>> I take it you haven't seen Enlightenment??!!??
>> It bloze away Win when it comes to themes.
>> You can make it look like practically ANYthing.
>> see http://www.rasterman.com or http://www.mandrake.com/e
> No, i never bothered even only looking at it since it's WWW site makes
> it clear that there is no significant enhancement to functionality and
> i don't care about looks at all. 'Enlightenment' seems IMHO to be
> rather superfluous in regard of practicability. I'm more interested in
> window managers and environments who have great functionality like
> 'wmaker', the KDE or the still mythical GNUstep. Myself i'm still
> quite happy with 'fvwm2'.
> Cheers, P. *8^)
With all these new fancy window managers around, people tend to
overlook the *fact* that custom scripting of mwm, twm, etc. will far
exceed the functionality of just about anything.
I started out using a "legacy code" .twmrc I got from some CS
department buddies many years ago. Nowadays, if I showed it to you,
you'd love it, but you probably wouldn't be able to identify that it
is actually just 'twm'.
I am with you on the requirement of functionality.
It seems that people start a window manager 'out-of-the-box' and
judge it on what it 'looks like' without any regard for the
capability it really offers or what it 'could look like', if properly
This is understandable though. It is hard to get started on a
custom X-window environment. I remember when I first got my 'legacy'
script and subsequently realized that I had total control over
'every aspect' of my X environment.... I sat there customizing
it all day, every day, for a week... just to start.