On Friday 31 January 2003 05:06, Gary Greene wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Can some one tell me why it was deemed that the kdm login dialog needed to
> change to a add-on that isn't in the stock KDE distribution? It looks kinda
> clumsy from a UI design standpoint.
On Friday 31 January 2003 04:06, Gary Greene wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Can some one tell me why it was deemed that the kdm login dialog needed to
> change to a add-on that isn't in the stock KDE distribution? It looks kinda
> clumsy from a UI design standpoint.
Pascal wrote:
Le Vendredi 31 Janvier 2003 05:06, Gary Greene a écrit :
Can some one tell me why it was deemed that the kdm login dialog needed to
change to a add-on that isn't in the stock KDE distribution? It looks kinda
clumsy from a UI design standpoint. That, and I personally LIKED the sto
Le Vendredi 31 Janvier 2003 05:06, Gary Greene a écrit :
> Can some one tell me why it was deemed that the kdm login dialog needed to
> change to a add-on that isn't in the stock KDE distribution? It looks kinda
> clumsy from a UI design standpoint. That, and I personally LIKED the stock
> 3.1 logi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can some one tell me why it was deemed that the kdm login dialog needed to
change to a add-on that isn't in the stock KDE distribution? It looks kinda
clumsy from a UI design standpoint. That, and I personally LIKED the stock
3.1 login UI.
- --
G
