Re: FC3 versus FC2 versus RHEL 4
From: Kevin Collins (spamtotrash_at_toomuchfiction.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:48:56 GMT
In article <39d337F5u6telU1@individual.net>, Jeff Krimmel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> JDS wrote:
>| On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:58:17 -0600, Dan C wrote:
>|>Well, that's your opinion, anyway... I think KDE looks too "candyish",
>|>and much prefer the Gnome look and function.
>| Yes, well, it is my opinion. However, every "look" that Gnome has, KDE
>| has an equivalent. Maybe the default setup for KDE looks "candyish" but I
>| don't think my setup does at all.
>| I really think the whole "look" issue is moot -- Gnome and KDE can be
>| configured to look basically the same. It is the interface, flexibility,
>| integration, and configurability of KDE that makes it better. Plus, on
>| RH8+ and FC, at least you can edit the "start" menu in KDE! Why not
>| in Gnome? huh? Why not, bub?
> I migrated to IceWM at both home and work about six months or so ago and
> haven't looked back. I used GNOME originally, because I found KDE to
> look too "candyish" too, as some previous poster mentioned. But, the
> switch away from both came when I started using a very
> resource-intensive plotting application, and I had never realized how
> much lighter on its feet IceWM is compared to GNOME and KDE. I do miss
> the nice configuration tools, but I have been getting by with terminal
> calls to system-config-printer and such.
You should take a look at blackbox and its more frequently updated offshoot
fluxbox - both very resource lite :)