On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:27:11AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ([email protected]) 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
