On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 20:00, Len Philpot wrote: > 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.
I dont dare run a desktop at 800x600! :) I quite prefer they eye candy, only when its spent on improving the computing experience. Granted neither Gnome/KDE are perfect yet, but in my estimation its a far sight better than than Athena or Xt widgets! Keep in mind that some of the Gnome issues are due to the huge re-write of alot of the codebase with Gnome2, some features were left by the wayside, and are only now being addressed, such as menu editing and file selector. Perhaps we have a different circle of friends, because we are finally getting to the point where I can *start* recommending Linux as a desktop to my friends. :) > > ...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. As I mentioned RH8 was whas one of the first to ship Gnome2, which still had that new factory smell. My guess is that Gnome2.4 is going to look very nice when it ships in the fall. As for win98, as has been mentioned in another thread, win98 and linux arent really comparable at all. Linux is a full-blown and highly scalable modern OS. Windows 98 is a gussied-up DOS, made usable with a long series of hacks and work-arounds. Sure its quick ( quicker than XP ), but when I installed it on a friends computer, I had actually forgotten just how awful an OS it was. Also with WinXP, Microsoft "cheats" with their gui code, by placing directX in the kernel. This makes things very fast and low latency, but it also means that when directX crashes, so does XP. Linux has a DRI kernel module too, but the new low latency patches in 2.5 should really make X much snappier. > > 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. :-) The purpose of making them similar is purely pragmatic. When a tech support call comes in to RH, they dont want to have two separate solutions to the same issue. This is also about ease of use, some people get scared by too many options when they are trying to get work done. I had an IT department head complain to me that the thing he hated most about linux was that there were too many apps in the menu, and he had no idea what any of them did. You have to admit, if youre not a hacker, you dont want to have a choice of 5 different terminal emulators! > > > 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. No offense taken! :) > > -- > > -- Len Philpot ><> -- > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://philpot.org/ -- > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (alternate email) -- > Cheers, Ryan -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
