On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, imrana wrote:
> >But not all linux installs will use desktops so why make them part of
> >the standard-base? If you were creating a standard base for an end-user
> >system your argument would make sense, but take into consideration that
> >there are alot of servers, enbeded sy
>But not all linux installs will use desktops so why make them part of
>the standard-base? If you were creating a standard base for an end-user
>system your argument would make sense, but take into consideration that
>there are alot of servers, enbeded systems, etc. that don't use a
>desktop (or ev
--- Begin Message ---
> It's NOT. KDE is ugly as sin. Following Motif'ish styling clues to create
> an "environment" from which users get the impression of running a "blocky,
> clunky, slow" system. Even some of KDE's biggest supporters will admit
> that it's "bloated/slow" and the styling is n
--- Begin Message ---
Marcin Krol wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Greg S. Hayes wrote:
>
> > Desktops are a value added product
>
> Not at all. It's not seventies anymore. Now desktop (widely understood) is
> de facto part of OS.
>
But not all linux installs will use desktops so why make them
4 matches
Mail list logo
