On Saturday 17 July 2004 08:02 pm, Thujan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 09:32:46AM -0400, Allen Wilkinson wrote:
> > I second Rikard's comments.
> >
> > KDE has been high energy in making new features. But they have done so
> > much reinvention of the wheel that they have lost old good X-Window
> > functions and not used Unix and X-windows function that already do the
> > job while building a monstrously large and hard to administer (if a bug
> > or two is lurking as it always is and because admin constantly morphs in
> > significant ways between releases) desktop.
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Rikard Johnels wrote:
> > > Personally i rather go with a fast, reliable desktop then all those
> > > flashy thingemagigs. Sure they are eyecatching, but whats the real
> > > use?? My own .02$ worth... :)
>
> I disagree strongly!
> I think Kde should be ultimate eye candy!
> Because new desktop cpu(s) are most of the time in the idle anyway,
> why not to use them display desktop?
> Thinks get worst when everybody has 64bits with gigs of ram,
> sure you can spare some of all that power to the desktop?
> Linux is about choiche, if somebody wants spartan desktop why not
> use fvwm2 or fluxbox?
> And let the Kde and Gnome be full of eyecandy and features!
> I red that Linus chose Kde, that is good enough for me.
I personally son't like a lot of eye candy because I'm running on a laptop and
to keep the laptop small and weight down I chose to go with a smaller 12"
screen and slower processor. Not everyone has or wants a 4GHz desktop that
dims the lights in their house when its powered on. However if you do like
the eye candy there is plenty of stuff on kde-look.org. Some of the stuff
like karamba you could easily make your eye candy work like you want.
___________________________________________________
.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
