Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Nov 2007 21:22 UTC, submitted by irbis
Window Managers "Linux has proven amazingly flexible: after nearly 10 years of use, I'm still impressed by how the Linux operating system does exactly what I want on any type of hardware. Desktop customization is no exception; from the ultra-modern KDE and GNOME window managers to with the likes of Fluxbox and AfterStep, there's a Linux desktop to suit everyone."
Thread beginning with comment 285272
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by diegocg on Mon 19th Nov 2007 21:37 UTC
Member since:

the ultra-modern KDE and GNOME window managers

I love KDE, but I have always had the impression that KDE and Gnome were designed and built primarily to catch-up windows in the desktop world (except in the case of KDE4). It's not that they haven't succeded at it and have even beated windows in some areas, but I wouldn't call them "ultra-modern" myself. Modern, yes, but not "ultra-modern".

(i know, i know, I also could answer some things to a message like this, but it's just my opinion)

Edited 2007-11-19 21:40 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: "ultra-modern"?
by apoclypse on Mon 19th Nov 2007 22:35 in reply to ""ultra-modern"?"
apoclypse Member since:

I think that is a misconception. I find that gnome in general has more in common with MaoOS_old than windows in general. Its an amalgam for sure, but it still feels less like windows than say KDE. KDE4 may change things, and then I think that the comparisons to windows would only be superficial at the most. That is not to say that gnome or KDE can't be configured to work or act very much like windows, the same can be said bout Linux in general. That is what makes Linux what it is, its ability to provide users choice and this article is just one in a long list of alternatives that users can use with their favorite OS.

A lot of people seem to accuse Linux DE's or distro's of aping windows. This may be the case in certain areas but usually windows is nto the only one being drawn on for inspiration. Take the Slab menu for example (Novell, Opensuse, etc.) At a glance it looks very similar to the windows start menu, but as you use it you start to realize that it works more like OSX, with user defined shortcuts and a separate window to access more applications (Finder->applications. Why don't people complain about having to open a separate window in OSX?) Basically the slab marries the two concepts both windows and OSX into one whole. Had hey been smart they would have found a sane way of doing system notification there too.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: "ultra-modern"?
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 20th Nov 2007 07:24 in reply to "RE: "ultra-modern"?"
Flatland_Spider Member since:

(Finder->applications. Why don't people complain about having to open a separate window in OSX?)

Because there are very few conversations about the deficiencies of the Mac OS X GUI, and those who don't like it have moved on to other OSs or DEs that do what they want.

I Mac OS does dearly needs an application launcher or an application menu, and no the dock doesn't count. I consider it a pretty quick launch bar and a mediocre task bar. I haven't lived with the 10.5 dock yet, so I can't say how the new features affect it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: "ultra-modern"?
by evangs on Tue 20th Nov 2007 07:31 in reply to "RE: "ultra-modern"?"
evangs Member since:

(Finder->applications. Why don't people complain about having to open a separate window in OSX?)

Because you don't need to. You can drag the Applications folder to the Dock and that makes it behave like the start menu. Alternatively, you can create your own Application's folder, populate it with subfolders for different categories like Accessories, Office, Multimedia, etc and populate these subfolders with aliases to applications in /Applications. You then put this new folder on the Dock and you've got a nice hierarchical applications menu.

Or you could just be lazy like me and hit Cmd+Space to invoke spotlight and type in the first few letters of the application you want to launch....

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: "ultra-modern"?
by Sophotect on Tue 20th Nov 2007 07:56 in reply to ""ultra-modern"?"
Sophotect Member since:

What is "windowslike" about this?
Some pictures to show off the difference to this reocurring theme, while infusing myself with some morningcoffee and feeling the urge to ramble against that :-)
General desktop, rarely seen because usually it is covered by running applications:
The Browser:
Some older filemanagement showoff:
And just in case...what is wrong about being like something which is known to most people having to use computers, and therefore known how to handle it almost immediately?
I have tried many of the alternatives, and been stuck in KDE-Country, because for me, overall it gives the best "bang for the buck". Whereas "buck" is not right exactly, since it is free to download in whichever distribution you are using, it is just a matter of time and taste customising it to your needs. Once you have done that it flies, depending on which hardware you are running it, and which bells and whistles you have switched on or off. But, it scales down very well to something as "lowly" as a Pentium III running at 1GHz with onboard i815 VGA and 512MB Ram. With scaling down well i mean something which is not visible by watching screenshots, imagine a opening a folder with hundreds of files in it, showing the generated file previews in fractions of a second. Imagine that while playing music with the oh so bloated Amarok, or watching a video in f.e. KMPlayer while doing that. Stuttering ? Err, no, why should it? And this "why should it" i have found in no other combination of ease of use and general usability. Now imagine how this combination flies on actual hardware ;->

Edited 2007-11-20 08:05

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: "ultra-modern"?
by heron on Tue 20th Nov 2007 17:37 in reply to ""ultra-modern"?"
heron Member since:

Nah... not ultra modern, not by a long shot. But then, what is these days?

Reply Parent Score: 1