>>>You can do better for stability and resources if you use nice little
>>>window manager instead of a bloated desktop. I personally use Fluxbox,
>>>it's pretty light and very easy to use and configure.
>>>Between Gnome and KDE, I always found KDE to be more stable. To be
>>>fair I haven't used Gnome2 much. And they both pale in comparison to
>>>Fluxbox or FVWM or pretty much any other window manager in my
>> Thanks for that (very useful). I guess I'd best widen my search then! I'll
>> download Fluxbox and have a play.
> Gnome and KDE are not window managers. Comparing them to Fluxbox is like
> comparing a wheel to a car. Of course the wheel is lighter but it has
> no engine :-)
I never claimed they were. I have used and like KDE, and you'll note
that I am always eager to help people with their KDE questions. But,
and this is just IMHO of course, KDE is just too much stuff I don't use,
so I use Fluxbox. I do find fluxbox to be more stable (YMMV) and
lightweight, so I mentioned that a small window manager may be
appropraite for the OP.
Also, as someone who likes KDE, I would like to complement you on a
great summary of why people should use it.
Quote:> Personnally i have tried all sorts of Window managers, and in my opinion they
> all lack totally in functionality. They can only content old timers who are
> used to twm on Sun boxes.
I am no oldtimer, I'm only 22, and I've been using *nix for about three
years. I came from using Windows. Different strokes for differen folks
I guess :)
Quote:> Both KDE and Gnome try to close the gap to what
> Microsoft Windows has to offer. I better know KDE, and the progress it has
They do that well. I found KDE great to use when I first started using
Linux and FreeBSD. But I also had some exposure to FVWM2 around that
time. When I got more used to the system FVWM didn't seem too bad.
Quote:> done from KDE1 to KDE2 and now KDE3 are enormous. In fact KDE3 is a marvelous
> integrated desktop environment. There are very few crashes, certainly no more
> that with Windows XP. The look and feel is quite nice, still not equal to
> Windows XP or Mac OS X, but not far. The configurability is excellent, you
> can have nice fonts, the window decorations are very fine. Moreover the qt
I totally agree that KDE is a beautiful interface. Moving from Win98
and 2000 to KDE I was blown away by how good it looked.
Quote:> toolkit on which it is based is a good toolkit, more and more interesting
> qt or kde applications are available. For example the Koffice suite, which
> was a year ago a pile of crap, is now something which does not crash each
> minute, even if it is still basically unusable for real work. In this domain
> you need to know the existence of good products, abiword (a word clone) and
> gnumeric (the gnome spreadsheet) which at present are far superior to
> Koffice components. On the browser front, Konqueror has progressed much.
I use OpenOffice when I need an office suite, mostly because I'm very
familiar with a suite from a certain large corporation. But mostly I
use HTML for simple documents and LyX for some stuff. I did find kWord
to be quite usable. My one beef was that it would change the number of
pages the document takes up depending on the zoom you were using.
Quote:> It used to crash a lot, now it is quite stable, and fast. You know that Apple
> has chosen the Konqueror html engine for Mac OS X, hence one can expect this
> engine will come out fully debugged and with extensive functionalities (they
> contribute back their patches). The traditional argument against KDE is the
> general slowness due to the dynamic linking of tons of virtual functions.
> Clearly this problem has been considerably alleviated with the present version
> of KDE3. I am here using it on a Celeron 400 machine, and it is reasonably
> fast, much faster than KDE2 was. Since i suppose most people now have
I agree, I noticed a vast improvement overall with KDE3 over KDE2.
Quote:>> 1 Ghz machines with > 256 Megs memory, this question is a moot point, in my
> opinion. In fact i have run KDE2 on this same machine when it had only 64 Megs
> memory, and it was not so terrible.
I agree with that too. I guess to summarize, I'd just like to say that
my recommendation should not have been interpereted as anti-KDE, or anti-
gnome, just another option that the OP might not have considered.
>> Anyone got anyother favourites? If so please tell so I can have a look at them
>> too and then make my mind up. (I'm looking for max stability and minimum
4th Year Computer Engineering
University of Alberta