What I specifically like about IceWM is that it can be configured in
one central place for all users without them being able to override
the setup. In the educational sector I see it as an advantage that
the desktops of all users always have exactly the same look and feel.
Playing around with icons, properties, colors, wallpapers and the
like is merely a waste of time. Which probably holds for other
sectors too. :)
Moreover, with IceWM one can design a single and global menu structure
with entries for all the programs that need to be started by anyone.
If a particular user has no OS permissions to a given application then
IceWM auto-magically doesn't show the menu entry in question to that
specific user. :)
That approach allows for only adding OS permissions to users when they
start needing extra applications. Which eliminates another waste
of time and a number of potential security problems: trying out
programs just for fun without having the faintest clue about their
purpose, nor about how to use them, nor about which side effects they
might cause. 8-)
If Blackbox can do all of that without introducing any overhead or
unwanted bells and whistles then I would consider it as an alternative
to IceWM. Admittedly, I never looked at Blackbox, because what I have
installed works fine for me and I don't plan on changing a winning
team just for the fun of changing it. ;)
However, if Blackbox satisfies your specific needs then that's fine
with me too. One of the advantages of using Linux is the freedom of
choice. :)
Wouter
On 04-Mar-03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you prefer shear speed & small footprint, but the 'pretties'
> don't
> matter so much, try Blackbox. Good choice if
> you intend to offer your users a limited number of apps as well,
> the menu
> is highly configurable.
>
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>> Andreas,
>>
>> I prefer IceWM or Qvwm because they have a small footprint and
>> also because my NICs and HUBs are still at 10 Mb. Therefore, NFS
>> swap
>> is out of the question. Moreover, my terminals are legacy 486s
>> with no
>> more than 24 Mb RAM. Which makes it impossible to setup for local
>> applications.
>>
>> Wouter
>>
>>
>> On 03-Mar-03 Andreas Eckhart wrote:
>> > does anyone know, which desktop environment has better
>> > performance
>> > with
>> > linux terminal services?
>> > i heard something about, that GNOME shold work better than KDE
>> > does.
>> >
>> > i would like to use it for about 20 - 30 clients
>> > any experiences?
>> >
>> > thanks, andi
>> >
>> >
--------------------------------------------
Wouter DeBacker ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
04-Mar-03 13:47:33 (SuSE Linux Xfmail)
--------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger
for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and
disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX
and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
