On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 21:38, MWafkowski wrote: > 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.
This is a matter of taste and of defining what is "full blown" GUI. I would not change Blackbox for anything else. I will even install it on MS Windows to replace the GUI that gives me creeps. And I'll use other separate applications to handle my icons and filer if I want to have them. ROX is fine for that. But I prefer not to: I work faster in a console without dragging and dropping. Most people would, if they just put some time and effort on it. > 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? Maybe the people who develop KDE and Gnome don't care about hardware requirements, maybe they have the newest hardware and so on? It's open source: If you don't like it, go and fix it. Or make your own. > 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 Why would there be as there is so many slick and cool looking wm's out there? If the developers are satisfied with what they have, they won't go inventing the wheel again. > 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. If they don't like the lightweight wm's out there (for example IceWM which has a very Windowish feel, at least so I've heard) and are not ready to make a better one themselves, then they're only choice is to buy MS Windows or a Mac, I guess. People wanting MS Windows shouild stick with MS Windows. > 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. I wouldn't say a Windows box is "a minimum of hassle". And it is all about learning curve. If you had used linux with a lightweight wm always, and then you would put to use MS Windows, you'd be lost also. People have spent a lot of time and money learning to use MS Windows. If they are not willing to sacrify some time for Linux too, they shouldn't do it at all. And Linux shouldn't be changed to "a MS Windows look alike" just because there are MS Windows users there who are not happy with MS Windows but are not ready to learn new things. Regards, Peter -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
