"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Actually, I would do the contrary, because since it aims at supporting >> kde and gnome, it does not enhance your system but it rather bloats >> it. So instead of being a plus, it is a minus ;-) >> So every wm that does not support kde and gnome should have a higher >> priority ;-) >> > > I was trying to be polite in my responses (-:
Do you mean that I haven't been polite so far? > note twm works just fine with GNOME with 3 major caveats: > > 1) no panel (and thus no applets) > > 2) no pager, but since twm lacks virtual desks anyway this is no problem > > 3) no desktop icons > > I use several KDE apps every day under blackbox (which is also not netwm > compliant yet). Same thing here with icewm. > There needs to be a distinction made between "I want all of the GNOME/KDE apps > running" and "I want konqueror/koffice/whatever". The second item does not > require any real support from the wm. AFAIK, one can run a KDE or GNOME app without any support from the wm, am I wrong? -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
