[sclug] Choice of window managers

[larshaggqvist at onetel.com]

Quoting Will Dickson <wrd at glaurung.demon.co.uk>:

> No, what did it for me was:
>
> - constantly being patronised by the GUI. "Hi there, I'm
> Clippy^WWindows. The file 'experimentIveJustWrittenWhichDoesntWork.exe'
> is a program. If you delete this program, [FUD FUD FUD]. Are you sure
> you want me to do what you just fscking well told me to instead of what
> I think you should have [you incompetent moron who ought to be drooling
> at a TV instead]?" That, and its habit of concealing important
> information from you, and / or translating it (lossily) into luserspeak,
> so that you have to translate it back into real terminology before you
> can work out what it's saying. My thankfully brief exposure to XP
> indicates that both of these problems are now a lot worse. (Please
> excuse the venting, my exposure to XP was quite recent. Ugh!)
>
> - the equally constant feeling of low-grade paranoia, caused by knowing
> that the OS vendor is basically an enemy, and the product infrastructure
> design of low quality. If I install this minor driver patch, will my
> system come back up again when I reboot, or will I be looking at a 3-day
> unscheduled outage while I reinstall and reconfigure everything? Will
> the next service pack send all my personal details back to Redmond? Is
> there something really evil and invasive buried in the enormous EULA for
> this security patch I need? Am I going to be coerced into upgrading to a
> new version I don't want, which is worse than this, which will cost me a
> lot of money, and which will be loaded to the gunwales with invasive DRM
> which will try to take my machine away from me?
>
> The first point might not apply to the average user, but I'd say the
> second ought to - the DRM aspect in particular. The point at which I
> thought I might have to "upgrade" from 2000 to XP was the point at which
> I actually decided to upgrade to Linux instead.

I empathise with Will's comments, but for me it's that...

  - Linux is defiintively peer reviewed
  - the source is out there for all to see and criticise (if they wish)
  - there's transparency to the decision making behind future developments
  - there's real collaboration without having to sign away my development soul
  - if you look around, there's better support
  - I don't have to buy my way out of incompatibility or lack of features

It's a philosphy thing for me; but do not misunderstand, I'm quite 
happy working
with MS software if it's my clients preference. They make their choices and I
make mine. Niether do I believe in being evangelical about it - it's not a
religion, it won't save my soul (if I have one and it needs and can be
daved...), it's just a heap of code!

Lars Haggqvist