Re: Back to Windows??
> > > (1) You control the interface. You have a choice of window managers,
> > > GNOME, KDE. *You* get to decide how you want to interact with the
> > > computer, not Bill Gates.
> > Hans:
> > In the first place these window managers are Windows look-alikes, especially
> > KDE that was intentionally designed to be as Windows as Windows can be
> > i.m.h.o. In the second place, I do not have this insurpressibke urge to
> > "decide by myself" if others offer a good solution, named Bill or not.
> Fair enough, although these environments are not Windows look-alikes (or
If that was K's goal they missed it sadly. It's more CDE like than MSwin like.
But, I don't think that was their goal, as much as to have an office suite
that was new, that was *ours* by which they mean all of us, because they tried
to use the GPL. [flame wars about Qt's compliance will be sent to /dev/null.
flame warriors should see my own editorial a few months back in Linux Gazette.]
Use fvwm95 or qvwm if you really want a windows-alike. Or *seriously* munge
with the controls on your Gnome-complient wm. For any of you coders out there
looking for a fun hack moment, add Gnome compliance to fvwm95 without mangling
In the name of "making it easy" for themselves, most themeable "modern"
(read, gnome and K compliant. humph.) wm's could look a *lot* more like MS,
but, most folks have settled for themes that only *almost* look like MS.
My most recent client with this complaint ended up using IceWM since one
of its spare themes was "closer" enough.
* Heather Stern * star@ many places...