On Feb 20, 9:04 pm, Roy.Schestow...******.com wrote:
> they both suck

My two cents:
It isn't really about whether they are good or not. It is about which
one "gets the job done". Both include a bunch of programs that make
normal Linux Admin tasks easier, so they can both get the job done.

I MUCH prefer KDE. It looks similar to Windows 98/XP/Server2003 and
hopping between Windows Clients and the Linux Server is quicker and
easier (for me) with KDE. But if someone has installed Ubuntu, you
don't just go installing KDE on top of it and mess up their system.
They are paying you to fix it, not break even more.

In terms of running a business, it is all about ROI (return on
investment), not preference. My "preference" is just my pride singing
sweet songs of snobbery. What is the quickest way I can get a Linux
server to add file shares, change an Apache configuration, modify the
php config, dink with MySQL, curse at Samba, etc?

Ironically, because of all the variety in windows managers, I end up
relying on emacs and modifying the configurations directly, or using
the specific distribution's custom configuration manager and using the
windows manager as a way to have multiple command prompts open on the
screen at the same time.

Just a rant from a Ventura Linux repair guy.
stoobers******.com