Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:51:26 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Hill <chris@monochrome.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Different OS's? Marketshare Message-ID: <20050223222900.X5778@frambozen.monochrome.org> In-Reply-To: <1505159320.20050223203426@wanadoo.fr> References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAkUru9e0Xgkm1jphiEj0758KAAAAQAAAAVNKPkcwi5Uq3w6wWDp/biAEAAAAA@video-phones-evdo.com> <200502231419.54629.m.hauber@mchsi.com> <1505159320.20050223203426@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > [...] I keep wondering if [...] I should just continue with FreeBSD > and install X on the machine (and KDE, probably, since it seems to be > popular, although I welcome suggestions). > > Which window manager is the closest to classic UNIX window managers > (as opposed to wannabe Windows products)? It's not clear what you mean by "classic UNIX window managers" - maybe CDE or Motif? In any case I've never used them and can't answer that specific question. As for the former... I installed KDE on my 4.10 machine a while ago just to have a look-see, and it seemed *very* Windows-y to me. "Start" menu, integrated file/web browser, etc. I don't care for it, and didn't bother reinstalling it after going to 5.3. If you don't want a "wannabe Windows product", I think you might not like KDE. Plus, the KDE meta-port takes MANY hours to install from ports - at least on my now-modest hardware and mid-speed DSL line. Before and after KDE, I've been using fvwm2 - it's a relatively plain but very configurable window manager, though I suppose you could make it as fancy as you wanted. For a rundown of various WMs, see http://www.plig.org/xwinman/ HTH. -- Chris Hill chris@monochrome.org ** [ Busy Expunging <|> ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050223222900.X5778>