On 22/11/2007, at 5:41 PM, Donn wrote: >> I think another big turn off for us Linux / FreeBSD users is the fact >> that KDE is a direct rip off of Windows, and that's not fun, > I don't grok this. How is the essential layout and set of concepts > between > Gnome, KDE and Windows any different? > Taskbar, tray, "Start" button, panels, windows, min/max/close buttons, > desktops, icons, drag/drop, etc.
It's non essential. It's pure frivolity. But I always felt that KDE was much closer in look and feel (out of the box so to speak) to Windows 95 than Gnome was. And you know, that was a good thing, according to people that set up low cost internet cafes and such. They could have computers that looked and felt like windows at a fraction of the cost. I just didn't think it was 'fun'. >> I think both 'lean and mean' and 'ultra configureable' are both >> important open source traits. >> We chose Gnome... > In my experience, installing Gnu/Linux on *very* old machines, > Gnome was just > too slow. KDE was much better but Xubuntu was best of that breed. > Actually, (I can't recall the name, but) Afterstep (I think, or > one of > the 'steps') was the best overall for speed and functionality. Afterstep was good. Very good. But then again anything seemed magnificent compare to the likes of twm. That default background was epilepsy inducing. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
