Exactly :-)
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 06:02, Ian Land wrote:
> Yes, you're right that KDE isn't, strictly speaking a window manager, and
> that there is a difference between a desktop environment an a wm (I run
> Enlightenment under Gnome, for example). Doesn't change the point I was
> making, which is
KDE is not a window manager, it is the K Desktop Environment. An environment
offers far more than a standard window manager. With regards to KDE and
GNOME, KDE does not make it easy to change your window manager (although you
can - I run KDE with WindowMaker), leading one to believe that it is
Yes, you're right that KDE isn't, strictly speaking a window manager, and
that there is a difference between a desktop environment an a wm (I run
Enlightenment under Gnome, for example). Doesn't change the point I was
making, which is that single-clickedness isn't a feature of Linux, but of the
KDE also gives the option of having double or sincle clicks. I am, and
probably always will be, a fan of double clicking, as it provides greater
flexibility with the UI. A UI is a very personal thing. That's why we have
things like themes and configurable toolbars. The beauty of Linux is that y
Yes it is true. Read it again. I said "a window manager like KDE", not that
KDE was the *only* window manager that supports single-clicks.
> And XFCE is not KDE, so hereby I prove that the below sentence is not
> true. :p
>
> Paul
>
> >Well, that's only true if you use a window manager like KD
no, you didn't prove anything, it still doesn't mean the "linux way" it just
means the XFCE way...
Better, the "linux way" is the "configurable way" which is what WM are all
about...
-Original Message-
From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:42 PM
To: [E
