Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

On 2008-03-01, zeno <geoffrey.froner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:33 am, Tom Newton <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Gee Whillikers! If there were any doubt about Babel being
spawned by misguided geeks, the flurry of responses to my query
does give it substance.

Speaking of babble...

I will look through some of the files mentioned to see what
I can find and report back. Since few of us Linux users are
'Experts', I believe it's important to be very careful and
considerate and detailed when making suggestions.

Isn't that nice.

I'm using Ubuntu because it's fairly simple and even has some
resemblance to Winduhs which I dislike because its deliberately
deceptive and confusing for obvious reasons: keeping their

And a lot of Linux distros are going down that same path.
KDE/Gnome, both windows-clone artificial user interfaces, are a
major aspect of this downward trend.

Previously I used CLI with RedHat and it seemed pretty
straightforward. It is necessary for me to have a graphic
capability though since I am a visual artist and the Gnome
desktop (including GIMP) is a blessing.

That paragraph doesn't make sense. _I_ run Linux from the CLI
(command line) and have a fully graphical box. I have a GUI,
which includes a basic X install and a good window manager, but
nothing resembling KDE or Gnome.

I could easily run the GIMP if I wanted to, and any of the
applications that come with KDE (only the kdelibs are necessary
for that, not KDE itself), or any X application.

I use firefox regularly...But I run my box from 'xterms'.

Calling KDE/Gnome a "GUI" is like calling a motorhome a
motorcycle. They are artificial user interfaces, nothing but
large collections of applications with a common graphical theme,
built on top of a GUI. Those collections include a window
manager, of course.

And thinking that the CLI is limited to the non-graphical
console environment is simply erroneous.

What consensus is there about
using Debian instead of Ubuntu?

Myself (and a lot of other Linux runners) can run any Linux/Unix
box, with or without X. If they have monstrosities like Gnome or
KDE installed, I just ignore them.

They are all basically the same under all the eye-candy,
the supposedly 'user-friendly' interfaces.

No reason you can't do the same thing. Just the most basic
knowledge of bash is required.

Or what about Slackware, given my

I'm running Slackware 12.0 right now. Its package management
system is much more 'manual' than the others, and thus not
prone to arcane glitches that drive people insane and take
endless hours of web-searching to fix, which the complex package
management systems of the other distros are famous for.

It's the most clean and stable distro.

The stock install includes the Korporate Desktop Environment

You can run the GIMP on it, of course, with or without

What more do you want?

Any simple statements (for my simple mind) would be


Try Slack. You wouldn't regret it.

You can get the ISOs to burn on the main site and a couple of
mirrors, or use bittorrent:


And thanks to everyone who contributed their comments, complex or

No problem.

If you don't understand something, google it and/or ask.

Don't whine. :-)


calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
gmail [DOT] com |