[CentOS] Troubles for an non-IT beginner

Wed Jan 19 19:51:58 UTC 2011
m.roth at 5-cent.us <m.roth at 5-cent.us>

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 1/19/2011 12:03 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>>> 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's not the point.  You've had years to learn how to make a computer
> work like a slightly smarter typewriter, and for a long time that was
> about all they could do and everyone was happy with it.  But that's not
> what someone starting today should expect.

How much more do you do with it? I've pasted pictures and spreadsheets
into it; what else do you do? Certainly, bulleting isn't as bulletproof as
it was in my (legal) copy of WordPerfect 6.0.c for DOS, that I keep
thinking of running under wine.
>> That *is* what you're saying to me, to which I respond with "take
>> your opinion and shove it".
> OK, now it's my turn to misinterpret your position: you are saying that
> all of the work that the upstream developers are doing has no value and
> the field of computer science was complete when CentOS 5 was released
> (or was it awk...).  And I disagree.

That's absurd. What I'm saying is that much of what's added is nothing
more than eye candy, and features that almost no one actually uses. And
just *what* do you have against awk?! <g> (says the guy who learned it and
wrote 100-200 line scripts, lo, these many years ago).

I also think that to some extent, CS has gotten onto a wrong tack (and my
article on the failure of OO in general, and java in particular, will be
written as soon as my life in the RW slows down some).
>>> 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.
> My company is fairly distributed and lives on conference calls - and I
> absolutely need the calendar integration/reminders to track the
> scheduling.  As far as the email component goes, I usually have a
> thunderbird imap view of the same messages - and have used evolution
> without any real difference in capabilities except in what happens when
> I open (e.g) a visio file on a non-windows platform.  I can't think of
> anything you'd want a mailer to do that would be 'hard' in any of those
> environments.

Setting up encryption, certificates, digital sigs, how my email is
>>> 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?
> What apps are you using for (say) podcast subscription management,

Don't do podcasts.

> playing audio/video files, or serving them to upnp/DLNA devices?  If you

Playing them? Realplayer or mplayer, mostly. Ubuntu wants to use some
media player, and I haven't gotten around to doing a ps to find out what
it is. Haven't been asked to serve video/audio.

> are using 3rd party sources you are making my point about CentOS not
> making a great desktop, and if you enable more than one 3rd party yum
> repository you are setting the system up for future conflicts.

What 3rd party software? So far, everything's in the distro.
>> Sorry, but in *my* opinion, you've swallowed the Kool-Aid to the dregs.
> That good software is still being developed and updates are
> worthwhile???  Yes, I believe that.

Yes, I agree that some updates are worthwhile, and good software is still
being developed - don't try to suggest I was saying *nothing* new is good;
all I was saying is that the majority of New! Features! aren't worth it.