> Why does everyone keep saying that X should look like Win 95. I don't want
This I totally disagree!!! I'd rather prefer X to work more like OS/2 :P. AFAIK, win95's interface is not as Object- Oriented (OO) as M$ has claimed. OS/2 users should know. I particularly find win95 difficult to use (I might be from another planet but I do find it awkward). > to get into a shouting match about which is easer to use and those people > who like the Win 95 look and feel can stick with it. I just don't like > the fact that some people feel we should masqurade(?), I feel we should give > the option of looking like 95 but is looking like 95 that big of a deal. That's what X is all about... YOU CHOOSE YOUR FEEL!! May your preference be twm/mwm/fvwm/ and the list continues... X is about flexibility. That's why I only have linux on all my working boxes. :) > I guess my tiff is not with the people working on making X look like 95 but > more with people who compare all operating systems and user interfaces with > Win 95. I got fvwm95 for a moment but turned back to fvwm2 very soon. If you'd ask, I'll say that there really is no advantage the 95-like interface have over conventional fvwm2 (no flames intended). It does, however, proof how "customisable" our OS is over some M$-hype. It may also help newly converted win95 users to feel at home. Just me, Wire ... -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
