Yeah, I agree with you here. Got one question for you though. Are you sure that the window transparency takes any overhead when not used?? I am not so sure. And I am not so sure that it is the cause of code bloat either (remember that this technology was made available before the 486 was a mainstream cpu). Also, now that X has moved to x.org instead of Xfree86, lets see what happens. I am pretty sure that the development pace of X will pick up now that the egos at Xfree86 are out of the picture.hugoc wrote:Granted, and absolutely, but that's no reason to be repeating those errors in Linux, I'm sure you agree. It's plain to see that there are a great many uses out there, of which the desktop is only one, and Linux will do very well if it can not only adapt to the needs of the particular user or task but do so transparently. Currently, both are only done partially. Linux can be optimised for a particular task, but only so far (no way to turn off network window transparency for a standalone system) and with a lot of user involvement (Yoper's developer said that all of what he had done for speed could be done for any other distro, but it would take a lot of time and in-depth knowledge).?
First of all, I'm not the typical desktop user, I am actually an enthusiast and I like to tinker. Secondly, where would we be if James Watt had said, "hey, screw this steam-engine crap, horses are working out just fine"? Just because what I have now seems perfectly satisfactory doesn't mean that I might not find something even better, so I'm open-minded and willing to experiment.
How can anyone argue with this logic?? Good one! 
Yup. So true. However, it is the different distros that are making noise on unseating MS. Torvalds himself said that unseating MS will just be an unintentional sideffectAbsolutely, but all the hoo-har in the Linux world right now is about the desktop market and how to unseat Microsoft. It seems that everyone wants to go there and I'm just offering my $0.02 on how they might be able to. I'm not saying that the core of Linux needs to change just for the desktop because plainly that would damage what has made it such a great server OS (for instance), however, we might also consider that one size does not fit all and perhaps the OS that made such a great e-commerce server might not also make a great desktop OS for the computer illiterate?
I agree. A standard would be nice in this regard but I don't really see it as a necessity. The two big packaging systems (not installers) are rpm and dpkg. There are others but I would say that 90-95% of all binary packages are built using either one of those. Apt, urpmi and so on are not packaging systems but installers and they are command line based. I don't see that as a problem either since 99% of Linux products are actually command line based and the graphical stuff is just a point and click shell sitting on top of the command line stuff. I think that is a strength since if somebody makes a bad gui for a program, anybody else can build a new gui based on the exact same program but I digressMy point is that for a desktop user, Installshield is easy and transparent. The power user such as yourself can pick holes, but you don't need Installshield anyway. Linux should develop some kind of unified installer system, or settle on a standard it already has like apt. The trouble is that everybody is pulling in different directions, some developers release apt packages, some rpm, some are distributing source. We need to decide what method we're using and just announce, hey, from now on everybody needs to get using apt (or whatever). And then develop apt and make it as user-friendly and intuitive as possible for the desktop users, and remember to retain the advanced options for people such as yourself.
If all major programs found in the Linux world are found as both rpm and deb package then I would think that it would be a very good thing indeed and this problem would be mostly eliminated. I actually see rpm as the bigger problem here since the different distros based on rpm cannot always share rpm packages between them. This shortcoming isn't as evident with deb packages.
Hehehe! Good stuff! I remember drinking that beer called Moosehead or something like that. Pretty good! Btw, I am glad to see more Linux techies hanging around BP6.com! Hope to see more of you here in the forums!Sure! Canadian beer is better than American beer.