Re: GNOME on Ice (the point behind my insult)

[mawarkus t-online de (Matthias Warkus)]

+++ Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 06:45:58AM -0400 +++
Kevin Atkinson e-mails me. Film at 11. Reply right now, after the break.
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > 
> > +++ Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 04:51:23AM -0400 +++
> > Kevin Atkinson e-mails me. Film at 11. Reply right now, after the break.
> > > Elliot Lee wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here is a nice article on using the IceWM with GNOME:
> > > > >   http://www.linuxpower.com/display_item.phtml?id=140
> > > > >
> > > > > Truefully I don't know why you gnome and RedHat folks like that slow
> > 
> > First of all, Enlightenment isn't slow.
> 
> That all deponds.  It does tend to be resorce hungry.

You're right about the "that all depends" thing. It all depends on the
theme. The stock Enlightenment themes are graphically intensive and
Enlightement can happen to suck up a lot of core.

> How do you define slow?

High response time. Yeah, there might be window managers that react
faster. But then, I haven't gone to the trouble of tuning E for
maximum speed (which is possible by turning off features that induce
delays), and there are slower window managers. SCWM for example.

> > > However the GNOME project is not about being able to rampantly
> > > customize things--it is about ease of use.  Most end users, such as
> > > myself, want a window manager that works and doesn't hog resources.
> > > Enlightenment is not it.
> > 
> > "Most end users want." Have you done a survey on a thousand end users?
> 
> No I have not.  Would you be happy is I said.  It is my perceptions that
> most end users.....

Yeah, that would be better.
 
> > > Now if people want to go off in the deep end over a minor insult and/or
> > > stereotyping--that is not my problem.
> > 
> > You're making all the classical mistakes one finds so often in posting
> > by naive would-be advocates on comp.os.linux.advocacy and such. You
> > insult, you make assumptions, you talk as if you were representative
> > of a crowd... sorry, but I just can't take you seriously.
> > 
> 
> Are you saying because I made all these things in this one post I am now
> in your kill file?

No, no, no. Don't worry.

> I am very sorry if what I was trying to say did not
> come out right, I normally am not this probative.
> 
> Obviously, sense gnome no longer distributes  Enlightenment I should
> take this up with RedHat which, to my knolage, still uses Enlightenment
> as the default gnome window manager.  I KNOW they did for RedHat 6.0, I
> am not sure for RedHat 6.1.

I, too, think that it is kind of silly to package Enlightenment as the
default window manager for Gnome. But after all, that happened for
hysterical raisins, at the 6.0 release E was about the only WM with
decent Gnome support. Enlightenment is neither slow nor exorbitantly
memory-hungry, not even in the default setup, its memory usage is
comparable to that of, say, Window Maker. But it's alpha software.
Then, most popular window managers are.

There are some issues with IceWM, too. I don't like its autoraise
behaviour, the wide borders, the taskbar which tends to get in the
way... there is no end-all-be-all solution.

mawa
-- 
The few folks actually working toward a goal of gender _equality_
rather than an _inversion_ of the gender power structure have mostly
abandoned the term `feminism' to the uncurably strident.
                                          -- xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG