On May 31, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
>
> So, what is it? is Solaris a desktop or a server operating system?
> come on, admit it, you're just burning to say, "Matty, its a server
> OS!"
>
Don't make the mistake again of putting words in my mouth. Solaris is
both, and it is improving quite nicely in both areas. I'd say the
"desktop" part is developer oriented right now, or administrator
oriented, not "normal people" oriented. This is improving however.
The server part is no different, however. Most linux distros are
"easier" to administrate for somebody who hasn't spent time in UNIX
before. That doesn't make them technically better, but they are
(generally) more usable from a newbie's perspective. Again, Solaris
(OSOL) is improving in this area. So, both. Don't attempt a career as
a psychologist.
But the thing is, my requirements are *very* simple; if KDE 3.5.2 worked, along with Amarok, and the performance of the Solaris xorg was 'snappy' rather than the current sloppy; I'd be a very happy man.
>
> Lets see; on one had you have a bag of half baked rubbish, collated
> together, and called GNOME every 6 months OR you have on the other
> hand, a desktop where all the applications have been developed to
> work together in an integrated fashioned, called KDE.
>
That is your opinion. You are entitled to it, and you are of course
welcome to express it. I would, however, suggest you express it with
civility, something you seem to have not learned yet.
How so? I tried to get something moving in GNOME a while back - what did I get 'thats someone elses responsibility' in respects to getting a tool up and running to make administration a Linux machine a little easier.
> Sun has limited resources, is it wise to invest so much time and
> money into a desktop (GNOME) that requires so much TLC when the
> better option would have been to choose KDE which is already
> 'there' interms of desktop usability, integration, well written
> documentation, good GUI based development tools etc. etc.
>
Funny, Ubuntu doesn't seem to be having a problem being "usable."
Last I checked, Ubuntu was Gnome. I believe RH's default is Gnome
2.8, and the large majority of people using RH use Gnome. Between
those two distros, you've got a heck of a lot of gnome in the desktop-
unix space. KDE has a place too (Suse), but it's quite obvious Gnome
isn't the pile of garbage you allude to.
Look at Rhythmbox; compare Rhythmbox to Amarok - I can sync my iPod, listen to music, create play lists etc. etc. all from the same application.
> But hey, you keep drinking the GNOME koolaid, one day GNOME just
> might actually achieve something besides being a 'me too' desktop.
>
What is that supposed to mean? Sorry, I'm not caught up with the pre-
teen lingo. As for the second part, I think Gnome has already done
that, seeing as it's one of the most widely deployed desktop
environment in the unix space.
KDE still sits at around 60%. From what it appears; the overseas marketshare is alot higher.
David
PS - I personally prefer KDE myself, that doesn't mean I'm going to
run around bashing projects WITH NO BASIS like you are. PLEASE
support your statements from now on, better yet - don't make them.
Look at the applications on KDE; they speak for themselves! maybe my writing ability at this time of the afternoon is rather crap, but setup two machines, and compare; compare the usability and integration of KOffice compared to OpenOffice.org; compare the ease of use of KDE PIM with Evolution. Compare the feature richness of Amarok compared to Rhythmbox.
Matty
_______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
