Other "Lightweight Desktop" vs "feature-rich and resource intensive"

Anyone else remember using a CLI on a TI thermal "terminal" over a 300baud dialup and then various ROFF type tools to create professional documents? I can't believe we never did any serious work like that.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
Well that's an...interesting...comment.
Click to expand...

Is it?

What is Ardour/Rosegarden/LMMS alternative for CLI, what is Krita/Inkscape alternative, Openoffice?

It seems like every week I need to remind people at least once of this concept


An Unix Workstation requires a GUI. Because workstation tools are mostly graphical. Very simple and old concept.

Another angle to look at the claim, is the amount of FreeBSD developers that use X11/wayland on their computers. By that claim, these people aren't power users.
 
I do not paint and do audio. But I can tell you my 'alternative' to Openoffice: TeX.
Well, it is not alternative, because Openofficice is far away to compete with TeX.

And no, I do not reject GUI, but the nauseating GUI bloat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
Zare said:
An Unix Workstation requires a GUI. Because workstation tools are mostly graphical. Very simple and old concept.

Another angle to look at the claim, is the amount of FreeBSD developers that use X11/wayland on their computers. By that claim, these people aren't power users.
Click to expand...
If the tools one needs are graphical, then one needs a GUI. If tools are not graphical then one does not need a GUI. Lots and lots of serious work was done on VT100s.
Early VaxStations were used mostly to provide "multiple VT100s that I can cut and paste between"

Lets look at email. For the longest time email was text; now it's not. The "it's not" means one needs a graphical application to read a majority of messages: a change in meaning forcing a change in user application.

Power User/CLI and GUI are not and have never been mutually exclusive
 
mer said:
Lets look at email. For the longest time email was text; now it's not. The "it's not" means one needs a graphical application to read a majority of messages: a change in meaning forcing a change in user application.
Click to expand...
I used many years the BSD 'mail', read attachments with 'metamail'. You are right that now one gets
links, attachments with images, so that GUI is inevitable. But I would never use a GUI program for mail,
the idea is an horror. I use apline.

mer said:
Power User/CLI and GUI are not and have never been mutually exclusive
Click to expand...
Indeed, that is why I use X11 (with twm). If an image comes per email, I let alpine call the viewer
I put in the .mailcap file. No need to read email with bloat like the browser, thunderbird & Co.
 
Zare said:
An Unix Workstation requires a GUI. Because workstation tools are mostly graphical.
Click to expand...
An Unix Workstation does not require a GUI. If you are using workstation tools that are graphical, yes. If you aren't, no. My programmers, and every place I worked, we didn't need or use graphical tools anywhere for programming. My graphics people did cause graphics is graphical. But you don't need graphics to program anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
hruodr said:
I used many years the BSD 'mail', read attachments with 'metamail'. You are right that now one gets
links, attachments with images, so that GUI is inevitable. But I would never use a GUI program for mail,
the idea is an horror. I use apline.


Indeed, that is why I use X11 (with twm). If an image comes per email, I let alpine call the viewer
I put in the .mailcap file. No need to read email with bloat like the browser, thunderbird & Co.
Click to expand...
Alpine/Pine/Mutt and external viewers. The way email should be, although I do use claws-mail.
 
I still use mutt, and only on occasion do I have to use an external viewer to see some html stuff that isn't visible in text. (and most times, those turn out to be spam. The more reputable companies and my doctors use whatever they use and I can view it in mutt).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top