its been years since i actually seen the CD ISOs i totally forgot about those, i keep a rsync mirror on my drive so i usually just copy the install files to disk, then use Bob's mini iso to cdr or usb stick to boot up a few old PCs ,

i sort of lost touch with all the various install media,

LOL, I actually still have a old XP PC (ASUS M2NPV-VM) for just these reasons. It doesn't have XP on it ATM, but can be ready in an hour.

I use the RS232 (9-pin serial) for all kinds of hardware repairs. The "new" cards and drivers just don't compare. I don't use the 25-pin much anymore since my Zip drive died.

i did not realize how big Linux got over the years, check this, this is slackware64-current without kde, without kernel source and it still weighs in at 1500 M

Attached Thumbnails

 

1 members found this post helpful.

I like KDE programs but I use xmonad otherwise.
KDE seems to be a lot more popular with people than Gnome but I have only feeble data to support that.
(In other words, a general mood of it...and internet only)

I don't like it being tied to Qt that much, tho.

I still need these on a regular basis, since the PC Engines routerboard I'm using for proxy servers has only a serial console to connect to. No video card. Only good old Minicom.

I like this, the win9x sort of feel. That is still really the only thing I have clung onto all this time since leaving Windows entirely (well.... except for my work life (win10 yuck)).

Yea I am going to admit even now no matter what WM/DE I use, I still try to taylor it somewhat to that win9x feel.

1 members found this post helpful.

Why, what's wrong with Qt? I've always thought it was a great toolkit.

Too many major version bumps for my liking, but all toolkits seem to be guilty of this lately. At least for developers Qt makes it much easier to port software to the latest major version than GTK... and it doesn't do things like unapologetically break A{P,B}I in the middle of a major version run...

Interesting. Your post and recent experience at saving what I wanted while tossing out way too much old hardware involving booting up ancient systems that haven't seen light of screen in over a decade made me wonder what changed. All my old Windows systems had the Desktop just covered in "shortcut" icons while even my older Linux installs (as far back as Slack 10.2) had much cleaner desktops and 14.2 is absolutely empty of icons and I'm not sure why. I'm not unsure of why they are now clean but rather why I ever enjoyed a multitude of icons on the desktop.

That said not a small part of how and why MS initially beat out everyone else was good looking and very friendly and efficient access to apps. I think we have to give MS that... that they did a good job of evolving off the clunky Win 3 labyrinth Desktop paradigm. I don't see any faults in "looking like Windows". They spent a great deal of money hiring brainy people to do a proper job of refining the Desktop. My only issues with MS is their business plan and their assumption, however valid percentage wise, that Users are idiots who should be discouraged from any deep level work. Linux was made for adults and that exists in the best distros regardless of how a Desktop looks.

Additionally it should be obvious if only from the vast number of text editors that Options are a huge part of Linux in contrast to Windows. My views in this thread are based in the desire to keep Options a major thing and to eschew the tendency in so many distros to offer only one DE and at best have variations with just one different DE. I love it that Slackware has several and at one time or another I've tried each and every one and a few extras. Patrick Volkerding is a wise man indeed.

1 members found this post helpful.

I am going to expand on that, and add that even in Windows10 , the layout hasn't actually changed much from the 9x series - and this can also be said about MacOS - since its very first release , to today the overall look is well; kinda the same layout-wise and such - and you have WM/DEs that kinda resemble one or the other , XFCE is to MacOS sorta with the titlebar on the top, and a dock in the middle. So basically UIs over the years haven't......actually evolved all that much; unless you do use something more obscure like CDE or something like i3. Thats just my observations.

My guess is that people who dislike "bloated" DEs would dislike Qt for the same reason. It includes all that and the kitchen sink.

Okie, You've been a member long enough to know this kind of behavior isn't acceptable at LQ.

--jeremy

1 members found this post helpful.

For many years, I've never cared about what's on my desktop. I only see it after a fresh boot anyway, since at pretty much any other time, I have windows of various programs open and covering both monitors. I never see my desktop background and never see any files on the desktop.

One thing I do like about the later versions of Windows (I don't remember the exact version on when they introduced it -- I just use Windows for work), but just having the icons on the taskbar for open programs rather than the wide display with the window title on it. I tend to have a lot of programs open at once, so with Windows, it's nice to have your open programs on your taskbar shrunk down a little bit. But then I also really enjoy with KDE how you can have the programs on a specific monitor on the taskbar for only that monitor. I don't think Windows supports that, and I haven't dug into XFCE enough to see if it supports it.

You can do that with KDE too. I believe it's called the "Icons-only task manager" instead of the regular task manager. Cinnamon 4 also has it. Not sure about other DEs. I prefer it like that too.

1 members found this post helpful.

Ehhh....

I have a Mac for work. Not overly fond of it, to be honest. (That titlebar at the top of the window is great if you only do one thing at a time.)

Right. I suppose people could always write in raw Xlib if they wanted to....