[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]

Re: Browser

On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:14:22PM +0530, Shourya Sarcar wrote:
> > *I* look at things -- Another notable thing is when people switch to
> > OpenBSD if ever they do -- I don't know how FreeBSD works here -- they
> > notice that they dont have the bash <TAB> complete ... and begin
> > bitching about it... Well, if you're going to be a weenie wanting a
> > GUI, and a mouse with which to click everything, and auto-mount and
> > auto-everything .. then stick to windows...
> Do you mean to say that using the bash auto-completion is weeniesm  ?

but getting lost when the auto-completion isn't available IS weeniesm.

> I particularly find it very nifty and useful and hate MS (one of the 1002
> reasons) for not having incorporated this feature in the NT/98/2K versions
> (DOS VM/interface)

i do hope they dont do it, and claim that they've invented it, like they "invented"
symlinks in w2k.. heh

> a) A sysad is bound to have favourites.  I feel fine with joe while my
> friends wuld swear in vi. But both of us get they work done.

its not the question of feeling fine... its how u can adapt to the availability.

> b) I rather prefer working on netconf than edit all all those 15 odd files
> running from the simple /etc/hosts to the not so nice-looking
> /etc/sendmail.conf. This does not mean that I cannot use joe/vi/pico/emacs

that's sendmail.cf btw. that's what happens if u use netconf all the time. u dont
even remember the sendmail config filename. ;P
> c)What is wrong with a GUI. While I admit that the autoism in everything
> does to a considerable extent reduce your personal involvement with the
> computer, the lack of it retards the populistic growth of an OS. For an OS
> to be successful and accepted by the common masses, it is quintessential
> that it has a GUI and "Windowish Auto features".

why are we into populistic growth of OSes? we're not advocating when we're 
adminning a box. the GUI hides all the details of the underlying features. If
u know the difference between HTML written in frontpage and HTML written in vi,
or the difference between a C file compiled to an ASM and then compiled, instead
of u writing the ASM u're self, u'll know what i'm talkin' 'bout.

> d) One can debate forever as to whether the Web should extend beyond
> standardised HTML or not. Java/
> Scripting languages and Platform specific components have their ads and
> disads but the TRUTH is that they are HERE. We cannot ignore them. We
> definitely need low memory footprint Java(Script)enabled browsers for Linux

Java definitely makes sense, but GUIs should be used _only_ where they're needed
not make a GUI for everything that's out there. gfx mode shud be used only by
proggies which _really_ need it, like simulations, games, etc. that's why i think
fb in the kernel for devices supported by X, is a real waste. except for getting
some high text resolutions, which are almost too tiny to read, it doesn't do much.
GGI on the other side has some use, but is limited. keeping the fb as modules
only which can be loaded on demand is a better thing, IMHO.

> .. {Aside : Have people checked out HotJava/NetPositive ? } I like kfm the

HotJava is one of the _slowest_ browsers I've ever seen.

> KDE File Manager which doubles up as a browser, very lightweight, but lacks
> Java*  support.

KDE2 ships with Konqueror, which _has_ Java support. but since we're anyway
talking about sysadmins here, why would a sysadmin need java? ;)