On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 06:35:31PM -0600, Ryan McDougall wrote: > Im not sure what exactly it is your upset about with blue curve. What I > do know is that Bluecurve is nothing more than a set of themes. To undo > the effects of blue curve simply replace the relevant theme with the one > of your choosing: window theme, icon theme, etc. What is wrong with the > fonts or desktop? Are you refering to red hat's nebulous > "bastardization" of KDE? > > Download some new themes from kdelook and try removing redhat-artwork. > Otherwise Im not sure how to help.
Have you ever tried running Gnome at 800x600? I'm glad I now have 1024x768 at home, but on my laptop, it's unnecessarily difficult to use. Dialog boxes sometimes go off the screen. In fact, it's not just Gnome in that regard, but I guess tend to reflex when I see what I consider to be excessive cosmetics purely for cosmetics sake. It's (functionally) *Unix*, and it just strikes a nerve to see it prettied up like a Mac, with no corresponding increase in functionality, but rather a seeming general slowdown of the GUI over time (version to version). For example, compare the speed of the Athena widgets with Gnome/GTK. Not that I'm necessarily advocating Athena, since they're pretty primitive, but I hate to see the minimum usable hardware for a Linux system now approaching (if not exceeding) that for Windows. I can no longer point to Linux (Red Hat, that is) as a viable desktop alternative to my "Windows friends". There's nothing to sell. ...and Bluecurve does nothing to reverse that trend. Maybe part of what I'm attributing to Bluecurve are just differences in Gnome 1.x and 2. My first exposure to Gnome 2 was a very brief try to make it work on Solaris (ha!), then on to RH8 and Bluecurve. Gnome 2 (as shipped with RH8/9) seems to me to be minimally configurable and somewhat rigid. Compare it's flexibility with that of FVWM, for example. There's little comparison with the configurability of the desktops, and the speed in vastly different. In fact, Window98 (as much as I hate to admit it) on the same system (dual boot) is MUCH faster than Gnome, in terms of the GUI. Same video settings, etc. etc. I don't know why it's so sluggish. One question - Maybe I'm missing it, but why have two *different* desktop environments on a system and then try to make them look and function just as alike as possible? What's the point? If Red Hat doesn't want KDE on the system, why don't they just drop it, instead of trying to make it look like an unnecessary duplicate of Gnome? I'm not a KDE evangelist, but it just makes little sense to me, other than maybe part of Red Hat's overall agenda. But that's my opinion. :-) No doubt - I probably should have waited a couple of minutes before posting and if I was abrasive, I apologise. I was irritated at the moment, not only at the look, but also at X lockups under RH9 (KDE, so far, when logging out). Plus, spending quite a bit of time totally redoing the (illogical, to me) app menu structure using kmenuedit only to have it get corrupted didn't help; I even never figured out a way to edit Gnome's menu. This is the third or fourth time in the last week or so I've been around the horn on all this and the repetition is getting under my skin - No excuse for venting, but maybe you understand my mindset... Thanks. -- -- Len Philpot ><> -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://philpot.org/ -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (alternate email) -- -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
