Slashdot Mirror

Is Windowmaker dead? (No, I'm not a troll.) The website hasn't been updated since February, I've gotten no CVS updates since July, there's been no official releases since 0.80.2, there's no working mailing list archives on the site, and my emails go unanswered.

First of all, Window Maker is quite a mature project in my opinion. Right now as we speak I am using even an older version 0.80.0-4 in Debian GNU/Linux (the stable Debian 3.0 "woody" which itself was released in July, 2002) and quite frankly I have never thought that I even needed any update. It's lightweight and rock-solid. Usually I have about 20 active workspaces with at least ten of them completely filled with tens of windows each, and it have never crashed since I started using it. And I've been using Window Maker exclusively on all of my desktops for at least five or six years (and in fact those were even older versions in Debian 2.2 "potato" and Debian 2.1 "slink"). I remember that switching from "potato" to "woody" I noticed few minor changes, mostly in Preferences Utility, if I remember correctly, but to be honest I'm not sure since I don't use it. Few years ago I was playing with Window Maker Themes but I observed that I am more productive without anime title bars and hentai background distracting me all the time, so after I got bored changing themes every day couple of years ago, I keep using one of the standard Styles, not Themes, and have blue solid backround and blue everything with very soft gradient but anything more fancy is just distracting becasue it makes me focus my attention outside of xterms instead of inside of them where it belongs, so it's quite pointless. Of course when I use Knoppix I always start it with knoppix desktop=wmaker, or at least always when I don't start it with knoppix 2, and using it I saw that icons are prettier and everything else seems the same. And quite frankly, I don't even want it to ever change, since I like it the way it is now. On the other hand I don't really care if it changes as long as I'll be able to use the old version in future Debians, and I know I will. I think all of you can already see my point. Window Maker is not dead, not because it is in active development, it doesn't even have to, but because it is immortal and cannot be killed at all, ever. As you see I will gladly keep using it even if no one develops it or even if I am the last and only user. I seriously couldn't care less what window managers other people use. It's not like I use it as a pick-up line or whatever.

I'm seriously interested in knowing. I'm a big Windowmaker fan, but I'm worried about its' apparent lack of development. Does anyone, anyone at all, know what the heck is going on?

I am a big fan of Window Maker either but I completely don't care about its development, just like I don't care much about the development of rxvt. Window Maker is exactly what I need and I'm quite sure I will keep using it even twenty years from now even if it doesn't change at all. I don't want it to change. I just want it to keep working. And I don't want it to be another KDE or Gnome. I don't even need other people using it, I don't need other people at all.

Hm, you are not me, but you feel about
evilwm like I do.

OTOH you're coming from fvwm, with which

I could never become friends. I used IceWM

a lot before, but didn't really like X and

didn't even consider it an xterm multiplexor

until some guy in #OpenBSD recommended evilwm

to me (I don't know any more who it was, I

think I'd kill him for making me, a console

fanatic, use X).

I even put evilwm into the "base system" of

the OpenBSD fork I maintain.

So you wouldn't have to install it manually,

and I needed to get a replacement for wm2 which

didn't compile cleanly after gcc 2->3.

Installation:
He makes comments extensively on SuSE, Red Hat and Mandrake, but shows no real understanding or explain his issues with the Debian installer other than that it "is the worst installer [he's] had to use." He also implies the base install is too simplistic.

Not to be overly critical, but he seems to have no real grasp at the concept of being bloatless. Installation requires the lowest common denominator.

My beef with the Debian installer is that it won't make a best guess on partitioning. Seperately but related, X doesn't attempt any autodetection, even the minimal stuff in XF86Setup from XF86 3.3.6.

Setup:
He complains that the setup refers you to documentation that is not yet installed. My understanding is you are expected to have a copy of the installation manual handy and at least have some idea what it's telling you. Yes, the menu options should be clearer, however, I disagree with the idea that software should babysit the user and hold them by the hand.

The writer clearly shows lack of clue and ability to RTFM with his comment about module selections.

Package Selection:
I just have to plain wonder if this guy has taken a good, long look at dpkg and apt-get.

I do agree with his beefs about the annoying help screens at every turn in dselect. Worse yet, I've been hitting space to clear the damn thing since bo, only to have them change it to enter this revision. Why can't it be both?

I've never heard of, or experianced, the kind of funkitude with failed packages cancelling the whole apt-get download like he claims.

The Installation Overall:
I'm with him right up until he suggested hiding things behind "Advanced" buttons. Sorry, but I don't see how making the installation less intuitive and more complex somehow magically makes the installer droolproof. I also don't agree with the idea of using branded names instead of driver names. Maybe have a help option that explains the branded names to the drivers, and definately an autodetect option. Don't sacrifice efficiency for those who know what they're doing in favor of those who can't be bothered.

I agree with the idea that dselect needs to be redesigned, however, making it more like a GUI will only confuse users expecting it to work just like a GUI, and will actually make dselect more painful to deal with than vi, instead of slightly less painful.

The Configured System:
I'm just going to summarily dismiss all bitching about KDE. KDE sucks. Gnome sucks. CDE sucks. Cocoa sucks. Microsoft Explorer sucks. All these systems are too baroque, adding unneeded complexity for the user to wrap thier brain around instead of presenting them with the actual system. Sorry, but mv, cp, ls, find, and a newbie oriented text editor aren't that hard to learn how to use. I mean, my compuphobic art-geek sister can figure it out. Hell, my WinBigot(tm) roommate was even able to figure out that much.

Debian has pretty complete documentation of configuration files in the comments in those files. I haven't had to look in man section 5 in a very long time, around the time I had to reinstall due to accidentally deleting /usr back in early 1998 thanks to improved documentation in comments. Control panels are thus very much dead-weight.

Conclusions:
I have to seriously question whether or not he knows what he's talking about about RPM. I've used RPM recently. It's still painful to use and terraparsecs behind apt-get *still*. Even with urpmi. apt-rpm segfaults on machines with low RAM. Package names are *still* not standardized. Versions still conflict badly, and upgrading the system is still a "fsck me harder" experiance.

I strongly disagree with the idea that we should create yet another method for configuration. No. Webmin works. Linuxconf works. $EDITOR works better, and the config file comments usually have more helpful information than webmin and linuxconf do, and it's usually faster.

The Debian Desktop idea is almost a good one, but then again, that's why themes.org exists. Why duplicate that effort here?

Granny proof: No. I'm all for accessiblity, but you should never stop learning. Plus, trying to granny proof anything leads to bloat and a shitload of bugs. Need proof? Look at Gnome. Look at KDE. Look at Nautilus. Take a long look at Microsoft Explorer. Notice how they all fail at that goal, and notice how buggy and bloated they are. This is not an honorable or obtainable goal, time would be better spent trying to find lost cities of gold.

What exactly is the purpose of all this eye-candy? I find that its mostly just annoying and a hindrance, as well as tacky.

The prime use of eye-candy seems to be making good looking screen-shots to put on commercials.

That said, Apple's certainly not alone in that category. MS has recently started developing their applications to make better screen-shots not better performance (Word XP is for 99% of users no better than Word 97, yet it takes up more space, more RAM, more CPU %, and loads slower). And of course there's the screen-shot mania insanity in the Linux community that you can witness and gag from.

Btw, if, according to you, there's "no performance problems" in OS' and GUI's, how come everyone and anyone who's used BeOS or QNX says things like "applications loaded instantaneously" and "I can play 50 movies at the same time without losing responsiveness"?

I've been using linux for approximately 3 years now, and I still can't find a reason why I want linux on my pda past the "cool" factor which really translates to "geek" factor in this case. I have a palm m505 which I can do just about anything on, including playing short video clips (Impressive considering how much slower these processors are compared to that of the PocketPC PDAs. Of course, those of us in the "know" can't wait for the next Palm to come out its going to totally rock the scale for multimedia ;) Linux is good for servers folks, it makes an Ok desktop, and I can't see how it would be all that useful on a PDA!

with this or this?

From OpenNIC's TLD list, you have chosen the TLDs .glue, .indy, .geek, .null, .oss, .parody, and .bbs. All of these are either horribly narrow-reaching and have no reason to be a TLD (.geek, .oss, .parody), sound stupid (.glue, .indy), look stupid (.geek, .oss, .bbs), or are too long (all of them except .oss and .bbs).

These are the same reasons nobody wants a domain under .biz, .info, .museum or any of the other "official" new TLDs. Geeks seem to be naturally deficient at proper design, so I'm not blaming what is essentially a geek project for having this problem. An alternative to the monstrosity Verisign and ICANN have made of their root servers is severely needed. But, if I may, I would like to suggest you ditch these ugly TLDs and put some more thought into choosing names people actually would want on the end of their site names. Think to yourself, would you seriously consider getting a ".parody" domain? Here are some tips:

• The TLDs must all be short. Extremely short. No more than 3 characters. Preferably monosyllabic.
• Don't use ugly letters like 'y', 'k', or 'z', especially at the beginning or end of the domain.
• Avoid catering to special interests. ".com", ".org" and ".net" all work because they're broad and unspecific. TLDs like ".geek" and ".oss" are just going to make nongeeks roll their eyes and look elsewhere.
• Most importantly, before you approve a new TLD, seriously ask yourself (and preferably a few other regular people), "would I buy a domain under this TLD?" Few people are going to want a ".geek" domain, I can tell you.

This is a bit like me saying "Gnome is a ripoff of Windows... look at it!".

--
Evan

To give you an idea, I like using the blueheart enlightenment theme. Imagine that screen shot with a dark tiled background (blech, not WHITE!) and you'll be in business.

But yes, you're right. In my experience, most users are comfortable with the Windows GUI. They have no particular interest in Microsoft®Windows(TM), computing, or software in general. To them, Linux is a crappy old refurb box that sits under their desktop. They just want to do their work, listen to some tunes, and not have their applications tank.

Users don't really comment much on their Linux box, except to ask how to resize their desktopresolution or use a theme. They don't remember the last time it was rebooted. But they can certainly remember the last time they rebooted Microsoft®Windows(TM).

</offtopic>

I took it to mean that it would allow gnome.themes.org and kde.themes.org to have the same theme files which when applied change the appearance as the user prefers.
It seems pretty easy to do, and it would make a few people's lives easier too.
Oh hey and the themes.org poll currently has a cowboyneal option too!

I took it to mean that it would allow gnome.themes.org and kde.themes.org to have the same theme files which when applied change the appearance as the user prefers.
It seems pretty easy to do, and it would make a few people's lives easier too.
Oh hey and the themes.org poll currently has a cowboyneal option too!

I found this page. It seems to be what your looking for.

I completely agree. This is one of the biggest annoyances I have with Linux: that there is a percievable delay between clicking, say, the "File" menu in a GTK-based app and the contents of the File menu showing up.

However, I doubt that it's XFree86's fault, as the port of X-Chat (which was built with GTK) to Windows shows the same menu behavior as its Linux counterpart. On Linux, however, IceWM exhibits no menu delay whatsoever.

Then, of course, you have to take into account if you're running a theme that uses pixmaps. If you're running bubbles-gradient, for example, you're more than likely wasting a horrendous amount of CPU cycles just to highlight a button. Even with fast themes like thinice, the delay is still there.

It's this kind of clunkiness that makes me wonder how people can use themes like this

http://www.themes.org/skins/mozilla is the best place that I've found to get skins for mozilla.
it takes a while to load, so be patient.

Also... With regard to applications... I could've sworn there's a PalmPilot emulator (copilot? xcopilot?) for Linux. Now, obviously, if you were to built a handheld running Linux, and have it run only that Palm emulator, that would be completely insane. But if you have a Linux-based PDA, and feel the need to use a Palm application... You, in theory, can.

Another reason that I'd like a Linux-based PDA is that I'm familiar with Linux. IIRC, you can run BlackBox on an iPaq with Linux. You've essentially got a 'desktop' in your hand. I've played with a couple PDAs running Windows CE, and, even as a regular Windows user (not at home), I couldn't figure out how to use it. The interface really doesn't resemble Windows too much. If I actually owned a PDA, I'm sure it's somewhat sensible, and I could figure it out...

All this said... I think the question you pose is based partially on opinion. Is a dump truck better than a Ferrari? You could make a strong argument either way... But ultimately, it really depends on what you need it for, and what your personal preference is. If you need to transport 12 tons of boulders out of your backyard... The dump truck is clearly better. But if you're looking for a car to drive around town with, the Ferrari might be better. But I've always seen any "Linux is always better" type things as like saying "The Ferrari is better. I don't care that you need to move your 12 tons of boulders. Use the Ferrari. It's faster."

The desktop of display model in the photo has the same background as the computer I'm typing from. It's this kde theme. Just thought I'd share, kinda wierded me out for a sec.

Hurray! Yet another unnecessary and useless way to make programs even more bloated!

Now, not only can we have little comic-book like "help assistants" which run around your screen, cheerfully ask you to enter a question, and then display some goofy animation that's meant to be more amusing than functional, now we also get to have a password program which clogs up RAM and slows down boot time.

Is it really too difficult to ask people to remember a few simple passwords? Heck, they can even write them down on a sheet of paper to help them remember.

As I've said before, we do not need any features to make operating systems easier to use. Windows, MacOSX, BeOS, and now even Unix' (beyond the initial installation) are intuitive and can easily be figured out. Perhaps the slight difficult associated with OS' should serve as a barrier to keep those too lazy or dumb to learn a few basics away from complicated machinery -- after all, anyone who can't sit down at Windows, MacOS, BeOS, or even a Linux desktop and figure out how to use it is clearly a few brain cell short of an amoeba. Wouldn't want to make those people think too much!

Look, just because new computers make it possible to add new and more graphical features doesn't mean you should add them! Is it really necessary for "ease of use" to have a little "Help assistant" as MS has in MS Word? No, it is not. The Help menu is unmistakenably visible. Now that doesn't mean you shouldn't add graphics where they increase functionality, as MacOSX has done. The glassy and gradiated menus which appear to pop out of the screen add to functionality because they clearly separate different components of the GUI.

For example, look at an Aqua theme under themes.org (note: If you want to understand the rest of my comment, you probably should look at this link):

Aqua Theme

I'll tell you the good and the bad about this theme, where the aqua glassy gradiation helps and where it is irrelevant. In the XMMS Window, the Aqua gradiation clearly distinguishes the backwards/play/pause/stop/forward section of the player. This is useful as these are major functions of any sound player. However, the penguin to the right of the image is just a useless graphic. As for the stratiated horizontal white/gray bands going accross this and every other window, which is typical of MacOSX, this is useless in terms of functionality, and should be removed. For functionality, the background should simply be a pure white, light gray, or light blue, or perhaps a dark blue or black for contrast. If you want to have any background graphics on this window, you should have a gradiating darkness around the edges, to make it appear to be bulging out, and clearly demarkate the termination of the window. As for the red, yellow, and green buttons in the upper right hand corner, the color distinction is useful for recognition, but does not help one figure out what the functions are initially; there should be slight pictures within the jelly-bean buttons to demakate what their functions are. As for the text in this window, while it looks nice, it is hardly functionaly. For example, the "Equalizer" is hard to read because it is block-typed. I'll end my criticism and commentary of this particular aqua sheme at that.

I've remarked on one example, but this is what developers should be asking of every feature and every inch of their program before they release it. If they have a graphical feature, does it really contribute to usability? Are start-up screens really necessary, or just a waste of CPU cycles? What about the logos you typically see in the corners of programs -- useful, or just a waste of space and of RAM, which slightly increase load time, without offering any benefits? In limewire, is that little Lime logo really necessary? Even in Linux, are the brand logos in programs necessary? Come on, we all know what program we have and who made it -- no need to advertise. Yes, it does look cool the first time we open the program, and it looks neat when your advertising, but as you use the program more and more, it becomes and annoyance. At hte least, the ability to remove such useless graphics should be added.

What I am proposing is an analysis of graphical features beyond, "that looks cool", or "that's pretty", or "that's neat". Cool, pretty, and neat are all fine and dandy -- but they shouldn't be the reason for adding a graphic to your program. Approach graphical interfaces the same way you approach language, or try to. Firstly, it should be functional; secondly, it should be clear; thirdly, it should be precise and minimal in nature to serve that function (i.e., for a button, making it larger increases its utility to its function, up to a certain point, beyond which it becomes annoying and distracting); fourthly, it should be pretty and elegant.

Certainly open source would never care about such things.

That's why themes.org exists. As for other components of GNOME that might have made it ugly such as fonts, the fonts will be anti-aliased in GNOME 2.0.

The Quickie (sp?) is back! They should have used the Hell Kitty laptop.

The link to the old page, which currently has more themes:

http://x.classic.themes.org/viewresources.phtml?ty pe=chrome

The link to the new, renovated page, which doesn't have all the themes yet (since authors have to resubmit their themes):

http://www.themes.org/skins/mozilla/

The link to the old page, which currently has more themes:

http://x.classic.themes.org/viewresources.phtml?ty pe=chrome

The link to the new, renovated page, which doesn't have all the themes yet (since authors have to resubmit their themes):

http://www.themes.org/skins/mozilla/

It looks as though the themes are at www.themes.org/skins/mozilla
:-)

A few questions:

1) I thought the company was no longer "VA Linux Systems," as it had dropped the word "Linux" from its name?

2) From several articles written by Bowie J. Poag I gather than the founding of SourceForge was not quite so happy as you seem to indicate. His allegations are that VA requested that he work on such a project (at the time called system26), but that VA appropriated his work and turned it into sourceforge.

[For those who don't know, Bowie J. Poag is the main force behind Propaganda Desktop Graphics, which used to be the main feature of VA's themes.org until Mr. Poag deliberately destroyed the site in protest against VA's actions (it took VA about 6 months to put the site back together again, minus Propaganda, which is now at the new location linked to above).]

Anybody knows a good place to find Mozilla themes? The new x.themes.org isn't up yet, and the stuff on the old site, x.classic.themes.org , doesn't seem to work anymore.

Anybody knows a good place to find Mozilla themes? The new x.themes.org isn't up yet, and the stuff on the old site, x.classic.themes.org , doesn't seem to work anymore.

(I'd point you to a screenshot, but t.o is down ATM.)

So please forgive us for wanting to use our platform of choice, probably with a very attracting UI. Apple has managed to create a UI that draws mimics like a pot of honey would flies. They should be very, very flattered. For all I know, they very well may be - they just have chosen to limit Aqua's availability to only those running their operating system.

some kinds of "flattery" Apple can do without.

i suspect that the reason Apple keeps cracking down on Aqua-esque themes is that most of them look butt-ass ugly.

Exhibit A [themes.org]

erm... this is nowhere near Aqua. as far as i can tell, it's just window borders and widgets. and worse still, poorly-done widgets! where are the proper drop shadows on the widgets? where's the transparency in the menu bars of inactive windows? where are the truly transparent (not janky Enlightenment transparency, but real transparency) xterms? where's the transparent Dock, with scaling, and the genie effect for minimizing/maximizing windows?

Exhibit B [themes.org]

here's another feeble attempt. The drop shadows on the widgets are a little closer to reality, but the window title bars are completely wrong. the scroll bar arrows are not right, and the window box is too squared-off. the widget in the upper right corner of the window is the wrong shape, the wrong color, and doesn't provide the proper functionality. but those problems are relatively trivial; more importantly, where's the Aqua toolbar? where's the status bar? where's the Dock, with Docklings that update in real time?

look. the point is not that these themes are imcomplete emulations of the Aqua user environment. the point is that the "wow" factor that hits you when you first encounter Aqua is a result of ALL the components working together, not just a few dribs and drabs. there's no one thing that makes Aqua cool; it's the ensemble.

this is why Apple doesn't want people releasing incomplete clones and calling them "Aqua". if my first encounter with "Aqua" was seeing one of the abovementioned themes running on a friend's linux box (and being told "hey, here's a theme that looks like Apple's new GUI"), i'd be underwhelmed, especially after all the hype. neither of those screenshots would be anywhere near enough to make me want to go out and buy OS X.

now, on the other hand, something like this [apple.com] ...

-steve

So please forgive us for wanting to use our platform of choice, probably with a very attracting UI. Apple has managed to create a UI that draws mimics like a pot of honey would flies. They should be very, very flattered. For all I know, they very well may be - they just have chosen to limit Aqua's availability to only those running their operating system.

some kinds of "flattery" Apple can do without.

i suspect that the reason Apple keeps cracking down on Aqua-esque themes is that most of them look butt-ass ugly.

Exhibit A [themes.org]

erm... this is nowhere near Aqua. as far as i can tell, it's just window borders and widgets. and worse still, poorly-done widgets! where are the proper drop shadows on the widgets? where's the transparency in the menu bars of inactive windows? where are the truly transparent (not janky Enlightenment transparency, but real transparency) xterms? where's the transparent Dock, with scaling, and the genie effect for minimizing/maximizing windows?

Exhibit B [themes.org]

here's another feeble attempt. The drop shadows on the widgets are a little closer to reality, but the window title bars are completely wrong. the scroll bar arrows are not right, and the window box is too squared-off. the widget in the upper right corner of the window is the wrong shape, the wrong color, and doesn't provide the proper functionality. but those problems are relatively trivial; more importantly, where's the Aqua toolbar? where's the status bar? where's the Dock, with Docklings that update in real time?

look. the point is not that these themes are imcomplete emulations of the Aqua user environment. the point is that the "wow" factor that hits you when you first encounter Aqua is a result of ALL the components working together, not just a few dribs and drabs. there's no one thing that makes Aqua cool; it's the ensemble.

this is why Apple doesn't want people releasing incomplete clones and calling them "Aqua". if my first encounter with "Aqua" was seeing one of the abovementioned themes running on a friend's linux box (and being told "hey, here's a theme that looks like Apple's new GUI"), i'd be underwhelmed, especially after all the hype. neither of those screenshots would be anywhere near enough to make me want to go out and buy OS X.

now, on the other hand, something like this [apple.com] ...

-steve

Here: http://kde.themes.org/themes.phtml
is a download able aqua theme for kde 2.1.

Looks quite nice, but somehow all the light burns in my eyes :o)

http://alpha.themes.org

wasn't that hard to find was it? :)

http://alpha.themes.org

wasn't that hard to find was it? :)

Or stop whining and use a different theme!

For the longest time, I couldn't stand looking at those crummy Netscape buttons. I like the themes option. Extremely customizable.(I realize this has been around for a while)

And it does seem to live up to the promise of "less crashes". (I've had it running a whole 15 minutes and it hasn't crashed yet ;)

But there are drawbacks. On Win32, running Mozilla wants 33MB from my heap. That's almost 3 times what IE wants for rendering the same page :P Not sure my RAM-poor laptop can handle that.....

A nice surprise: Mozilla properly handles true alpha-masked PNGs.

But hey, kudos to the mozilla folk for making a stable build!

Here's a screenshot: http://e.themes.org/php/pic.phtml?src=themes/e/sho ts/989191724.jpg

(I'm not sure why the text of that link has an extra space in it. The href doesn't.)
--

The problem is that almost nobody takes the time to think about what they're doing to decide if it's a good idea or not. Try navigating on a windows machine without a mouse; after a few minutes it's pretty easy. Try that with GNOME. Switch between apps and see if the keystrokes are consistent. see if the focus goes where you think it will in a complex form. most of the time, GNOME keyboard shortcuts are implemented as a complete afterthought, and it shows. If there's a GNOME standard for this, it's followed poorly.

Additionally, most of the original desktop themes are just plain useless. they're:

• pretty but useless -- how do you maximize one of those windows?
• geeky and useless -- okay, tell me where i click to minimize, maximize, close, or stick the windows.
• just plain dumb -- who the fuck knows how this works? i sure as hell don't, and I have better things to do than figuring it out.

I just spent 15 minutes looking for a truly good theme somewhere without success. that's a tragedy. that will hurt linux's mainstream acceptance far more than the fact that cmdrtaco was too dumb to buy a supported scanner.

--

The problem is that almost nobody takes the time to think about what they're doing to decide if it's a good idea or not. Try navigating on a windows machine without a mouse; after a few minutes it's pretty easy. Try that with GNOME. Switch between apps and see if the keystrokes are consistent. see if the focus goes where you think it will in a complex form. most of the time, GNOME keyboard shortcuts are implemented as a complete afterthought, and it shows. If there's a GNOME standard for this, it's followed poorly.

Additionally, most of the original desktop themes are just plain useless. they're:

• pretty but useless -- how do you maximize one of those windows?
• geeky and useless -- okay, tell me where i click to minimize, maximize, close, or stick the windows.
• just plain dumb -- who the fuck knows how this works? i sure as hell don't, and I have better things to do than figuring it out.

I just spent 15 minutes looking for a truly good theme somewhere without success. that's a tragedy. that will hurt linux's mainstream acceptance far more than the fact that cmdrtaco was too dumb to buy a supported scanner.

--

The problem is that almost nobody takes the time to think about what they're doing to decide if it's a good idea or not. Try navigating on a windows machine without a mouse; after a few minutes it's pretty easy. Try that with GNOME. Switch between apps and see if the keystrokes are consistent. see if the focus goes where you think it will in a complex form. most of the time, GNOME keyboard shortcuts are implemented as a complete afterthought, and it shows. If there's a GNOME standard for this, it's followed poorly.

Additionally, most of the original desktop themes are just plain useless. they're:

• pretty but useless -- how do you maximize one of those windows?
• geeky and useless -- okay, tell me where i click to minimize, maximize, close, or stick the windows.
• just plain dumb -- who the fuck knows how this works? i sure as hell don't, and I have better things to do than figuring it out.

I just spent 15 minutes looking for a truly good theme somewhere without success. that's a tragedy. that will hurt linux's mainstream acceptance far more than the fact that cmdrtaco was too dumb to buy a supported scanner.

--

Yes All of those fetures will be avalible along with:

Documentation subtitles
Stunning menus (themes.org)
Boot with the original aspect ratio!
scene selections (install/reinstall/compiling the kernel/...)
The alternate ending (NetBSD?)
Retouched Technicolor (Amber terminals never looked so bright)
A special introduction by Ken Thompson
The Open Source Boxed set edition (including FreeBSD Debian and RedHat with bonus SuSe)
And, in addition to the Developers commentary channel, the Users commentary channel
and act now and you'll recive a beasty plush toy!

all this for a total of 145 min of FreeBSD fun

It's not just individuals that are squatting on domains. I happen to agree with the guy, but for different reasons--Companies themselves are also engadged in squatting. Hell, our very own beloved VA Linux Systems is still squatting on system12.com/net/org, and has steadfastly refused to relinquish control over it. To make matters worse, they've still got some hokey BS explanation up on propaganda.themes.org that makes people think my project dried up and blew away--Rather than redirect traffic to where they can easilly obtain them freely, they blackhole it into their own now-dead site.

The squatting issue goes both ways. Its rather hypocritical when Company X accuses someone of squatting on a domain they want when they're doing the same crap themselves.

Cheers,

Never mind. Think I found it here. Sweet theme. Better download it before Apple sics it's lawyers. :)

There are plenty of themes available for Blackbox. >:)

I used to use KDE, and I really liked it. But then I upgraded to 2.1, and was bombarded by such a plethora of useless proccessor time-consuming shit (i.e., the whole blue theme, all the stupid event sounds, etc) that I immediatly started looking for another window manager. Just because I have a high powered computer does not mean that I want to waste it's cycles on a bloated desktop. So then I found blackbox. The binary size is about 1/25 of KDE's, and it is FAST and allows for extreme custimization (hence the myraid of themes available for it) and eye candy, without taking up much processor time. Now I can devote it to something usefull, like cracking RC5 :).
--

Eliliana Vasquez, born in Mexico in 1655, she moved to America, where she faced the Great Depression, and lost her brother afterward. She then married, and started a family in 1693, where she stayed in Fort Stockon in Texas. She lived there for quite awhile, where she lived with her husband, a general from the Mexican Revolution. She has such a rich history, I can't possibly expain it here, but if it wasn't for her, I wouldn't be here today. She was a religious person who believed in Christ, and as of Thursday, April 5, at 12:37, the Lord accepted her into his arms. I will remember her always; she was the most influential person I met, I am glad for the times we had together, the fun times I spent with her, and the sad times we struggled to get though, and I am glad she went peacefully.
Goodbye, grandmother, we will meet again.

--Shoeboy
(Posting anonymously to preserve my precious karma.)

The old default gnome widget set was pretty bad. AFIAK it took most of it's uglier features from Motif.

You shouldn't really be crying over it though - you could always change it with gtk themes, see http://gtk.themes.org/

The default gtk theme is now much nicer. Radio buttons and check boxes are easier to use.
+++++

Well, about 12 months ago, I realized it had been a year since I'd booted Windows at all, and I wanted a few gigs of disk space back. So I reformatted the partition to ext2 and that's that. I have neither the reason nor the means to boot Windows, period. (Well, I'm sure the Win98 CD is lying around somewhere, but why the hell would I go through the hassle to install it?)

So, a new Windows finally comes along. Who cares? Who cares if the interface is new and improved? When I want a new interface, I download something interesting from e.themes.org -- and can get a new theme every day, if that's what I want. Thanks to TurboTax Online, the one reason I thought I'd have for using Windows this year disappeared. Games? Yeah, there are a few Windows-only games I'd like to play, on the other hand, Nethack is my favorite game and all it needs is 80x24, baby :-)

So there's a new Windows. Who cares? I'm a non-smoker. The new Windows is as relevant to me as a new flavor of Marlboro.

But WTF is wrong with the interfaces of KDE or Gnome, they aren't at all hard to use. They both have that Start bar thing and both have the application bar, what's the difference. Konquer is just like Internet Explorer, and KOffice is very similar to Word, what's the problem? Hell you can even load up a theme to make KDE look just like windows. That's not the only one, though there a bunch.

I would imagine that anybody could install Mandrake 7.1 or EasyLinux, with those tutorials that would be a snap for anybody.

But WTF is wrong with the interfaces of KDE or Gnome, they aren't at all hard to use. They both have that Start bar thing and both have the application bar, what's the difference. Konquer is just like Internet Explorer, and KOffice is very similar to Word, what's the problem? Hell you can even load up a theme to make KDE look just like windows. That's not the only one, though there a bunch.

I would imagine that anybody could install Mandrake 7.1 or EasyLinux, with those tutorials that would be a snap for anybody.

HAHA - you're such a lying sack of shit. Or maybe it's just a furry gerbil you like putting on the back of your neck. Or maybe you recently cut your hair short as part of being a special agent for the Marine Corp.

I'm not worried about some fat ass like you.

For your information, some of us bench 275 and curl 60 pounds, which is why we don't look as frail as such a lightweight like you. Did you remove that gerbil off your neck before you weighed yourself to be 173 pounds?

So pony-tailed geek with a goatee - did you beat Bruce Lee in Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, Jui-Jitsu, or Shodokan? Or did he shove all your imaginary tournament trophies up your ass, because you're so fucking bad at being a compulsive liar?

r. ghaffari

One of the biggest misconceptions going around about Linux is that it needs to be easy to install for people to use it. As stated below, the majority of end users aren't even aware that their OS is installed like any other program. More realistically, they believe that elves descended from the magical kingdom of Euripides and installed Windows on their machine :)

As a dummy myself I know I couldn't install Linux without help from techie friends. It needs to be simple, just point and click.

I have found Windows to be much more difficult to install than Linux, furthermore most people who want to e-mail a photo of their cat to a relative have never installed Windows before in their life. They simply had it preinstalled for them at the factory where the computer was built, or the store from which they bought it.

It also has to be at least as pretty as Windows, because when you don't know anything about something, you tend to choose the most "professional" looking thing.

Linux can be as pretty as and even more pretty than Windows (Checked themes.org recently?) and a majority of the themes cater to the Windows-style button layout, which means people used to Windows can effectively navigate it.

Also, if all people want to do is use e-mail, then Linux is a perfect solution. I have a Linux box set up for my mother who is totally ignorant when it comes to computers, but she knows how to use apps like Word and such.

She has a Slackware box running a Windows-like theme for Icewm, and uses Netscape, Netscape Mail and WordPerfect without any problems what-so-ever, and without having to come and ask me questions about the interface or about Linux in general. When Evolution is finally released, this gap will be bridged even more so.