| Distributions
Sep 28 2002 on news alive and angry |
All right, first of all: I agree with Mosfet - second: let me contribute to the age-old battle of the distributions that almost certainly will continue here.
I've been using both RedHat Linux (which always seemed very crappy to me, f.e. using beta-c++libs and beta kernel sources and so on) and also SuSE (which was MUCH better but completely overloaded with unnecessary software) or Mandrake (which had the advantage that a kid could install it). There are so many distributions that have advantages and disadvantages and I've got to say that the best one I've ever encountered is Linux From Scratch.
There, you only get a step-by-step guide on how to set up and what packages to download for a complete, working Linux System that exactly does what you want. The only problem is that you need a lot of time (3 days) and quite some knowledge of Linux, if you plan to make it perfect for you.
I'm using a customized, distro-free Linux that even runs both hardware-accelerated OpenGL games and Office Apps and LaTeX scripts etc. It's mine and EVERYTHING works because noone has tainted any libraries or package dependencies! I would suggest that everyone with a little more advanced Linux-knowledge than the Mandrake Manual should try LFS.
Anyone else using LFS?
Ciao, Reto |
|  | | Thanx
Sep 8 2002 on content Quicksilver (Kill me!) |
By the way: don't mistake me - I made this wallpaper with the GIMP! |
| | | Hangman's song
Sep 7 2002 on content Quicksilver (Kill me!) |
yeah, why should you want to KILL ME and so on? Because I am insane enough to not use Microsoft products and still NOT HATING THEM. Some of them are very powerful - Microsoft's not sooo bad! Ok, Linux is (for users like me) the only sensible choice, but so what?
I use Linux because it's cheaper and more transparent and more stable and (really!) more user friendly (given the case that user-friendly docs are available ) and because of some other reasons. But I don't think that Gates wants to take over the world.
I WOULD use win-dos if it would prove enough functionality for me, but it simply is not powerful enough for the things I want to do (but to be just: with WinXP Mega-Macrosoft has done a not-so-bad-job).
And I don't need silly symbols like or to say that there currently is no "I Love you" virus that is able to run on my system or kill it. I don't need to fight WinDOS. Or Megahard. I simply use the system that's better for me.
Linux. (LFS). |
| | | Thanks
Sep 7 2002 on content Quicksilver (Kill me!) |
Thanks a lot, it's not a work that took hours - but maybe people will get the message. |
| | | Well done...
Aug 16 2002 on content KDE Violet Metal |
I don't understand all those bad votings - this image shows a nice result of hard work.
Maybe many of KDE-look's visitors want hardcore transparency- and shadows-hacking with gigantic effects and breath-taking animations (that appear after clicking on a button). That would be cool, but while waiting i'll be glad to see some more cool wallpapers.
Good job, keep it up
Ciao, Reto |
| | | Just a hint...
Apr 2 2002 on content Newsticker |
better use SuSE Professional, it's got better docs and more features. But even there KNewsTicker isn't described.
Maybe it's time for a kde-features site... It seems to me that many people miss great features just because they don't know about them. |
| | | Look!
Mar 16 2002 on content Tribute to NYC |
What is meant by kde-look.org?
KDE - the K Desktop Environment. What the K stands for is not completely known to me, but they say that it's the letter that stands after the L like "Linux" in the latin alphabet.
"org" means organization, mostly used as suffixes of US organizations and also open source pages.
"look" means "see!" as well as "to see" as well as "to know" or "know!" as well as "feel!" or "to feel".
Why is this piece of work a bad one if shown on a page like this? A page that has "look" in its name as well as, as far as I understand it "feel", why not upload things like this? I have not often seen pictures that drew my attention to them like these kinds of pictures. Maybe because I've seen them and I think of them to be very beautyful. Why they are beautyful or why not I let you decide.
This is not about politics, right. Just about beauty, i believe. But now I've learned to know that many poeple see beauty differently as others and fight them because of this.
Is this site not about look & feel? It's a question, not a judgment of the previous comments. |
| |
Search people
Current visitors
New users
Birthdays
Most active users
Back
|
|
