-----Original Message----- From: lee [mailto:lnx@alltel.net] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 8:16 PM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Windowmaker, KDE or something else?
BlackBox is the way to go !! easiest one to use, easy on [...] Lee
On Monday 16 September 2002 15:10, Keith Winston wrote:
On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 13:16, Alex Daniloff wrote:
Hello SuSE folkz, In our eng.dept. we're looking to standardize on a single uniform Linux graphical environment.
KDE is a very good environment but it uses a lot of memory and processor power. [...] I really like Icewm. It is on the SuSE CDs. Very fast, very low resources, very stable, no extra frills like in KDE or GNOME. Of course, many people like the frills.
What, exactly, do people consider to be "frills" and unnecessary fluff in a desktop environment? (Yes, I know I can expect a different answer from every person who responds...) I like something with a bit more visual detail than just flat lines and flat color (or gray) for the window frames and toolbars and buttons, because the RIGHT kind of graphic doodads can make the interface easier to use. A nice, smooth color blend in the title-bar is all the decoration I need. I don't need "skins" and themes. In fact, I find it visually annoying if my windows attempt to look like they're made of cheap wood panelling, or like they are on fire or... Some metallic and jewel-tone looks are kinda attractive, but if they're going to slow down the operation, then I don't need 'em I don't need animation on open and close, and I never bother to activate system sounds, except for maybe an error beep. I do need a locking screen-saver. (Yeah, I know I should remember to explicitly lock the desktop each time I walk away, but... I don't always... ok? :-) There are probably other aspects of the desktop experience that I would never miss, if they went away, and aspects that would make me cry like a baby if I couldn't have them, but I can't imagine what they are, just now. What do KDE or GNOME do that ICEWM doesn't do? Is the entire difference... just frills? Or, is there some solid value to be found in all that bloat? (I'm running KDE 3-point-something right now, but if I can run something leaner and still have most K-apps work properly, then I'd consider switching. I really missed all those snazzy Gnome screen-savers when I switched to KDE last year, but I don't recall feeling deprived in any other department.) How much of the difference between Ice and Blackbox is frills? Is there a web site somewhere that gives a good, side-by-side comparison of window managers and desktop environments? Finally, to complete my flurry of questions: Why WOULD K-apps start more slowly in Ice or Blackbox? I figure, either they're going to run or they are not. If they're going to run, then why would they need/want to take extra time about it? Regards, /kevin