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. > 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. >> 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. >> 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, playing audio/video files, or serving them to upnp/DLNA devices? If you 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. > 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. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com