Re: I think we should have a Gnome Window Manager (fwd)

[David Freeman <freeman earthling net>]

Marcus Butler wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Chris Knight wrote:
> 
> > If we go with one window manager, we have buried ourselves into the same
> > hole KDE and Windows put themselves into. Non-configurability. That's what
> 
> KDE is not really in that hole; their WM is pretty configurable.  Windows
> is in far deeper holes (after several years of having a full-time team of
> developers they still cannot produce a stable product, for example.)

Has this been discussed before?  Maybe I'm mixing up projects (Dang
these Linux people! So much going on  ;-) but I think that E was chosen
as a possible "default" WM.  But there would be no gwm, per se.
> 
> > Windows is about. But, with Rasterman's theme supported Enlightenment, and
> > future Gtk versions supporting themes, then every user may configure his
> > desktop to look like what they *want* it to. Very Unixy, very UnWindows95y.
> 
> Rasterman's default theme is a three megabyte tar file.  We need something
> with a smaller footprint.

Theme != Enlightenment.  There are low-resource themes available.  Like
as in they actually use less than 256 colors, and don't use so many
XPMs, etc. so chew up less memory.  However, GTK themes will rock, no
matter HOW large the theme tarballs are.

-- 
"Win32 sucks so hard it could pull matter out of a Black Hole." 
        -- Pohl Longsine