>> Actually, GNOME resembles KDE much more closely than KDE resembles windows.
>And FVWM95 resembles it even more closely. The point is that they both follow
>the windows GUI method exceedingly closely.
No, they don't. Compare MFC to KDE, and then compae GNOME to KDE. You
could just about write a perl program to translate a KDE program
to a GNOME program ( esp if you're using GTK-- ).
etc etc. The APIs are extremely similar. They are certainly not similar
to MFC or Win32.
Now to the dumb user, they might "feel" like Windows, because they have
taken a few of the design/UI elements, like the shortcut keys and the
"taskbar". But the resemblence is rather superficial. OTOH, the resemblence
of GTK with QT and KDE with GNOME is extremely similar. They both use
this signal/slot type architecture ( though GTK calls them "callbacks",
they look and act a lot like KDE's slots. )
Quote:>Youd be wrong. KDE was purposely designed with some aspects of windows
>in mind, just as Gnome was.
Such as ? Give me KDE function calls and MFC function calls. I've given
my example : QObject::connect ( used to connect a signal to a slot )
and gtk_signal_connectS ( used to connect a signal to a callback ).
>> Hell, you could be forgiven for thinking that GTK/GNOME is QT/KDE without
>> name spaces at a first glance.
>GTK is a better system.
How so ?