They can be clicked. I do it every day. Without writing a widget, a wrapper
shell script is all that's needed. How often do people use Notepad? VI, VIM,
and emacs are the equivalents of those. So, just add an icon to your desktop
or wherever that is a wrapper to execute whatever terminal prog in an
xterm(or eterm or gnome-terminal, etc).
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jens Benecke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 1:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Win4Lin-users] running windows commands from linux
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:57:39PM -0400, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > At 10:46 PM 7/24/01 +0200, Jens Benecke wrote:
> > >On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 03:10:51PM -0400, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > > > At 08:50 PM 7/24/2001 +0200, Jens Benecke wrote:
> > > > >On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 01:28:36PM -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DOCUMENTS IN EMAIL EFFORTLESSLY!!!!! etc....
> > > > >
> > > > >You would perhaps get a few more clueless beginners to buy your
> > > > >distro, but you will most certainly scare off *ALL* experienced
> > > > >Linux users ...
> > > > this attitude is one of the prime reasons linux faces
> such an uphill
> > > > battle.
> > >What are you proposing? Dumb down Linux to get accepted by
> the "stupid
> > >masses" (quote from Futurama, not my own)?
> > No, I'm objecting to the (apparentl) arrogant attitude frequently
> > espoused by linux bigots.
>
> OK.
>
> Please don't count me as a bigot. I want people to have a
> *choice*. But
> having choice must include the choice of not using a GUI, and using vi
> instead of KWrite.
>
> I'm afraid if Linux is to be tuned down to mainstream the
> availability of
> those apps will suffer (because they can't be clicked). Guess
> why Microsoft
> makes such an effort to hide the DOS framework under Windows.
>
> > >Sorry, been there, done that. I've been using the Web and
> Usenet since
> > >1994, when it was _not_ totally swamped with pr0n, SPAM,
> banner ads,
> > >"E-Z click-here buy-now" javascript pop-ups, and all the rest.
> > color me unimpressed. i was around back before there was a
> web or usenet
> > (and all email was via UUCP). i'm well aware of all this.
>
> OK. You know what I mean then.
>
> > >I don't dislike the idea of making technology accessible to 'the
> > >masses'. What makes me want to cry out loud (some of the
> time) is that
> > >people start stripping (crippling) useful technology
> because they assume
> > >that "most people" are simply too retarded to use it and
> get confused.
> > i've never claimed that all of linux is for everyone. nor
> do i advocate
> > dumbing down linux so mom&pop can use it. the original
> issue was "it's
> > convenient to be able to open an email attachment right from the
> > message". i agree. you're the one who made the sweeping
> statement about
> > "all experience linux users". arrogant. and demonstrably wrong.
>
> Wrong, maybe. I was perhaps a little paranoid. OK.
>
> But I still fail to see the "uphill battle" you were
> referring to. Granted,
> Linux is not as 'user-friendly' as Windows, if
> 'user-friendly' means being
> able to directly click on READ_THIS.txt.vbs attachments.
>
> > >Making Linux more 'user-friendly' would probably include
> removing or at
> > >least hiding xterm, because it is "user-unfriendly". It
> would perha..
> > >..uld complain they cannot access "their computer".
> > this is all a huge strawman.
>
> Perhaps. Compare it to web pages who use Javascript links
> "because it's
> more user friendly". Or pages who consist of one 1.5MB Flash
> file because
> "it's more user friendly".
>
> Those admins don't give a damn about the perhaps 30% users they cannot
> reach, because they simply fail to see that their way of being more
> user-friendly means excluding many people.
>
> I almost see that coming in Linux if people start complaining
> about not
> being able to open Melissa vi... er, Word attachments directly.
>
> > >Keep Linux honest. Not user-friendly. Don't hide or disable
> > >functionality just because you ASSUME that many people would not
> > >like/use/understand it. That's simply arrogant.
> > agreed. no more arrogant than not wanting to put in
> features that are
> > convenient because you perceive it as pandering to the masses.
>
> I assume you know why e.g. Outlook is such a big virus threat.
>
> Yes, exactly. By e.g. allowing people to directly open
> unknown attachments
> without thinking.
>
> No, I don't think that is generally a bad idea. I only think
> that _some_
> apps should not make things so easy that people stop using
> their brain.
> That is BAD in the long term, even if it is easier in the short term.
>
> > >When people install Linux, they don't expect Windows, they expect
> > >functionality.
> > agreed. none of which has anything to do with the specific
> issue you
> > started in on originally.
>
> You got me carried away. ;)
>
> My point was that user-friendlyness can go too far. If you
> _really_ want
> 100% perfect user-friendlyness pay a secretary. A young, unmarried one
> preferably.
>
> ;)
>
>
> --
> Jens Benecke
> http://www.hitchhikers.de/ - Die kostenlose Mitfahrzentrale
> f�r ganz Europa
>
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
