Re: Window managers

[alexander volovics <awol STAT UNIMAAS NL>]

On 27-Apr-99 Preben Randhol wrote:

> Richard Hult <rhult@hem2.passagen.se> writes:
> 
>| RedHat has chosen to do it this way, to make sure that the user always
>| have at least one gnome-compliant window manager. There has been variuos
> 
> This must be one of the more lame excuses I have heard in a long
> time. To me it looks more like one is trying to push Enligthenment. I
> have tried enlightenment and gnome and if that was my first encounter
> with gnome, I probably would have uninstalled the lot and used KDE or
> some such.

I don't really understand all the bellyaching about Enlightenment.
When you have installed GNOME and use the GNOME panel and gmc and 
gnome-config, i.e. you work full time with GNOME, you do not even see
or notice Enlightenment anymore.
It works quietly and practically unnoticed in the background
(assuming E and the GNOME-E interaction is bug free) 'managing windows'.
You could even configure E so that the middle mouse button pop-up menu
is not active.
If you use GNOME I expect you mostly will not want a 'visible' window-
manager any more, GNOME has it all.

The only complaints I find relevant about E is if you already have a 
window-manager running and do not want to download the extra files or
if you think E is not stable or uses too much memory.

I can't understand why anybody would want any extra window-manager
panels, icons, etc. next to GNOME because they do not contribute to the
aesthetics or functionality of GNOME unless you put a lot of extra work
into 'themes' to unify the mix.
And then the underlying window-manager is irrelevant and can just as
well be Enlightenment as any other.   

-------------------------------------
Alexander Volovics
Dept of Methodology & Statistics
Maastricht University, Maastricht, NL
-------------------------------------