Re: gnome needs a solid, configurable wm
- From: Jonathan <gardnerj pro-usa net>
- To: Martin Brown <mjbjr beaudesign com>
- CC: gnome-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: gnome needs a solid, configurable wm
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:57:11 -0500
Personally I use sawmill, It never complains and is a bit faster than E. Then
again, I actually use xfce as my usual desktop environment. It's Gnome
compliant but is quite a bit faster. Actually the reason I switched from KDE
was that it seemed more difficult that Gnome to get it to do what I wanted.
Martin Brown wrote:
> I really don't want to use KDE, really I don't...
> I have installed october gnome and the latest Enlightenment, and E is a
> huge disappointment. Compared to the configurability of KDE, it leaves
> alot to be desired. This is not to say that there isn't a place for E and
> its tons of eye candy. It just shouldn't be the default wm.
> I find it hard to believe that the gnome people would spend so much time
> creating a wonderful product, that depends totally on the independent work
> of others. Hard to imagine that a automobile manufacturer would build a
> car without a engine.
> Knowing what the gnome programmers know about gnome, how long would it
> take them to create a solid, configurable wm. A week or two, or three?
> I have also tried the latest version of Icewm, but gnome complained right
> off the bat that it wasn't gnome compliant, or some such. I see that
> someone on the list wrote that the latest version of FVWM might make a
> good fit. I'll check it out.
> Here's hoping.
> - Martin J. Brown, Jr. -
> - BEAUDESIGN.COM -
> FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
> To unsubscribe: mail firstname.lastname@example.org with
> "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
] [Thread Prev