And you people LIKE linux!?!?!?!

[pitupepito2000]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The middle click made sense. When X was designed atleast.

it still makes sense

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Also, the problem is just as easily solved by knowing how to clear a text box with a key combo. It goes both ways - things don't have to be just like windows to be "right."

 

[pitupepito2000]

Originally posted by: drag
Whatever the clipboard situation is crap.

it's crap it's crap it's crap it's crap.


2 ways to do something is cool, if it worked correctly.


keyboard combo = long term buffer.
middle click = short term.


Then you could do something like (some people do) have a Gvim window or something open full of commonly used commands and phrases. Keep it in a corner, and treat it like a buffer. Middle click here, middle click there. So on and so forth. URL, phrases, whatever.

Then when you have something you need to copy and paste over and over again, even thru other more inconsiquencial copy and pastes then you use the keyboard combo.

That way you have 2 copy'n'paste buffers in X. You can use both, or choose the one you like the most.

HOWEVER. IT doesn't work, it's broken. That's the way it's SUPPOSE to work, but many applications can't handle that. Many applications have different ways to do the keyboard combo, some when you copy with middle click it puts it in the buffer that's suppose to be for the keyboard combo, and visa versa.

So when you middle click here, middle click their, you get the old copy. WTF? Then the keyboard combo works and shows the stuff you just highlighted and middle clicked?

That doesn't make sense. So you end up with 2 different buffers and 4-5 different possible ways it could react if you try to copy stuff based on the brain-dead-ness of the application your using. Most applications work fine, but there are enough older stuff floating or badly written stuff around that it just makes it confusing.

I personally agree with your point, and think that the idea of using vim or emacs as a buffer for the middle click is great. I myself haven't run into any apps that have problems using either of the two types of copy and buffers. If an application is old or ins't being developed, what is it doing in your linux box? sooner or later an old app will become a security hole.

 

[pitupepito2000]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: drag
It's not idiotic. X windows is something that evolved, not something that was created.

Ok, so it evolved into something idiotic . Anyway, you claim it will be fixed. Thus linux is not yet ready. If it was ready, it would either not need to be fixed, or already be fixed .

If it needs to be fixed for linux to be ready, then windows and other OS's should never come out of your garage

 

[pitupepito2000]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: drag
It's not idiotic. X windows is something that evolved, not something that was created.

Ok, so it evolved into something idiotic . Anyway, you claim it will be fixed. Thus linux is not yet ready. If it was ready, it would either not need to be fixed, or already be fixed .

What?! I am insencensed.

Like there isn't anything about Windows that pisses you off.

LOTS of stuff about windows annoys me. But copy/paste, which I use constantly, works easily .

Like why hasn't the CLI realy improved that much since DOS 7.10.

Tab completion, for loops, stderr vs stdout redirection, etc. It's pretty mediocre now (big step up ).

Why do developer tools cost extra?

I don't see where I'm supposed to pay for these free developer tools.

Why isn't there anything like Apt-get or Yum for Windows?

Because installers became standard long ago. Packages usually include most of their dependencies.

Why isn't there any middle click paste into a terminal?

Enable quick edit mode, and then right-click to paste.

Why is it so hard to upgrade computers and keep the same OS?

Because windows takes more advantage of hardware it's presented, so you can't just swap out the IDE controller. Note that on linux, you'd have just as much trouble if you switched to an IDE controller you didn't have a driver for (happens all the time if you squeeze the bloat out of your kernel when you compile it).

Why can't you change drive letters around?

You can. You can do it without a reboot in the NTs. You can dynamically reassign them, mount/unmount drives, etc. Very convenient. If you're asking, "why can't I rename D to C after installing a bunch of stuff and have it work?", that's like renaming /usr to /user (see below, it's just a mount point). Drives are actually referred to as \Device\somestuffidontremember.

Why do they still have this C: D: A: crap, and not a decent directory tree yet?

It's for backwards compatibility. NTs can mount drives anywhere. If you moved your /usr drive to be called /user, it wouldn't work. If you try building a distro with /lib named /Libraries, you'll be pulling your hair out. Backwards compatibility is annoying, but important.

Why can't I have a application menu when I middle/right/left click the background?

Works for me... I'm sure there are less-drastic extensions that do that. Of course, since I have shortcuts for the only apps I use on my desktop/quicklaunch/aliased in the "run" menu, there's no need.

So everything has limitations. Doesn't mean that it's not a capable enviroment, for the most part copy/paste works just the same as in Windows, you don't have to use middle click copy if you don't want too. Hell, it doesn't even exist as far as most people are concerned.

It was just an example. Someone has to fend off the "hippie pinko trolls", as Ameesh likes to call people who don't give ~$300 every ~two years to Microsoft for miniscule feature additions, and point out GNU/Linux's imperfections now and then .

You have some good points right here CTho9305 , but I will only go back to windows when it has something better than "bash" built in with Windows. In other words, when monkeys, fly out of my a**

The last line is actually from "Comedy CentraL"---- "the daily show"

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The middle click made sense. When X was designed atleast.

it still makes sense

Yes and no. The Mozilla example is a decent one IMO. If it changes, it changes. If it doesn't so be it.

I'm too drunk to read the rest of this thread. And I'm not really drunk.

 

[chsh1ca]

Whether linux is "ready" is entirely dependant on what it is to be ready for. Arbitrarily saying "It isn't ready" is just wrong. If that were the case I wouldn't have been using it as a desktop for 5+years. It certainly is ready. The question is for whom?
If it's the OP of this thread, obviously not, and maybe never. If it's your average home user, possibly, it is entirely dependant on what they use their computer for. Barring specifically written for windows packages that are needed by all staff in a company, it is pheasible that no corporation needs to have Windows (anything) on the desktop. I cannot think of a single clerical duty that cannot be done on linux in that environment, and likely any Windows-specific software for such tasks would run flawlessly via WineX or Wine, given the bulk of applications that have problems with WineX or Wine are games.
I'll say the same thing I say every time threads like this pop up: Linux is ready, the users aren't.

 

[zettler]

For a couple of years now, I have been interested in trying out Linux BUT have been afraid.

I just reviewed this thread and at first, I thought I was reading jibberish or listening to a bunch of Government employees talk acronyms - the only two acronyms I recognized was OS (operating system, not Monica) and WTF (you know). And now I am more scared than ever!

I have been using (on occasion), Firefox, Mozilla and the like but stick with IE due to familarity. And yes, I have had countless nights/mornings without sleep due to issues from Windows XP Pro, and before that WIn 98se, etc., but I guess I am not ready to take the plunge quite yet.

However, that could change if there was a "primer" or the like that could take people like myself and "convert" them to at least adding it to their system.

Any suggestions out there?

 

[Nothinman]

Boot knoppix, it's Linux that runs from CD so there's no commitment.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: zettler
For a couple of years now, I have been interested in trying out Linux BUT have been afraid.

I just reviewed this thread and at first, I thought I was reading jibberish or listening to a bunch of Government employees talk acronyms - the only two acronyms I recognized was OS (operating system, not Monica) and WTF (you know). And now I am more scared than ever!

I have been using (on occasion), Firefox, Mozilla and the like but stick with IE due to familarity. And yes, I have had countless nights/mornings without sleep due to issues from Windows XP Pro, and before that WIn 98se, etc., but I guess I am not ready to take the plunge quite yet.

However, that could change if there was a "primer" or the like that could take people like myself and "convert" them to at least adding it to their system.

Any suggestions out there?

If you can't bring yourself to switch from IE to Firefox/Mozilla/Opera due to familarity issues, don't bother with Linux.
It's a great OS with alot of great programs available, but it's not Windows, and it never will be.