WM's (was: Default window manager)
- From: Derek Simkowiak <dereks kd-dev com>
- To: Adrian Hosey <ahosey snowcrash kiva net>
- cc: gnome-devel-list gnome org, recipient list not shown: ;
- Subject: WM's (was: Default window manager)
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
>: > Why don't just replace enlightenment with another wm?
>
> Not to belittle the merit of this discussion, but isn't this a Redhat
> issue and not a GNOME issue? _No_ WM is considered part of the GNOME
> "core" bundle, right? Is there a Redhat forum where the discussion might
> find a better fit?
You are correct, this is a Redhat issue, not a Gnome issue.
However, this discussion closely relates to a thread from one or
two months ago about having a "Gnome" window manager. The problem with
window managers is that their own built-in features (such as pagers,
background-setting tools, sound utilities, minimized icons, and built-in
wharfs) conflict with the Gnome features, and thus provide a confusing and
incosistent user interface to the enduser. For example, some window
managers use a scripted interface to use xv to set the background.
Suddenly that component of the Gnome configuration utility is rendered
useless, and user wonder's why his background won't change.
I suggest anyone interested in this issue check out the Gnome
window manager compliance mailing list, and post suggestions to Redhat
about defaulting to another WM that can be pre-configured to have all its
conflicting/confusing features turned off.
--Derek
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]