Re: gnome needs a solid, configurable wm

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
>          To unsubscribe: mail with
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]