Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3225 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] KDE 3.x or Gnome 2.0?
- From: James.Rocks@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:59:48 +0100
- Message-id: <OF32F2BA80.DE93245C-ON80256BE9.004CD90B@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Keith,
> 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.
I tend to dump things on the desktop then get irritated at them and clear
them all up ... it would be better to have few though a huge open space can
feel rather daunting (perhaps a new psychiatric condition: deskagrophobia,
a fear of open desktops)! However I agree that less can often be better (or
more).
Despite the fact that it (IceWM) is not an "environment" I presume you can
still do more-or-less the same things yu can in anything else in Linux as
long as the support libraries are there? In other words could you still run
K Office in IceWM much like I can currently run Evolution, Galeon, Abiword
etc. even though they need Gnome.
> 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).
Sounds like a good idea since, though I think my Linux config is faster
than my Windows one (which I Keep on a removable disk drive) it sometimes
doesn't feel it so something that feels fast would be very cool.
> 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.
I will try it tonight (I haven't got my Linux source at work).
James
James C. Rocks
Equant
Archway House
Canary Wharf
London E14 9SZ
Phone: 0207-5226856
Fax: 0207-5126087
Mobile Phone: 07771-767405
http://www.equant.com
> 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.
I tend to dump things on the desktop then get irritated at them and clear
them all up ... it would be better to have few though a huge open space can
feel rather daunting (perhaps a new psychiatric condition: deskagrophobia,
a fear of open desktops)! However I agree that less can often be better (or
more).
Despite the fact that it (IceWM) is not an "environment" I presume you can
still do more-or-less the same things yu can in anything else in Linux as
long as the support libraries are there? In other words could you still run
K Office in IceWM much like I can currently run Evolution, Galeon, Abiword
etc. even though they need Gnome.
> 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).
Sounds like a good idea since, though I think my Linux config is faster
than my Windows one (which I Keep on a removable disk drive) it sometimes
doesn't feel it so something that feels fast would be very cool.
> 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.
I will try it tonight (I haven't got my Linux source at work).
James
James C. Rocks
Equant
Archway House
Canary Wharf
London E14 9SZ
Phone: 0207-5226856
Fax: 0207-5126087
Mobile Phone: 07771-767405
http://www.equant.com
| < Previous | Next > |