KDE 3.5.6 released w Kubuntu packages

[Donn]

> > Yes, but then why emphasise apt-get and company? All my comments are in
> > the light of the assumption that Ubuntu is trying to play in the same
> > traffic that Windows plays in.
>
> apt-get is something which windows has /no/ equivalent of.  It has its
> drawbacks, upgrading apps on old distros and so on, but the /whole/
> thing is an enhancement over windows.
Oh I know that! I was impressed back in Fedora 1 (my first real distro) and 
it's yum thingy). 

> Unfortunately it has the consequence (IMHO) of meaning that less work
> has been done on installing software outside the repo world, but thats
> something which is being worked on by many people on many projects
> around the world.
This was more-or-less what I meant by "why emphasize apt-get?" I mean, either 
it's the bees-knees or it ain't. If the latest software can be apt-getted 
then it makes apt-get entirely worthwhile. If we have to pick and choose then 
it loses a lot of its power. I look forward to the new talk of a unified 
installation system.

> > I give that I may have had an unusual experience, but my Windows years
> > were nothing like that. I use the example of my pal in Johannesburg who
> > is still on Windows 98 and he runs Firefox 2.0. That's what Windows users
> > expect, it's "natural" (as it was to me before the truth began to dawn.)
>
> But those are also the windows users who probably cause an absolute
> nightmare for every user of this list when they drag them round to
> clear all the spyware out of the gutter.
Maybe, maybe not. If they are using FF2 then they are pretty safe, They can 
also run AVG anti-virus for free on win 98 and be even safer.

It does not defeat the point I made.

> Don't forget that for most windows users a new operating system ~= a
> new computer.
I am not sure what you mean here. In my case, and the people I know, we all 
bought our machines almost 10 years ago and there is no plan to do so again 
until the rust has claimed the pins on the CPU! Money's too tight to 
mention ... oh oh oh moneyyyy.

> You missed my point in both this and the previous section 
Sorry about that. I like the sound missed points make as they zip over my 
head :)

> - my point 
> was that I cannot open a doc file created in Office 2003(?) with
> Office 97, in fact I have never been able to successfully (ie. that it
> works fully) open an office document with a previous version of
> office.
> Now this is a deliberate ploy - why would you update Office otherwise
> - but it doesn't change that fact that a windows box can /effectively/
> (ie, it doesn't open what they want it to) for users more often than
> you think.
Sure, but Office 2003 will probably *run* (which is my point) on Windows 98 
without missing a beat. I say that under advisement because I don't know. 
Microsoft make it an absolute point to maintain the "run anywhere" capacity, 
so I can say something like I did and be 90% sure I am right.

> I think you are overestimating the ease of using windows.  It wasn't
> until I went back to windows (on a laptop) after using linux for 9
> months did I /really/ start to see allot of the things which are
> simply bizarre and unintuitive about it.  These were things I just
> took for granted at the time as I grew up in the windows world
Herein lies the nub. Whatever bizarre twisty-turns users have to make they 
have learned all the moves and that's reality to them. 

Anyway, this conversation is not about the "ease" of windows, it's about one 
point: "app run anywhere-ability"

> coming back to windows it seems far more of a pain in the arse than
> linux.
Oh hell yeah - I cannot live without Konqueror. I am so spoiled now :)


/d