On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 14:04, Dan Scannell wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Im wondering if you experiencing a problem that I had a while back, it used
> to hang for about 15 seconds while booting Gnome. It only seemed to occur
> under Metacity rather than XFCE.
Dan, it's not really hanging .. it's just kinda s
. Fraley
To: pedro noticioso
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 1/23/03 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] over my dead body... [slightly OT]
So what is the difference between Galeon and Phoenix? They are both
Mozilla based?
Just curious..
Am Don, 2003-01-23 um 00.12 schrieb pedro noticioso:
---
On Thursday 23 January 2003 5:36 pm, Joseph wrote:
> Do you use Galeon with icewm?
We do - versions straight off the SuSE 8.1 distro.
Cheers
--
Phil Driscoll
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWo
Do you use Galeon with icewm?
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 13:30, Phil Driscoll wrote:
> On Thursday 23 January 2003 9:11 am, Chris Puttick wrote:
> > Its focus on lightness and speed (and therefore small memory footprint)
> > probably make it ideal for LTSP users.
>
> I suspect (but don't know for sure
On Thursday 23 January 2003 9:11 am, Chris Puttick wrote:
> Its focus on lightness and speed (and therefore small memory footprint)
> probably make it ideal for LTSP users.
I suspect (but don't know for sure, because I haven't tried it) that it might
be slightly less ideal for LTSP than Galeon be
Tom,
Im wondering if you experiencing a problem that I had a while back, it used
to hang for about 15 seconds while booting Gnome. It only seemed to occur
under Metacity rather than XFCE.
Since migrating to KDE, which is a dream to install compared to Gnome when
compiling from source, Ive never
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 09:32, Peter Childs wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Dan Scannell wrote:
>
> > Regarding bloatware, what do people actually mean when they refer to this,
> > is it the number of bundled applications that come with the WM/DM or the
> > actual memory footprint of the overall basic
On Thursday 23 January 2003 10:39, Patrick W. Fraley wrote:
> So what is the difference between Galeon and Phoenix? They are both
> Mozilla based?
>
> Just curious..
Always a good thing :)
Gecko is Mozilla's rendering engine. It isn't a browser.
Phoenix comes from the Mozilla source (no other
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:11:43 -
Chris Puttick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Galeon is based on Gecko using a Gnome interface. Phoenix is pared to the
> bone Gecko + latest functionality from Multizilla, with a cross-platform XUL
> based interface. It is gaining users at a horrendous rate from al
table.
Its focus on lightness and speed (and therefore small memory footprint)
probably make it ideal for LTSP users.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Fraley
To: pedro noticioso
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 1/23/03 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] over my dead body... [slightly OT
So what is the difference between Galeon and Phoenix? They are both
Mozilla based?
Just curious..
Am Don, 2003-01-23 um 00.12 schrieb pedro noticioso:
>
> --- Rick Gatewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 January 2003 09:17 am, Louis Sabet
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I changed browsers
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Dan Scannell wrote:
> Regarding bloatware, what do people actually mean when they refer to this,
> is it the number of bundled applications that come with the WM/DM or the
> actual memory footprint of the overall basic design.
In the case of Gnome and Kde I see it as
All,
I believe once KDE 3.1 is released, any time now hopefully, the talk of 'its
too bloated' or 'its too slow' should be a thing of the past. Its seems the
KDE team have spent a lot of time optimising their code and making it as
fast as possible, espicially when compiled with gcc 3.2. Gnome 2.
--- Rick Gatewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 January 2003 09:17 am, Louis Sabet
> wrote:
> >
> > I changed browsers from konqueror (which I used to
> think was great) to
> > Opera - the $30 cost per license is well worth it
> IMO, since it offers the
> > best combination of useabil
>> Might be worth keeping an eye on, assuming MS
> > > >> doesn't sue them to high
> > > >> heaven...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> L
> > > >>
> > > >> --On Friday, January 17, 2003 09:33:44 -0600
> > > &g
>> doesn't sue them to high
>> > > >> heaven...
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> L
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --On Friday, January 17, 2003 09:33:44 -0600
>> > > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Louis Sabet wrote:
> Yeah, I installed it.
Me too, except I tried to make it world usable, instead of only
installing it in each user's $HOME directory. This failed horribly. In
its current state (without playing with it alot more), I don't think it
> > >> "Baeseman, Cliff"
> > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I have never tried this but take a look at this,
> > > >> it should be close
> > > >> > enough
> &g
;
> > >> L
> > >>
> > >> --On Friday, January 17, 2003 09:33:44 -0600
> > >> "Baeseman, Cliff"
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I have never tried this but take a look at thi
Louis,
If you want to use IceWM but also want icons, you can get them by using DFM.
And, IceWM also has an XP theme. I used it on our thin clients here at the
library, with a desktop background swiped from OS X, to further confuse
matters. ;)
--
Cindy Murdock
Network Administrator
Meadville
tried this but take a look at this,
>> it should be close
>> > enough
>> >
>> > I do not know how mature it is, or even if it
>> works but it does look about
>> > as close
>> > to xp as one can get.
>> >
>> >
>>
take a look at this,
> >> it should be close
> >> > enough
> >> >
> >> > I do not know how mature it is, or even if it
> >> works but it does look about
> >> > as close
> >> > to xp as one can get.
> >> >
> >> >
>
n
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Louis Sabet
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 1/17/03 8:45 AM
> Subject: [Ltsp-discuss] over my dead body...
[slightly OT]
>
> Hi all,
>
> I work for a small company whose long-standing
staff have long adopted
> an
> ove
On Tuesday 21 January 2003 09:17 am, Louis Sabet wrote:
>
> I changed browsers from konqueror (which I used to think was great) to
> Opera - the $30 cost per license is well worth it IMO, since it offers the
> best combination of useability (something I don't think mozilla ever fully
> achieved), a
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:17:45 +
Louis Sabet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I changed browsers from konqueror (which I used to think was great) to
> Opera - the $30 cost per license is well worth it IMO, since it offers the
> best combination of useability (something I don't think mozilla ever f
Opera is one of the few pieces of commercial software I used on Linux,
but I find I now use Phoenix, the stripped down version of Mozilla. Now
that Flash has been fixed for LTSP I rarely use anything else. I'd also
suggest Sylpheed as a light email client.
John
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:17:45 +
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Louis Sabet wrote:
> Windowmanager is now qvwm - I found this to be excellent. It looks like
> win95, does ALT-TAB perfectly, taskbar works a treat, all the window
> behaviour is identical to MS, and everything is nicely configurable. Icons
> are a pain since you have to ma
dules.php?name=Screenshots
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cliff Baeseman
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Louis Sabet
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 1/17/03 8:45 AM
> > Subject: [Ltsp-discuss] over my dead body...
>
Hi John,
I think with my budget as it stands, our sales department don't have much
of a choice as to whether they want LTSP or not.
Essentially there isn't a good enough reason for them to need windows'
fancy features, and plenty of good reasons for them to use LTSP.
Upper management are alrea
.php?name=Screenshots
Cliff Baeseman
-Original Message-
From: Louis Sabet
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 1/17/03 8:45 AM
Subject: [Ltsp-discuss] over my dead body... [slightly OT]
Hi all,
I work for a small company whose long-standing staff have long adopted
an
over-my-dead-body attitud
Hmm .. I saw this project a while ago .. prehaps an alternative ??
http://www.xpde.com
--
Regards,
Adrian Snyman
Tel: +27 11 397 1640
Cell +27 82 600 1211
/* Beat me, Whip me, Make me use Windows !! */
==
The views expressed in this email are, unless otherwise stated, those o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you evaluate IceWM with a Windoze theme? It doesn't have desktop
icons, but it shows a toolbar and a main menu. You can configure IceWM
through a central setup file and deny access to any functionality you
don't want your users to fiddle with. IceWM has a small footpr
You need to check what OpenOffice.org is called and where it is. If you
install OOo as part of a RH8.0 install, you'll find something like:
$ whereis oocalc
oocalc: /usr/bin/oocalc
and so you can just specify 'oocalc' in your qvwm menus. If you have
installed it from a download from the OOo site,
Just installed qvwm on rh8, pretty neat first
impression with its looks, but it has its own menu, I
already downloaded the mentioned howto and started
hacking it a little, matching the menu to my preffered
apps.
but it came to me as a surprise, that it will not run
open office apps oocalc, oowrite
Did you evaluate IceWM with a Windoze theme? It doesn't have desktop
icons, but it shows a toolbar and a main menu. You can configure IceWM
through a central setup file and deny access to any functionality you
don't want your users to fiddle with. IceWM has a small footprint, it
starts up fast and
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:01:49 -0600 (CST)
"Jeff Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> even more OT, but has anybody tried to load different fonts into qvwm to
> make it prettier? also has anyone tried to get their windows key to bring
> up the start menu?
There are various places where you can
Hi
> I work for a small company whose long-standing staff have long adopted an=20
> over-my-dead-body attitude towards change.
> LTSP would be a perfect, cost-effective replacement for this setup.
> and stable, and I have installed OpenOffice and Konqueror (KDE) which is=20
> pretty much all th
even more OT, but has anybody tried to load different fonts into qvwm to
make it prettier? also has anyone tried to get their windows key to bring
up the start menu?
-Jeff
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:45:59 +
> Louis Sabet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> My problem now is in findi
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] over my dead body... [slightly OT]
From: "Jeff Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have to agree with John. I've been pleased with my switch from gnome
to qvwm. If you need to keep a coniste
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 11:08:12AM -0800, pedro noticioso wrote:
> So make your life easyer by not deciding so much for
> them, let them in on some choice for a change.
That is a neat idea. Instead of forcing the desktop environment on
them, let them know that they can get to every program throug
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:45:59 +
Louis Sabet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> My problem now is in finding an appropriate GUI. These users are all
> trained for windows. We have no time for extensive retraining, and so I
> need to find something as close to the windows look-n-feel as possi
how mature it is, or even if it works
> but it does look about
> as close
> to xp as one can get.
>
>
>
> http://www.xpde.com/modules.php?name=Screenshots
>
>
>
>
> Cliff Baeseman
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis Sabet
> To
Make the wm you like the most as default and let your
users choose from all the options you mentioned at the
gdm login 8)
After a few months of use, you may ask them about
their favourites, I bet there will be different
opinions; some of my users even asked me to install
more window managers hehe
Dear Louis,
I've been working with LTSP (in fact K12LTSP) for nearly a year now, and
couldn't resist checking your .co.uk web addresses. It turns out we're
less than 10 miles apart!
However, I don't have a magic answer to your question. I tend to take
the path of least resistance: if it ain't bro
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:45:59 +
Louis Sabet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I work for a small company whose long-standing staff have long adopted
> an over-my-dead-body attitude towards change.
>
> At present our sales department is using windows on a daily basis, and
> has done so
Louis,
the question carries its own answer. What you need is a dead body
or 2. Acceptance of oo and ltsp terminals went way up in my company after
the first layoffs in 80 years. julius
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Louis Sabet wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I work for a small company whose long-standing sta
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 02:45:59PM +, Louis Sabet wrote:
> Alt-Tab - Fluxbox handles this nicely.
> Task-bar - KDE/GNOME have this, but are too bloated and would involve
icewm handles both of these nicely. Install the fake95 theme, and the
users will have to do a double-take to realize it's
FVWM95 when I did look at it was too like windows 95 for may
liking I think this is what they designed it for.
I don't partually like (black/flux)box I would like to have bigger
buttons, I think people like being able to spread icons all over there
desktop in windows and that st
: Louis Sabet
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 1/17/03 8:45 AM
Subject: [Ltsp-discuss] over my dead body... [slightly OT]
Hi all,
I work for a small company whose long-standing staff have long adopted
an
over-my-dead-body attitude towards change.
At present our sales department is using windows on a daily
Hi all,
I work for a small company whose long-standing staff have long adopted an
over-my-dead-body attitude towards change.
At present our sales department is using windows on a daily basis, and has
done so for many many years. Our sales department only use IE, Word, Excel,
so having a dedica
50 matches
Mail list logo
