Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3225 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] KDE 3.x or Gnome 2.0?
  • From: Keith Winston <kwinston@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:48:08 -0400
  • Message-id: <20020701134808.GA2096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 02:02:45PM +0100, Derek Fountain wrote:
> I really would like to move from KDE. As the bloat in there continues to grow
> it just gets slower and slower. Those who keep their machines up to date
> probably don't notice it so much, but I don't do anything which requires
> 2ghz, so why should I upgrade my machine just so I can run an *environment*
> at decent speed?
>
> I was thinking GNOME2 might be the answer, but not after reading that review.
> It looks like they've finally dragged themselves into the world of decent
> looking anti-aliased fonts, but still can't write a bit of code which
> implements a good quality, standard file dialog box. :sigh: I thought Sun
> were looking at usability issues for GNOME?
>
> People talk about Backbox, IceWm, etc., but those aren't real environments
> (or are they? Is my knowledge here outdated?) I want to be able to click on a
> link in my news reader and have my browser open. I want to be able to drag
> the URL to the desktop and see a link icon appear on the desktop. I want
> faultless drag and drop across apps, I want a CD player to pop up when I put
> an audio disk in the drive. It's obviously a lot to ask. Microsoft remain the
> only one's who've got close as yet.

You are right about Blackbox and Icewm not being "environments". They
are window managers with a few extra bells and whistles. However,
depending on what you want, sometimes less is more. For example, with
Icewm, you don't get desktop icons (gmc or nautilus can create these if
you want them). However, have you noticed that the new Windows XP
desktop comes with few if any icons? MS said they are moving away from
desktop icons and in most cases, I prefer NOT to have desktop icons.
Once again, this is a personal choice. Some people love to have 100
icons scattered across their desktop.

The environment that Icewm gives you is like an enhanced Windows 95.
You have a main program start button, taskbar, quick launch buttons, a
few tray icons, desktop switch buttons, integrated clock, CPU and
network monitors. You can configure the mouse buttons to give you
various menus when you click on the desktop, etc. But the main thing
you get is consistent, stable behaviour and speed, speed, speed. It
takes seconds to start Icewm and seconds to shutdown. Programs start
fast and run fast. The menus are easy to understand and customize
(compared to the complex maze that is Gnome or KDE). There are some
nice GUI tools for customization (icepref and iceme).

I might go back to KDE after another point release or two. Konqueror is
very, very nice. But for now, I am enjoying the raw speed of a lean
setup.

Best Regards,
Keith
--
LPIC-2, MCSE, N+
Right behind you, I see the millions
Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups