upstream developers are doing has no value and
the field of computer science was complete when CentOS 5 was released
(or was it awk...). And I disagree.
>> 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.
My company is fairly distributed and lives on conference calls - and I
absolutely need the calendar integration/reminders to track the
scheduling. As far as the email component goes, I usually have a
thunderbird imap view of the same messages - and have used evolution
without any real difference in capabilities except in what happens when
I open (e.g) a visio file on a non-windows platform. I can't think of
anything you'd want a mailer to do that would be 'hard' in any of those
environments.
>> 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?
What apps are you using for (say) podcast subscription management,
playing audio/video files, or serving them to upnp/DLNA devices? If you
are using 3rd party sources you are making my point about CentOS not
making a great desktop, and if you enable more than one 3rd party yum
repository you are setting the system up for future conflicts.
> Sorry, but in *my* opinion, you've swallowed the Kool-Aid to the dregs.
That good software is still being developed and updates are
worthwhile??? Yes, I believe that.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
