Les Mikesell wrote: > On 1/19/2011 10:43 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> >>> The difference is that open source server software has been 'feature >>> complete' for ages and the standards processes that change >>> client/server interactions are very, very slow - so outdated versions of server >>> software is not a problem as long as bug/security fixes are made. >>> That's not true for desktop applications and environments. If you >>> don't have something current you are missing the improvements that many >>> thousands of man-hours of work have made. Personally, I use Windows at >> <snip> >> I'll disagree here: I've seen hardly any "improvements" in any of the >> (admittedly not a lot) of software I run. As a definition of this, let >> me note that in '95, PC Mag ran a review of word processors, and noted that >> 90% of the users (then) used only 10% of the features, and the other 10% >> of users who *did* use those features only used them about 10% of the >> time. > > You are biased by having learned to live with the restrictions of old So, what I like how something works is all "old cruft", and I should get with the program, and not have opinions on what I want and how I want it to work? That *is* what you're saying to me, to which I respond with "take your opinion and shove it". > cruft. At the very least you have to be able to exchange data files and > view all common media files on a desktop. What do you do when someone > gives you a docx or xlsx file? openoffice opens both. And I have no idea what "features" M$ added, or whether, as usual, it was just a change to the file format solely and exclusively to force people to buy the latest versions of their crap. And upgrades to open them I'd file under "bugfix", after M# introduced bugs. > >> The last "oh, I like this" feature I can remember was when firefox >> introduced tabs. On the other hand, a *lot* of "improvements" I find >> more and more objectionable, such as thunderbird trying *very* hard to look >> and act more and more like Lookout, er, Outlook, and I *LOATHE* the latest >> versions of Outlook. > > Sorry, but Outlook 2003 and 2007 are huge improvements over earlier > versions - and lacking tight integration between messaging and > calendar/scheduling has been one of the places where free software > really missed the boat. No, they are *NOT* "huge improvements", they are absolute *shit*, that make any of the minor things I occasionally want/need to do *far* harder. And I thought I hated 2003, but 2007 I despise with a passion. > > And remember that firefox/openoffice are rare exceptions in RHEL/Centos > in that they have had major-version updates since the distro release, > even though they still are far behind 'current' now. The rest of the > distro is much older and doesn't do much of what people do with desktops > today (subscribing to podcasts, media playing, serving media to other > devices, etc.). Huh? I have no problem with streaming media, or playing pretty much any media that I care to. What media is difficult to serve? Sorry, but in *my* opinion, you've swallowed the Kool-Aid to the dregs. mark