on Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:25:59AM +0000, Thomas Adam (thomas_adam16@yahoo.com) wrote:
> --- "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net> wrote:
> > Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > Every once in a while, you just run into something you need to get off
> > > your chest. So I bring to you:
> >
> > Wow. All I can say is that I am glad WindowMaker is what I use.
>
> I don't use GNOME, but I do use GTK apps. Now, some designers of GTK apps
> that aren't skr1p7 k1dd13s actually realise that GTK != GNOME, and hence
> design their programs independant of that bloated piece of crap we'll call
> GNOME. A pity, then, that the GNOME designers do not realise this. But
> that's another debate entirely.
Don't get me wrong: I like the Gtk widget set, in general.
What I've noticed as well is that a number of key Gtk apps (most notably
The GIMP) have pretty much broken with GNOME proper. They use toolkits,
as they see fit. But aren't held hostage.
> Despite this, I have found that running GTK apps outside of GNOME has
> been more successful than any of the (limiting) QT ones I might need
> from KDE. Now almost all of the QT-based apps I use, need half of KDE
> to reside in memory before it even thinks about loading. Good, eh?
> :)
What I've seen is that some KDE apps (I use knode principally) draw in a
number of dependencies. But what they _don't_ do is mess with the
existing desktop environment. Nor, for the most part, do they require
you go go digging through obscure desktop-specific configuration
utilities to query/change settings.
> But Nautilus is core to GNOME, and is a very bloated file manager. Almost
> akin to the abomination KDE call konqueror.
Konq is IMO far better scoped.
Sure: it does more than just browse files, or surf the web. I see it
as "information portal" rather than "file manager" or "web browser". If
what I want to do is view / hear content, whether it's local to my
filesystem, remote on a Website, or in the help system(s), Konq will get
you there.
What it _doesn't_ do is clobber your desktop with a bunch of stuff.
So while it's not exactly lightweight, it _is_ appropriate to the task
at hand.
> If it is that much of a nuisance, which I believe it is, I'd consider
> using another file manager, such as: dfm, rox, emelfm, gentoo, moxfm,
> whatever. It doesn't solve _any_ of your issues, Karsten, but it might
> keep your blood-pressure down somewhat. :)
Your concern is appreciated ;-)
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
18.8% of all browsers that claim to be MSIE, aren't.
- http://www.virtuelvis.com/archives/35.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature