Steve Litt wrote:
> I know what you mean Chris. I too have a had time mapping GUI tools to Linux
> configuration. To this day, my Linux configuration tool of choice is VI.
Oddly, that is exactly where I ended up...well,
VIM actually...
It's just that I can't seem to tell what "they re
trying to do" when using a GUI...with one of the
shells or a text editor it's more straight forward...
It's good to know I'm not the only one that thinks
that way...
From an article I read last night it seems to be
a concensus amongst linux advocates that Linux
needs to become even more Windows-user friendly to
make that break into the desktop market...
So far I've just been confused by it all..:)
But there is one stistic I've noticed...I think it
was that something like 40% of windows users still
have Win98 installed.
I'm one of them...When WinME came out it was such
a dog I never migrated...and with Win2000 I hated
the idea of not having easy access to DOS and all
my utils...And the stuff I'm hearing about
Longhorn...Forget about it!
I have a hunch I'm not the only one out there....
Looking at linux so far, I'm beginning to wonder
why I didn't migrate to it sooner...and now that I
realize there exists things like DOSEMU and WINE I
really don't see any reason to stick with Windows
anymore....(although i'll set up a dual boot if
Ican get a distro to recognize my NICs...and I'm
now on Verizon...which the Knoppix Live CD has at
least let this system browse the web - first!
> I
> think your GUI confusion makes sense. Linux's basic functionalities are
> mapped to both by the C libraries and by the commands (and by Perl
> functions). I've seen a much less one to one mapping from GUI tools to Linux
> functionalities.
>
> SteveT
So are Perl functions "built-in" to most linux
kernels? Or does Perl need to be compiled in or
moduled?
Thanks,
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:33:33 EDT