--- Jehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nicholas Wourms wrote: > Tho I can't quite understand > > what this driving desire for a rootless X server is all about? To my > > death, I'll never understand why people like the explorer window > manager > > over the X alternatives. I mean c'mon people, Windows Explorer as a > > window manager sucks. Why would you want it to manage your X > > applications? > > Maybe *you* prefer KDE, OpenStep, whatever over Windows but that doesn't > > mean *everybody* does. As a window manager, Windows does perfectly well > for me: I can move my windows around, I can resize them, minimize them > and even maximize them. I like the taskbar (and everybody does since now > > every desktop system has it), I like the systray, I like the quicklaunch > > bar and the Start menu is as much a mess in Windows than in KDE. > > Now, having an alternative would be nice, that's for sure. As my boss is > > fond of saying: "two is better than one". If you want to remove Windows > Explorer, go check Shellfront (http://shellfront.org/). But you will > never see Notepad running in an X window. Cygwin works *on top of* > Windows, not the other way around. Cygwin *add* a unix layer to Windows, > > it doesn't *replace* Windows. If you really want that, if you really > want your All-X desktop, go install Linux and run your Windows > applications using Wine. > > > > I don't know about most people, but I like the current way > > X works, in fact I like the full screen even better. > > Why do you think windowing systems took over most software applications? > > I like being able to see the content of two applications at the same > time. Like for instance when I follow a tutorial on a web browser on how > > to create a map for Quake. Or when I want to use a complex funtion in my > > program, I want to be able to see MSDN at the same time I use my code. > Now, if I use vi/emacs/whatever in X, I can't see any of those > broswer/msdn windows at the same time if the application if fullscreen. > What's worse, if the browser/msdn is the active application and I want > to activate a X application, I first have to click on the X button in > the taskbar to activate XWin, then I have to activate the X application > itself. If I can see each X application with its own button in my > taskbar, and when I click on it I have this X app showing *next to* > instead of *on top of* my Visual Studio window, I would be far more > happy. > > > > In fact I wish there > > was a way to do the opposite of running X in rootless mode. If there > were > > only a way to get windows binaries to pop up inside X, then I could > just > > ditch this crummy explorer windows manager and use X full time. > > See my comment above about Linux and Wine.
So? Your point? I don't want to run linux on this machine. My question above was partially a joke and partially a rhetorical one. I don't need to be lectured on the joy and simplicity of the explorer interface (tho neither seem to apply). Let's not turn this into a Microsoft lovefest. My point was that Rootless mode is a fluff setting, something that really isn't that important. Perhaps a better use of time could be spent figuring out how to profile and improve the performance of the X server? Or perhaps making truetype fonts easier for people to use in X? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
