So how much "work" did they do to GNOME 2.2 and KDE 3.1? Are they more like the versions released by the creators or are the more of a RedHat version? -Glen On Monday 31 March 2003 09:21 pm, Michael Torrie wrote: > On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 21:06, Derek Davis wrote: > > What do you mean by "too messy"? Are you disappointed with Linux as a > > whole, and are planning to return to Windows or something? If so, what > > else did you not like? > > I have to add that having just installed RedHat 9.0, it's really nice. > There are some really slick things they've done (cd burning in nautilus > is one of them) and the interface is just more refined. I really like > it. Heck you can even set up the network interfaces from a nice gui. > Kudos to RedHat. A lot of improvements are subtle and under the hood > (like the 20 kernel with some of the scheduler stuff backported, the > native threads implementation that boosts performance, and the newer > XFree86). Heck even NVIDIA has a driver out already for RedHat 9. The > only thing I'm waiting for is Codeweavers to update their wine products > to run with the new glibc libraries. > > I have to agree about questioning the messy part. Personally I use that > word to refer to installing windows. Windows > 2000+sp3+hotfixes+officexp+norton av (Standard install for chemistry) is > very messy. Takes 4-6 hours. Sometimes there are problems. > > Anyway, if you have specific concerns please mention them and we'll try > to clear them up or find suggestions for redhat to improve. > > Michael
-- Glen Wagley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
