Re: apt-get new helixcode gnome
On Jun 04 2000, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
> :: On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:46:23 -0300, Rogerio Brito <rbrito@iname.com> said:
> > Unlike the previous posters, I've had no problems using Helix
> > Gnome with potato. It works flawlessly (and I've even mirrored
> > the Gnome site here so I can burn a CD of it and install for
> > some friends in the never-ending evangelization acts :-) ).
>
> And how would you rate it? Is it worth the download? Also... Ithink
> I tried some pre-release of it before, not sure, but I remember a my
> configuration got screwed... Did it happen with helix on your box?
I have been using it for a short time, but since I work for a
company that is licenced with Conectiva, I'm more or less used
to KDE. I think that Helix Gnome is superior.
It's also *much* more stable than October Gnome (the
applications don't segfault nearly as often -- to be honest,
I have not had any since I've installed it).
There are some small problems with same files being provided
in more than one package, but they are essentially harmless
and since this Helix Gnome is only a release candidate, I
think that they will correct that later. This was the closest
thing to being "screwed" in my system.
It uses by default Sawmill as the window manager (now, it's
called Sawfish -- see http://sawfish.sourceforge.net) and I
think that this may be the only small problem to overcome: the
configuration utility for Sawfish isn't complete in the sense
that some of its aspects can't be configured by the program.
Overall, I think that it's worth the download, when the
telephone rates are lower. :-) Since I see that you are from
Brazil, you might like to download it in a Sunday afternoon.
:-)
Oh, BTW, I'm using a pretty recent potato, if that matters.
Hope this helps, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - rbrito@iname.com - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Reply to: