> On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 00:26, munky@... wrote:
>> We should
>>describe the window managers and state pros and cons about them.
> This is fairly subjective. I personally think we should only be
> mentioning the major DE's (GNOME,KDE & maybe XFCE) as complete
> solutions. The aim should be to inform of what is useful to a big
> majority, not to cover everything out there.
I think it would be useful to cover these and others, and I think it's
possible to do it in a nonsubjective (or barely subjective) way. Take
the following for example:
"If you are looking for a complete desktop solution that comes close to
approximating what you would get out of the box from Windows, try GNOME
or KDE. They both have fairly mature component applications, and either
will work well for a full-featured desktop environment. Note that these
are large application sets, and will take a long time to merge. GNOME
and KDE also don't share a common toolset, so applications written for
KDE will look and act differently than those written for GNOME. XFCE is
a relative newcomer to the full-featured desktop world, and focuses on
speed. It is more lightweight than the others, although it shares many
of the most useful features (note: I don't know XFCE, I've never used it.)
On the other hand, if you are looking for a more unix-y environment that
will stay out of your way and give you the ultimate customizability and
speed, you might consider something like WindowMaker or BlackBox....
(yada yada, here's the differences, here's their reputations, here's
what they're good for, yada yada)"
Maybe this helps?
Phone [+1 662-518-1636]
email@example.com mailing list