Day Brown wrote: > > "Steven C. Darnold" wrote: > > I am unfamiliar with your "control center". > > Is this part of the graphical menu you are using? > Common on the several distros I have seen so far. KDE is > fairly, but not completely uniform, but all of them had a > 'control center' app on the list that popped up when you > clicked on the lower corner where windoz puts the 'start' > box.
Sorry, Day, this is double-dutch to me. You are talking about some sort of graphical menu program, not Linux. I use Linux on a survPC. It does not have the horsepower to waste on point-and-click eye-candy. I do not have KDE on any of my systems. I do not have Gnome on any of my systems. I am truly unfamiliar with your "control center" thing. > This is a convention most pc users are familiar with, > the 'X' in the upper right to close an app, and the 'start > in the lower left to open up a menu of other apps. Rubbish. Show me this "convention" in DOS. Show me this "convention" in Windows 3.1. Your "convention" came to the PC with Windows 95. The PC (and its conventions) existed a decade before that. I find it odd that a champion of DOS should be thinking of the PC in terms of the Windows GUI. Perhaps we should change the Subject line to: ------------------------------------ Call me Crazy - I still Love Windows ------------------------------------ > > Either your menu is mis-behaving or you do not understand > > how the menu operates. > It was misbehaving. How do you know? You are ready to blame Linux for every little problem; however, it seems more likely to me that you are the cause of your own misfortune. > the next boot hung at the message a lot of Linux users know: > LI A LILO problem. Most likely "Kernel image not found." Did you install a kernel? Did you tell LILO about it? I'm no expert on LILO (I never use it myself), but I think that whenever you alter the kernel, you need to update LILO. > I did something windoz users know all to well: re-installed. This was a stupid waste of time. There was probably nothing wrong with your installation. > Off hand, I dont think the first install went right. Here you go again, blaming the installation. > I could not get Netscape communicator running on it; Really? > it would close as soon as I tried to download mail, It? You mean Netscape? So it was running well enough to move around and configure your mail parameters. You did configure your mail parameters, didn't you? Maybe that's the reason it didn't download. > even though kmail had no problems. Well, looks like your installation was working afterall. > The game cd that I tried to install ran so slow it was > useless, So you concluded that because the games ran slow, there was something wrong with Linux? My, my. Haven't you been listening? All that point-and-click eye-candy puts a tremendous burden on a survPC. Of course your computer ran slow! The solution to the problem is *not* reinstallation. You should reduce the eye-candy. As I have said many times: brain-dead, point-and-click, "user-friendly" distributions are for up-to-date computers. With a survPC you need to rely more on your own brain to do the work. Cheers, Steven To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
