either my english is shittier than i thought, or you do not want to understand what i wrote and try to correct me on something we both basically agree on.
(I just cannot accept you saing a WM *is* windowslike)
I was saying that its not the base system, nor X11, but its the *configuration* of a window manager.
You keep saying that its the theme of a window manager -> exactly the same what i said, but i named it configuration (as i see themes as a subset of configuration)
But later on generalising to a windowslike WM.
Also i said, that if a desktop looks like windows, its not the Base system nor the WM, but the WM's custom *configuration*.
As I have never seen a windows lookalike WM default configuration - i assume, that if one has a windowslike distro, the configuration had to be done by the distributors (as a new user wont create a disc image just to include a windows looking theme)
I never said that the distributors wrote their own set of utils, kernels, X11, ... I said that they compile, configure and package the sources outta there. (ignoring the workflows of derived distribs and own patchsets, ...)
So you saying that all distribs use nearly the same bins still holds.
When talking about gentoo -> wasnt I suggesting a rolling release distro?
Im using gentoo since like 2006 - started with fedora core (3?) in like 2004, then a period of debian (stable too old, sid too broken) and then gentoo.
It took my now 7 year old laptop like 36 hours to do a fresh compile of gnome-light last time i had to replace my hdd (with distcc and another laptop of the same kind)
Im not gonna undertake your challenge as i allready did that in like 2006 (in the dark times, where X11 actually needed a xorg.conf and 3d hardwaresupport was not gonna happen with a rv250) and im not gonna install X11 on my servers.
In my first post i was pointing out the (new) unknowledgable Users' way of thinking about Linux. As i have been a Zivildiener @ an Archive where I tried to shift the users from open office on Win 95 and Win2000 to Ubuntu (3 Years ago) and therefore made ubuntu really look like winXP (there is that emerald theme outta somewhere)
Later i had an argument with one of our "tech-savy" user going something like this:
Why is my document missing from my usbdrive?
I allways deleted the M$ Word tempfiles by opening the doc and doing CTRL + A, SHIFT+DEL in its directory.
So I learned my lesson and since that I suggest everyone to go for something *not* looking anything like windows and to learn the basics from the beginning.
You then started correcting my post where no correction was needed.
Posting generalized stuff (as long as it does not create false information) is imho better for new users than going into all detail. As full detail is irrelevant (For anope he/she doesnt need X11 - so why talk about desktop envioronments and the possibility of a "windows-like" WM at all?) and will feel as a wall that they cannot overcome and they will go back to winbloat.
most likely any linux on any machine will be able to run anope + ircd.
just why is there a discussion about Ubuntu and Kubuntu or "the best server-distro"?
its totally irrelevant for ircd+services if you use kde, gnome, xfce or no X11 at all.
He/she should have at least tried something like DSL.
Otherwise I'd suggest using a windows-like distro as you put it, like Debian or *buntu.
And here my english fail'd. i actually said the total opposite:
I would suggest that you go for a distro that *IS NOT* Windowslike.
Go for something totally new/diffrent and learn the basics.
Also i never said that Debian or *Buntu was windowslikely configured.
we might seem to have a diffrent definition of "distribution":
I say a distribution is a packaged and configured (and possibly compiled) selection of programs and distributors should be credited for doing this work: packaging, configuring (and possibly compiling), keeping the software working together as a whole (by configuring the components)
So I see a distribution as a set of tools like the package manager, the package repository, the tools to create that repository and custom configurations of (all) the other software that is being provided in the repo.
But thinking of distributions as a whole including the software distributed leads to the wrong implication that the software distributed was created by the distributors which leads to giving credit to the distributors and NOT to the people that really created the software.
So if I am saying $distro is crap it could mean that their package manager, their repo mirroring, package format, ... is crap
But it NEVER means that eg the libre office as application is crap (but it could mean that libre office's distributed config is crap)
So - the reason why i corrected your correction was to get rid of the imho very wrong statement, that a window manager is windowslike.
Its the same with cars:
You can call a car that is manufactured by ferrari and repainted to camouflage by an "armylike-cars" reseller "armylike".
But you cannot call cars by ferrari "armylike", just because one vendor repaints them to camouflage.
So where are WMs diffrent?
PS: we might should stop arguing about that here. its like the wrong board/mailinglist for that
