personal heads

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Umat

Linux doesn't require prefixes as windows does. You just use prefixes on your files to see what type it is without having to open it. I seriously doubt that the dots would cause a problem like that just because it's on linux. If there's any OS that is nazi about its dots, it is Windows. Ever tried to set a dot in the beginning of a filename?

I'd be more inclined to think it's a problem with the Linux client rather than Linux itself.

[Correction]

I say this with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of how the Graal client works or what it uses to manage files, but it might be worth noting that in some language environments on Linux a dot represents a wildcard. Whatever the issue is, it's definitely in the Graal client. It could also be something as simple as that the Linux client might split the filenames based on a period delimiter expecting only a name and an extension, or something like that.

It's all speculation at this point. What matters is that someone needs to fix this immediately because I am not satisfied!

[Umat]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

I'd be more inclined to think it's a problem with the Linux client rather than Linux itself.

Yes, of course, but the previous posters stated that it was linux that was the problem, I was only trying to correct them.

The rendering of images and text is different in mac and linux clients. But this is probably fixed in v6 as Windows uses the same rendering as linux and mac.

[Deas_Voice]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

Linux sucks for graal

why?
have you tried graal on linux vs windows?

linux is so much better then windows IMO.
sure, windows is a mayor OS, so what? it doesnt make it good.
dude, linux can run on like, ANY computer, try that with win7 with 512 mb ram

[Deas_Voice]

Originally Posted by Umat

But this is probably fixed in v6 as Windows uses the same rendering as linux and mac.

this is indeed fixed in v6.


i thought you had v6 beta

[Correction]

Originally Posted by Deas_Voice

why?
have you tried graal on linux vs windows?

linux is so much better then windows IMO.
sure, windows is a mayor OS, so what? it doesnt make it good.
dude, linux can run on like, ANY computer, try that with win7 with 512 mb ram

He said that Linux sucks for Graal, not that Linux sucks. If the Linux client sucks and isn't actively developed, then he's right - Linux does suck for Graal.

Also your Windows 7 argument is painfully weak. There are several bloated Linux distributions that I wouldn't put on anything less than modern. Likewise, I'm sure a stripped-down NT kernel could run pretty well on older, low-end system (2000 and XP can easily make it well beneath your 512MB limit).

And on that matter, 512MB are you serious? You say that as if an OS running in under half a gig of memory is some kind of accomplishment.

NPC Code:

---

[corey@sariss ~]$ free -m

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached

Mem:          3961        400       3561          0         41        193

-/+ buffers/cache:        164       3797

Swap:          972          0        972

[corey@sariss ~]$ 

---