I'll try to distill my point. At this time there is no full blown GUI (functonality, eye candy, ease of use, etc.) that is not a pig on Linux.
I'm quite willing to concede that the problem might be KDE or Gnome, but since they must reside on X it's hard for me to believe that no one has developed a "full blown" GUI for Linux that does not suck (performance wise - look and feel is obviously a matter or preference) if X were not part of the problem. If someone wiser in the ways of code and hardware could explain to me if (and how) that's not true I'd be glad to hear and place the "blame" exclusively at the feet of KDE and Gnome. But then why is there not an alternative to them that does not drag like a boat anchor on anything but state-of-the-art hardware? I am not aware of even an attempt at a viable (performance wise ) "full blown" alternate based on X. And christmas, the advances in hardware performance in the last few years are truly astonishing. I'm a Linux user and proponent, but now I limit my advocacy to Linux as a server OS. I/we (My company/customers) only use Linux on servers But I've looked pretty stupid in the past when a customer/friend/relative was curious about Linux as a desktop OS and I would jump in with great fervor extolling the virtues of desktop Linux only to have them say - "This is slow as hell; why did my browser (Mozilla) just stop working; this looks like crap; why do different programs use different keystrokes, etc, etc. etc. If a customer now asks me about "upgrading" to Linux on his network of Win 98 desktop PCs (usually 500-800 Mhz CPU, four meg video, 128 megs ram "legacy boxes) I would consider myself irresponsible if I didn't tell them that unless they were willing to dump the old hardware and start over, we'll add another 128 meg ram and install XP. Most "regular" folk don't want "adventures in computing". They want PCs to do work with with a minimum of hassle. KDE or Gnome on Linux is not that. Peace, Mike Wafkowski ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reuben D. Budiardja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice? > On Tuesday 24 June 2003 12:19 pm, Mike Wafkowski wrote: > > You're kind of missing the point. It seems like most Linux boosters do and > > I believe on purpose so as not to "undermine" Linux. No X no KDE, no > > Gnome. > <snip> > > So I'll rephrase my complaint. X plus (the full blown wm of your choice > > here) sucks, <snip> > > And you might miss some points too. As others, I don't see how come X sucks. > What is the basis of this premise? You might say KDE, or GNOME or whatever > sucks because it's bloated and slow. But the X itself, I can't see why it > sucks also just because KDE or GNOME or whatever runs on X. > > And I'll say it again, X + another lightweight WM is fast. This alone is proof > that X is fine. Because if X also sucks, then you can put anything on it, it > will still sucks. > > RDB > > -- > Reuben D. Budiardja > Department of Physics and Astronomy > The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN > ------------------------------------------------- > /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML > \ / email and proprietary format > X attachments. > / \ > ------------------------------------------------- > Have you been used by Microsoft today? > Choose your life. Choose freedom. > Choose LINUX. > ------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 6/1/03 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
