Sorry about the other post, forgot to capitalize NOME. But what do you mean about how GNOME came to be? How was it bad?-- "If practice makes perfect, and no one is perfect, then why practice?"
Exactly what do you mean by you don't like how it came into existencce?-- "If practice makes perfect, and no one is perfect, then why practice?"
Leonardo Sá wrote:
> Is KDE faster than GNOME? I really need a good looking desktop without
> taking up that much resources...
Search the archives, this had been done to death.
As for my take for low resources but a desktop environment, XFCE. Between
the options listed of KDE or Gnome, K
On Aug 24 2005, Katipo wrote:
> You don't require a full Gnome or KDE desktop.
> Just use Fluxbox, or the ilk.
Indeed. If you are going to just use a window manager instead of a whole
Desktop Environment, then I would also vote for Fluxbox, especially with
the Minimal theme, which is both useful a
Leonardo Sá wrote:
I really need a good looking desktop without taking up that much
resources...
No you don't.
You need the applications you require installed over a base system.
These bring all dependencies with them.
You don't require a full Gnome or KDE desktop.
Just use Fluxbox, or the i
Leonardo Sá:
>
> Like most first-time debian users, i started using gnome, mainly because it
> was the "default" option when i did my first graphical login. After I got
> used to the system (i was a slackware user) i noticed things getting slow.
> Apart from firefox, which eats no less than 50mb
Like most first-time debian users, i started using gnome, mainly
because it was the "default" option when i did my first graphical
login. After I got used to the system (i was a slackware user) i
noticed things getting slow. Apart from firefox, which eats no less
than 50mb out of my memory, gnome s
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2004-06-18T14:34:27Z, "Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Has anyone every tried _combining_ a graphical view with a command line in
the window?
Open Konqueror. Select "Window -> Show Terminal Emulator". It opens a
small shell window that changes working directies as
dircha wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
... I mean
like a list of, 2-300 files which have no common denominator.
Suddenly the globbing gets rather convoluted or you need to go
through several passes whereas in a GUI selection you can just go
down the list holding CNTL and SHIFT-select ranges and then exe
s. keeling wrote:
> Thank you for confirming that you're just trolling. Now I won't feel
> so bad about ignoring you.
So says the troll.
> As _everyone else_ knows, if you use emacs, it's always running. Mine
> starts in .xsession, and dies on logout.
Operative word "if you use emacs".
Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> dircha wrote:
> > Right. That's when you bring up a dired buffer in emacs.
>
> Why would I want to load a 20M+ editor to do such a simple task? Trust
> me, any time the answer involves emacs and it isn't editing text, it's the
Thank you for confirming that you're
dircha wrote:
> Right. That's when you bring up a dired buffer in emacs.
Why would I want to load a 20M+ editor to do such a simple task? Trust
me, any time the answer involves emacs and it isn't editing text, it's the
wrong answer.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm
Steve Lamb wrote:
Daniel Barclay wrote:
Actually the shell is, for cases like "rm *.o". (That's why I wish
graphical shells retained the advantages of command lines when they
added the graphical advantages.
I should have said "partial, non-continuious selections across a
large list." Simple cases
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 07:29:13AM -0700, William Ballard wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 11:41:27PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> > Hendrik Boom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:10:59 -0400:
> > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:31:33PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If the on
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 11:41:27PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> Hendrik Boom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:10:59 -0400:
> > On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:31:33PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> > >
> > > If the only process running is the idle process, doing hlt()
> > > instructions in a
Hendrik Boom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:10:59 -0400:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:31:33PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> >
> > If the only process running is the idle process, doing hlt()
> > instructions in a loop, then there are bugger all transistors doing
> > anything, so les
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:31:33PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
>
> If the only process running is the idle process, doing hlt()
> instructions in a loop, then there are bugger all transistors doing
> anything, so less power gets consumed.
>
> AFAIK, all modern i386 (AMD, Intel, etc) CPUs at least h
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:58:38 -0700:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:31:33PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> > A transistor dissipates heat when it is in the process of switching on
> > or off - when it is fully on or fully off, there is very little
> > current flow
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 05:32:22PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> I even connect the 240/110v switch up to the PSU fan (making sure to
> leave the PSU in 240v mode :), and turn it off when I want to sleep. I
> just hope that I rememeber to turn it back on before I start up a CPU
> intensive job, other
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:31:33PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> "Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:22:43 -0400:
> > Micha Feigin wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > > and they do require more cpu, eye candy takes cpu power to draw (either
> > > real cpu or graphic card cpu, either way
"Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:22:43 -0400:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
>
> > ...
> > and they do require more cpu, eye candy takes cpu power to draw (either
> > real cpu or graphic card cpu, either way, battery power).
>
> What fraction of CPUs these days can switch to lo
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:22:43AM -0400, Daniel B. wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
>
> >...
> >and they do require more cpu, eye candy takes cpu power to draw (either
> >real cpu or graphic card cpu, either way, battery power).
>
> What fraction of CPUs these days can switch to low-power mode when
Daniel Barclay wrote:
> Actually the shell is, for cases like "rm *.o". (That's why I
> wish graphical shells retained the advantages of command lines when
> they added the graphical advantages.
I should have said "partial, non-continuious selections across a large
list." Simple cases like *
At 2004-06-18T14:34:27Z, "Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone every tried _combining_ a graphical view with a command line in
> the window?
Open Konqueror. Select "Window -> Show Terminal Emulator". It opens a
small shell window that changes working directies as you navigate thr
Paul Scott wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
... Pisses me off to no end when i want
to copy
from folder A to folder B which are both in folder C and I have to
open two
windows and drill both windows down to that one subfolder and then
split when
I can just drill once, split from there, copy the fil
Micha Feigin wrote:
...
and they do require more cpu, eye candy takes cpu power to draw (either
real cpu or graphic card cpu, either way, battery power).
What fraction of CPUs these days can switch to low-power mode when
idling and what fraction use the same amount of power regardless of
whether t
Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
But that's a CLI job anyway. Tab-completion and history and the rest of
the shell goodies makes the CL easier for most of that stuff :)
Most, not all. Shell's not to fond of partial selecions across a large
list which is handled quite nicely in a properly
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:50:27PM -0400, Silvan wrote:
>
> > The hell with the money. There are people running Linux on P-II 450MHz
> > systems that can't even carry more than 512MB RAM. That's half their
> > memory, right there.
>
> I'm running a 512 MB box and typically have three KDE users
> The hell with the money. There are people running Linux on P-II 450MHz
> systems that can't even carry more than 512MB RAM. That's half their
> memory, right there.
I'm running a 512 MB box and typically have three KDE users logged in at any
given time.
Looking at memory with KInfoCenter ->
Micha Feigin wrote:
> I do believe big = bad especially when you can keep it small and get
> the same result, but I guess you won't convince me and I won't convince
> you so I will drop it at this point, you can keep going if you want.
But that's just it, isn't it? It isn't the same result.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:32:36AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
> > And you neither.
>
> > What about the usage of the graphic hardware BTW, I don't see it in
> > there, plus a bunch of other system resource usage.
>
> > You do like looking at the small picture.
>
> Uhm, no
Micha Feigin wrote:
> And you neither.
> What about the usage of the graphic hardware BTW, I don't see it in
> there, plus a bunch of other system resource usage.
> You do like looking at the small picture.
Uhm, no, that's you. You only see "more memory means more crap going on."
What abo
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:26:54AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
> > You really like pushing your point even after its fallen through the
> > cracks, don't you?
>
> Huh?
>
> top - 08:25:55 up 137 days, 5:30, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
> Tasks: 91 total, 1 r
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:04:09PM -0700, William Ballard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:34:41AM +0300, Micha Feigin wrote:
> >
> > And I believe gnome-terminal gives you only partial, if any integration
> > with gnome as it uses its own settings. Its only advantage is that it
> > looks like
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:21:13AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
> > 1. If you will read the whole thread you will see that its just gone off
> > track, and you pushed in this direction in the first place. Push
> > someone in the corner and then attack them for being pushed in the
Micha Feigin wrote:
> You really like pushing your point even after its fallen through the
> cracks, don't you?
Huh?
top - 08:25:55 up 137 days, 5:30, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Tasks: 91 total, 1 running, 90 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.7% user, 2.3% sy
Micha Feigin wrote:
> 1. If you will read the whole thread you will see that its just gone off
> track, and you pushed in this direction in the first place. Push
> someone in the corner and then attack them for being pushed in the
> corner |-D
Excuse me? I did not.
--- SNIP ---
s. keeling wr
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 11:05, Paul Scott wrote:
> Steven Yap wrote:
> >The window list is a gnome-panel applet. Add it to a Gnome panel and
> >you're done. It essentially is the taskbar.
> >
> Meaning it's always visible and doesn't take up any more screen space?
>
If your panel is not set to "a
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:34:41AM +0300, Micha Feigin wrote:
>
> And I believe gnome-terminal gives you only partial, if any integration
> with gnome as it uses its own settings. Its only advantage is that it
> looks like gnome.
>
> > I recommend xterm or rxvt. You can change the font with the -
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:16:09PM -0500, dircha wrote:
> William Ballard wrote:
> >>>Fluxbox
> >>>Desktop 1 w/ 4 gnome terminals & Gbuffy.
> >>>Desktop 2 w/ Firefox full screen.
>
> Since you've given us all a look at your workspace, I'll make a few
> friendly recommendations. Maybe others have
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 02:18:47PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
> > Of course you could, but that wouldn't be very proper
> > programing. Assuming proper coding it does imply in certain cases (and
> > window managers usually fall into that category) on computational
> > complexity
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 02:17:49PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
> > And in such scenarios I find other window managers much more suiting
> > for the task.
>
> And yet when someone comes here asking for a comparison between the two
> you feel compelled to lambast their choice.
William Ballard wrote:
Fluxbox
Desktop 1 w/ 4 gnome terminals & Gbuffy.
Desktop 2 w/ Firefox full screen.
Since you've given us all a look at your workspace, I'll make a few
friendly recommendations. Maybe others have ideas as well.
If you don't use anything like Gaim or GIMP, you might consider
Micha Feigin wrote:
> Of course you could, but that wouldn't be very proper
> programing. Assuming proper coding it does imply in certain cases (and
> window managers usually fall into that category) on computational
> complexity.
Point stands that something loaded doesn't mean it is always be
Micha Feigin wrote:
> And in such scenarios I find other window managers much more suiting
> for the task.
And yet when someone comes here asking for a comparison between the two
you feel compelled to lambast their choice. Nice.
> And if you go into options how do I make a custom menu with g
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:13:50AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
> > and they do require more cpu, eye candy takes cpu power to draw (either
> > real cpu or graphic card cpu, either way, battery power). It also
> > requires more memory accesses each time you need to redraw parts of
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:27AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
> > No, but the cpu cycles required to handle all the overhead do take more
> > power (more memory usually means someone is using it, otherwise it
> > really is bloatware), and yes its the cpu that is causing the powe
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:18:25AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> At 2004-06-16T05:35:57Z, William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Have P4 3.2 + 9800XT, 1 gig memory
> >
> > ===>
> >
> > Fluxbox
> > Desktop 1 w/ 4 gnome terminals & Gbuffy.
> > Desktop 2 w/ Firefox full screen.
>
> I have
Micha Feigin wrote:
> and they do require more cpu, eye candy takes cpu power to draw (either
> real cpu or graphic card cpu, either way, battery power). It also
> requires more memory accesses each time you need to redraw parts of the
> screen to access bitmaps, calculate transparencies, build gra
Micha Feigin wrote:
> No, but the cpu cycles required to handle all the overhead do take more
> power (more memory usually means someone is using it, otherwise it
> really is bloatware), and yes its the cpu that is causing the power
> consumption (and even if you do use accelerated graphics to redu
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:31:21AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> At 2004-06-16T15:02:37Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is someone actually arguing that 1s were more power than 0s?
>
> I choose to believe that they were arguing that desktop environments like
> KDE and Gnome require
Steven Yap wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 10:04, Paul Scott wrote:
Steven Yap wrote:
Errm, doesn't the "Show windows from all workspaces" option for the
window list applet work for you?
I don't have Gnome installed at the moment. Is the window list
displayed in the taskbar? If it's
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 08:02:37AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> charlie derr wrote:
> > also, i don't think the memory consumption of the desktop is all that
> > much "weight" on the battery life
>
> Is someone actually arguing that 1s were more power than 0s?
>
No, but the cpu cycles required
At 2004-06-16T15:02:37Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is someone actually arguing that 1s were more power than 0s?
I choose to believe that they were arguing that desktop environments like
KDE and Gnome require more CPU (which I would debate) and more installed
memory (which I wouldn'
charlie derr wrote:
> also, i don't think the memory consumption of the desktop is all that
> much "weight" on the battery life
Is someone actually arguing that 1s were more power than 0s?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2004-06-16T06:03:14Z, Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Another issue is that more gui and more memory mean more power which
translate to less battery time on the laptop.
OK, that's a valid point that I won't dispute. I've always bought used
laptops and I've yet to
At 2004-06-16T05:35:57Z, William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have P4 3.2 + 9800XT, 1 gig memory
>
> ===>
>
> Fluxbox
> Desktop 1 w/ 4 gnome terminals & Gbuffy.
> Desktop 2 w/ Firefox full screen.
I have to ask, what are you doing in those 4 terminal where a gig of memory
doesn't give yo
At 2004-06-16T06:03:14Z, Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another issue is that more gui and more memory mean more power which
> translate to less battery time on the laptop.
OK, that's a valid point that I won't dispute. I've always bought used
laptops and I've yet to get one with a w
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 10:04, Paul Scott wrote:
> Steven Yap wrote:
>
> >
> >Errm, doesn't the "Show windows from all workspaces" option for the
> >window list applet work for you?
> >
> I don't have Gnome installed at the moment. Is the window list
> displayed in the taskbar? If it's somethin
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:13:42PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> At 2004-06-16T01:26:28Z, Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I tried my system with fvwm and gnome (sorry, don't have kde installed)
> > with everything else unchanged, memory usage on startup before starting
> > any progr
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 02:53:00PM +1000, Matthew Joyce wrote:
> >
> > > For me kde/gnome have their place for M$ refugees but I don't like
> > > them myself.
> >
> > Be nice, now. I haven't touched a Windows system in months,
> > and haven't really used one regularly since the '90s. I'm
> >
>
> > For me kde/gnome have their place for M$ refugees but I don't like
> > them myself.
>
> Be nice, now. I haven't touched a Windows system in months,
> and haven't really used one regularly since the '90s. I'm
> hardly what you'd call a "M$ refugee" but I love KDE
> --
> Kirk Strauser
>
At 2004-06-16T01:26:28Z, Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried my system with fvwm and gnome (sorry, don't have kde installed)
> with everything else unchanged, memory usage on startup before starting
> any programs as about 15MB-20MB difference, that a lot when all I have on
> my lap
Micha Feigin wrote:
Gnome and KDE are also bloated everywhere else, not just memory, they
kill your cpu in the process also.
No doubt. Is there anything worse than seeing top run in GNOME's
terminal emulator consume ~4-6% CPU on a P4 1.7 Ghz machine? It has been
a while now since I last tried GNO
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:40:22AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> CaT wrote:
> > It's more of a case of 'Isn't 240Mb (or 200 cos of squid) a bit much for
> > a pretty desktop?' ;)
>
> That depends. To a person with ~700Mb, no. To a person with ~8Mb, yes.
> However somehow this became a holy war
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:21:35AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> At 2004-06-15T15:52:23Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > He got it from someone surmising that my KDE was 200Mb without backing it
> > up.
>
> I think you're probably right. Maybe it's that people load KDE and launch
>
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 03:26:12AM -0400, Chad Perrin wrote:
> Simon Kitching wrote:
> >On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 18:14, CaT wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:50:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >>
> >>>s. keeling wrote:
> >>>
> I gave up on both of those; they're equally uncontrollable, and
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:40:22AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> That depends. To a person with ~700Mb, no. To a person with ~8Mb, yes.
> However somehow this became a holy war of "OMG that's so bloated!!!"
> instead of answering the OP's question; which do people prefer?
Neither. I have
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:40:22AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> CaT wrote:
> > It's more of a case of 'Isn't 240Mb (or 200 cos of squid) a bit much for
> > a pretty desktop?' ;)
>
> That depends. To a person with ~700Mb, no. To a person with ~8Mb, yes.
> However somehow this became a holy war
Kirk Strauser wrote:
> Still, one thing that Konqueror lets me do more conveniently than a shell
> prompt is interact with remote filesystems. I can use the sftp:// or
> fish:// methods to browse filesystems on servers located elsewhere, then
> drag-and-drop files to windows browsing local Samba s
At 2004-06-15T18:27:51Z, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joachim Fahnenmueller) writes:
> Not bad. But IMHO far better:
> $ cd /u[tab]sh[tab] etc.
> $ mc al[tab] si[tab]
Note that you skipped a latter part of my message:
>> Of course, my main file manager is Konsole and Zsh, so most of this is
>> academic on
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:01:29AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> At 2004-06-15T03:01:59Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Pisses me off to no end when i want to copy from folder A to folder B
> > which are both in folder C and I have to open two windows and drill both
> > windows down
Em Tue, 15 Jun 2004 03:50:07 +0200, dircha escreveu:
> In GNOME try printing in the default installs of gpdf (PDF), ggv
> (Postscript), Epiphany (web browser), or Abiword (word processor) to
> name a few.
It works nicely in the 2.6 version, now in CVS. Real spoiler
here is CUPS.
--
Steven Yap wrote:
On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 22:40, Paul Scott wrote:
As to the original topic a strong reason for my using KDE over Gnome is
having all tasks in the taskbar instead of only those on the current
desktop. If someone knows how to easily fix this in Gnome I might give
it another look
At 2004-06-15T15:52:23Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> He got it from someone surmising that my KDE was 200Mb without backing it
> up.
I think you're probably right. Maybe it's that people load KDE and launch
one program and freak out at the resource usage. They don't realize that
KD
Kirk Strauser wrote:
> I really don't know where people get this "KDE is slow" stuff to be honest.
He got it from someone surmising that my KDE was 200Mb without backing it
up. So, here's some rumor control. I closed down KDE and killed all apps
that had been running. Ran free. Then logged
Simon Kitching wrote:
> It's always real hard to measure actual memory usage of an app. This
> 240MB is presumably actually the memory taken by the kernel plus disk
> cache + all sorts of other stuff too, like SSH servers.
Nope, the disk caches and such are on the free line. The 240Mb isn't a
CaT wrote:
> It's more of a case of 'Isn't 240Mb (or 200 cos of squid) a bit much for
> a pretty desktop?' ;)
That depends. To a person with ~700Mb, no. To a person with ~8Mb, yes.
However somehow this became a holy war of "OMG that's so bloated!!!"
instead of answering the OP's question
At 2004-06-15T03:01:59Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pisses me off to no end when i want to copy from folder A to folder B
> which are both in folder C and I have to open two windows and drill both
> windows down to that one subfolder and then split when I can just drill
> once, split
At 2004-06-15T08:12:39Z, Tim Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Especially if you only have 256MB ram (think: anything more than 1 year
> old - ie, what the majority of us own).
I have a K6-3/333 laptop that I just upgraded from 96MB to 192MB. I used
KDE before the upgrade, and I use KDE now
Edward Murrell escribió:
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 09:10, Cecil wrote:
I am curious as to what the pros and cons would be of picking just one
desktop and deleting the other. Please tell me which you prefer, and
resons why. I have bothe kde and gnome now. Thanks,
Cecil
You can install and
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:10:56PM -0500, Cecil wrote:
> I am curious as to what the pros and cons would be of picking just one
> desktop and deleting the other. Please tell me which you prefer, and
> resons why. I have bothe kde and gnome now. Thanks,
>
> Cecil
>
Hi Cecil,
you may need them
> saying they're revolutionary in doing so. But then, that's the Gnome bunch
> for ya.
ALL generalizations are ABSOLUTELY a waste of EVERYONE's time.
There is NEVER, ANY benefit to making them WHAT-SO-EVER.
Humorously,
One of the recently boxed GNOME 'bunch'.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 22:40, Paul Scott wrote:
>
> As to the original topic a strong reason for my using KDE over Gnome is
> having all tasks in the taskbar instead of only those on the current
> desktop. If someone knows how to easily fix this in Gnome I might give
> it another look.
Errm, d
Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:45:51 +1200:
> On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 18:14, CaT wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:50:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~} free
> > > total used free sharedbuffers cached
> > >
CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:14:37 +1000:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:50:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > s. keeling wrote:
> > > I gave up on both of those; they're equally uncontrollable, and far
> > > too fat to leave any room for actual applications to run. ymmv.
> >
Simon Kitching wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 18:14, CaT wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:50:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
s. keeling wrote:
I gave up on both of those; they're equally uncontrollable, and far
too fat to leave any room for actual applications to run. ymmv.
Could've fooled me.
KDE
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 18:14, CaT wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:50:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > s. keeling wrote:
> > > I gave up on both of those; they're equally uncontrollable, and far
> > > too fat to leave any room for actual applications to run. ymmv.
> >
> > Could've fooled m
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:50:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> s. keeling wrote:
> > I gave up on both of those; they're equally uncontrollable, and far
> > too fat to leave any room for actual applications to run. ymmv.
>
> Could've fooled me.
>
> KDE + Squid + Addzapper + other stuff...
>
Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
But that's a CLI job anyway. Tab-completion and history and the rest of
the shell goodies makes the CL easier for most of that stuff :)
Most, not all.
Agreed!
Shell's not to fond of partial selecions across a large
list which is handled quite nicely
Paul Scott wrote:
> But that's a CLI job anyway. Tab-completion and history and the rest of
> the shell goodies makes the CL easier for most of that stuff :)
Most, not all. Shell's not to fond of partial selecions across a large
list which is handled quite nicely in a properly implemented GU
Steve Lamb wrote:
Alan Shutko wrote:
Ignore them... they'll learn what we learned long ago, they'll just
be annoying until they do.
That's just the thing, I don't want to ignore them. I happen to really
HATE the idiotic browser model. Pisses me off to no end when i want to copy
from fo
Alan Shutko wrote:
> Ignore them... they'll learn what we learned long ago, they'll just
> be annoying until they do.
That's just the thing, I don't want to ignore them. I happen to really
HATE the idiotic browser model. Pisses me off to no end when i want to copy
from folder A to folder B w
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Love to know why people are calling it a new thing. Everything I've read
> about the "spatial nautilus" being a "departure" from how GUI computing has
> been done only reminds me of how I've been doing it for the past several years
> in Win95-Win2k and
Cecil wrote:
I am curious as to what the pros and cons would be of picking just one
desktop and deleting the other. Please tell me which you prefer, and
resons why. I have bothe kde and gnome now. Thanks,
In GNOME try printing in the default installs of gpdf (PDF), ggv
(Postscript), Epiphany (w
Edward Murrell wrote:
> It's really a case of how much you want to fiddle with things. KDE is
> big on options. GNOME is big on setting the defaults for you (which by
> and large, I prefer, with the exception of that weird ass spatial
> nautilus thing).
Love to know why people are calling it a
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 09:10, Cecil wrote:
> I am curious as to what the pros and cons would be of picking just one
> desktop and deleting the other. Please tell me which you prefer, and
> resons why. I have bothe kde and gnome now. Thanks,
>
> Cecil
>
It's really a case of how much you want t
s. keeling wrote:
> I gave up on both of those; they're equally uncontrollable, and far
> too fat to leave any room for actual applications to run. ymmv.
Could've fooled me.
KDE + Squid + Addzapper + other stuff...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~} free
total used free share
Incoming from Cecil:
> I am curious as to what the pros and cons would be of picking just one
> desktop and deleting the other. Please tell me which you prefer, and
> resons why. I have bothe kde and gnome now. Thanks,
"We like both kinds; Country and Western." *-)
I gave up on both of those;
I am curious as to what the pros and cons would be of picking just one
desktop and deleting the other. Please tell me which you prefer, and
resons why. I have bothe kde and gnome now. Thanks,
Cecil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
