Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 06:17:45 -0700 From: Chip <chip@wiegand.org> To: "Robin S. Socha" <lart@socha.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: XFCE Window Manager Message-ID: <00060606262300.87071@chip.wiegand.org> In-Reply-To: <20000606060226.A4959@kens.com> References: <00060117263800.82982@chip.wiegand.org> <20000606145721.A3237@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <20000606060226.A4959@kens.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000, Robin S. Socha wrote: > * Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> [000606 05:28]: > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav said on Jun 6, 2000 at 11:13:59: > > > Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org> writes: > > > > > I used KDE for a long time, but got tired of it crashing all the damn > > > > time. > > > > > > I've been using KDE on several machines (including my primary > > > workstation) for several months, and have never ever seen it crash. > > > > Me neither, and it's nearly 2 years now. We're still using KDE 1.0, > > though. > Sure, KDE itself may not crash so much as the apps that are running in it to make it what it is. I switched from winblows a couple years ago to get away from that, then switched from kde to xfce, and have tried a couple other wm's, and have been much happier. I can still run kmail from xfce and that's okay with me. KDE is sooo slow compared to anything other than enlightenment, which is even slowere. I agree with Robin that the window managers we have to choose from need to have there own look, and not try to look like what's already been done. That's not even the best 'look' either. Anyway, that's my 2cents worth, since I started this thread with a question about xfce. -- Chip Wiegand ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ visit Alternative Operating Systems www.wiegand.org > Reality check 1-2-3: what exactly are you guys talking about? "KDE" as > in "the entire *D*esktop *E*nvironment" or "KDE" as in "kwm and kpanel"? > I've been installing and uninstalling KDE for about 3 years now. It just > sucks. What annoys me most about KDE is not so much the fact that it is > slow as hell and sucks up resources like the "OS" it's looking like. > Rather, I see it as a major step in the wrong direction for Un*x GUIs. > If you take a look at, for example, Window Maker, you will see an > entirely different concept (which is almost as good as the one it's > trying to emulate). It's lean, it's consistent, and it certainly is a > hell of a lot different from anything a Wintendo luser expects. Does one > want to cater to the pathetic needs of these lusers and - coming back > to why KDE sucks so bad - sacrifice tried and trued concepts like "one > job one tool" in the name of user friendliness? > > Change your viewpoint: what does KDE give you? What is the added value > of running KDE over twm? You get a bloated WM, a sucky Windos emulation, > loads of crappy toy^Hols, random crashes (yes, I have rarely seen KDE > crash, yes, I have seen loads of really, really bad apps using QT). So > where's the added value? > > Now, KDE 2.0 looks great. Konqueror might become a killer app, and the > office suite is certainly looking good. But then again, that's what I > thought about KDE initially. And boy was I disappointed. > > The solution? There isn't really one. Except "startx xemacs". Which IYAM > is a lot better as a DE than KDE. For me. YMMV. ;-) > -- > Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/XEmacs/ > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00060606262300.87071>