Re: Window managers-which one?
- From: Douglas Tutty <dtutty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:53:22 -0500
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +0000, Clive Menzies wrote:
On (31/10/06 14:51), B. Hoffmann wrote:
I' ve been installing purely a base sytem this time as opposed to before
always going with the default install with Gnome.
Also for example icewm and fvwm seem to be both window managers and
DE's?
Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from
KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I
may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty
functional.
I like basic functionality, configurability, without bloat; I have been
running a 486 for years...
I use icewm. It does everything I want without the struggle of adding
features to a less featurful wm and is low on resource usage. It must
be fast because it doesn't get in the way on the 486.
Doug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Window managers-which one?
- From: Marc Shapiro
- Re: Window managers-which one?
- References:
- Window managers-which one?
- From: B. Hoffmann
- Re: Window managers-which one?
- From: Clive Menzies
- Window managers-which one?
- Prev by Date: Progrees meter in scp
- Next by Date: Re: [Alsa-user] CA0106 problems
- Previous by thread: Re: Window managers-which one?
- Next by thread: Re: Window managers-which one?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
