On Thu, 04 Dec 1997 17:59:53 +0000, James O Flynn
>> But how much of this has anything to do with KDE?
>> T And a new, less powerful, permission system is quite
>> orthogonal to whether a distribution uses KDE or not.
>quite right. That's why I said "what would be cool". The idea of a new
>distribution is unecessary, I like kde as a desktop and an existing
>distrib with a kde setup would be nice, more over as an effective PC OS
>for the ordinary user, something based around linux/kde, but without a
>full weight unix system, as this would be unecessary, would be quite
>cool. It would be effectively be a freely available OS/2 / Windows/Mac
>replacement the average user could cope with and like.
If there were to be a better configuration system to surround X that
would make it on the whole easier to work with, that would indeed be
Again, KDE is orthogonal to that.
Major X problems include:
a) So which defaults are coming from where?
b) Where *are* those xauth settings being set?
c) And what's making it pick *this* resolution?
These *aren't* resolved by anything I see in KDE.
Quote:>Linux is a Unix/NT/VMS replacement more than a Windows replacement. It
>is a little overwhelming to the non-technical. I think that with a
>"nifty" interface, ie kde, there might be an niche for a free
>single-user personal OS. I also feel, maybe for subversive reasons, that
>we should make it our duty to make such a thing available to people.
KDE may be useful once X is up and running, but the things that make X
hard to configure aren't resolved by any of the things I see KDE doing.
The "nifty" interface may come as KDE develops; I suspect that things
like Caldera's "COAS" may prove more crucial.
Windows95, Word97, Excel95: With all the criticisms of Microsoft, at
least they provide "best-before" dating on many of their products...