Yes, I am not being fair. I have X and the fwvm manager running
and I much prefer the 9 windows I have to work from over the drab non X
linux. And I have pictures of my children scanned into .gif files and
displayed as wall paper.
Just got kernel 2.0.35 running a few minutes ago and am checking
out what still works...:-)
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Andrew Bell wrote:
>
> > The argument that Linux MUST have windows like win-95 to be
> > popular is to say that win-95 is good.
> >
> No, it means that several win95 (just GUI and standard widget set)
> features are necessary for the layman to adopt Linux as a desktop OS.
>
> One can argue that Linux doesn't need these features (and he will be
> right), but because a nice, standard look-and-feel seems to be the thing
> these days (after all, who goes to the Ma and Pop sub shop when Subway is
> right across the street?) Linux distributions ought to adopt a standard
> desktop environment. The desktop environment ought to encompass all of the
> niceties of Windows, Mac, NeXT, and any other GUI's that have a nice
> look-and-feel.
>
> KDE currently fills most of the criteria for making Linux a viable
> desktop OS -- even for the stupidest end user. Like any good software, KDE
> interweaves the best features of other software (win95 included). It is not
> a concession that win95 is better (or even that win95 is good), but rather
> an admission that aspects of Windows are useful (which they are).
>
>
> Anyways, it's a silly argument (apples (LInux) and stale oranges
> (Windows)).
>
> Andrew
>
Best wishes
- Karl F. Larsen, 3310 East Street, Las Cruces,NM (505) 524-3303 -
