Re: What *is* Gnome/KDE?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:27:11AM -0600, hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote:
> Karsten kried,
>
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:00:35PM -0600, Christian Dysthe wrote:
>
> > > I have been playing around with Gnome and KDE and I do not understand
> > > what they really are!
>
> > Crutches for weak-minded lusers.
>
> > ...ok, that's enough gasoline, where'd I put the matches...
>
> here you go . . . :)
;-P
>
> > On the developer side, there are corresponding toolkits for doing all
> > the same. This includes object models and brokers, meaning you may be
> > able to integrate and break Linux programs in the same way you can
> > Windows ones....
>
> cross application cut and paste. Come to think of it, that's the *only*
> thing I've seen either of these offer that I've seen any use for . . .
> I'm quite happy with xterms, LyX, and a nice grey interweaved desktop.
> Everythingt else takes extra cycles or screen real estate (and I'm not
> to happy that I can't remove the buttons within lyx for this same reason
> . . .)
...only when the X paste buffer isn't available. It works pretty well
for me. MSFT's six-action CnP just kills me. Two clicks, that's all it
takes. Though option to clear the target field would be nice....
> > > I know Gnome and KDE are called "environments", but they still only
> > > look like...errrm...a tweaked MS task bar and program launcher.
>
> > Funny, I see the same thing <g>.
>
> Nah, it's a tweak of the MS ripoff of MacOs 5.0/multifinder, with one
> or two $20 shareware extensions . . .
Wait! The Alto!! What about the Alto?!!
> > Well, aside from the all-too-cool dock on the right of my monitor....
> > Yes, I run WindowMaker and like it. Clean, quick, handy keyboard
> > accelerators, stable. I'll occasionally fire up KDE or Gnome for kicks.
>
> gee, do you kick puppies, too? :) put hamsters in microwaves?
My lawyer will be in touch with you. Don't move.
>
> > There's nothing "required" in Gnome or KDE.
I meant -- there's nothing required in Gnome or KDE that you can't get
without them. Yes, there are requirements *for* both, particularly
memory (even my 96 MB box slows down under them).
> Yes there is--a gawdaweful amount of memory. gnumeric might be useful
> on this 24M machine if a) it was anywhere near complete (though it
> has improved drastically in the past few months. It can now do most
> of the calculations; it's just formatting data in any useful way that's
> an issue :), and b) it didn't need gazillions of support files. I'm
> back to starcalc3 . . .
>
> Oh, and the dependency of gnumeric on gnome leads to gnomes dependencies
> on sound managagers and the like--even though there's no sound card . . .
Gee. Fun.
> > nothing else running on commercial Unix that comes close (I'm not
> > counting Mac OS X as it's not based on X Windows and isn't a full Unix
> > despite its Mach core).
>
> But on top of the mach core there is a full unix as I understand it,
> including an Xserver that coexists with the mac display
More info?
> hawk
>
--
Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com)
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
SAS for Linux: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/SAS/SAS4Linux.html
Mailing list: "subscribe sas-linux" to mailto:majordomo@cranfield.ac.uk
Reply to: