Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elive Beta: Enlightenment Sans Commitment

Posted by timothy on from the giant-candy-pacifier dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Elive, the ultra-slick Debian based Enlightenment (16.7 and 17) liveCD project has released version 0.1 for download. See the package and features list for more information. A screenshot tour is also available."

57 comments

  1. Cool... by nickos · · Score: 1

    ...I've been looking for an Enlightenment based distro for some time. Does anyone know of any others, and can this be installed on a hard drive like normal distros?

    1. Re:Cool... by muszek · · Score: 1

      What's cool about Enlightment? Been looking at their website for some time and can't find anything useful. How does it compare to KDE or Gnome?

    2. Re:Cool... by nickos · · Score: 1

      IMHO, GNOME and KDE are totally bloated and have not really understood the UNIX philosophy. They're also desktop environents rather than stand alone window managers (although I believe E17 will incorporate a file manager (correct me if I'm wrong)). Enlightenment also has a lot of swishy graphical effects which will appeal to people who like that sort of thing.

    3. Re:Cool... by Ki+Master+George · · Score: 1
      Most OSes with extensive package repositories (say... Debian) will have packages for it.

      Or you could just try compiling it from source (which is actually really hard for Enlightenment, since you have to go through each directory and compile each library, which takes forever, at least for CVS).

      --
      Before you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you should insult them so you know how they are and what they're doing.
    4. Re:Cool... by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Enlightenment is, quite simply, an attempt to prove that even as simple a utility as a window manager can have as much bloat as any of those fancy-pants application programs!

      The only thing it's missing is a lisp interpreter, and that may be because a lisp interpreter could actually be useful. :)

    5. Re:Cool... by nickos · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that some distros are KDE based and some are GNOME based but none that I know of apart from this one are based on Enlightenment...

    6. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm not sure you really understand anything about linux ?! You do know that you can replace kde or gnome from any distro by any other window manager ? Most of the time dfferent choices are even available from the login window . i don't think there is such think as "gnome based" it's just the default choice ... Good luck .

    7. Re:Cool... by imr · · Score: 1

      IMHO, i disagree on this point:
      GNOME and KDE ... have not really understood the UNIX philosophy
      They both have tried to translate the unix philosophy in the gui world. Where there is translation, there is interpretation and therefore we have 2 different point of view of what should be the unix philosphy in a visual environment.
      But to say they havent understood it, means you know a better way to translate it in the gui world and I'm really curious to know your ideas about that.

    8. Re:Cool... by wed128 · · Score: 1

      I think enlightenment or blackbox are a great way to interpret the unix philosophy. X provides the method, the wm provides the method, and any panel/dock or file manager should be seperate. enlightenment provides an easy way to get to a CLI (ctrl/alt/insert) and everything else is accesible from there in unix fashion.

    9. Re:Cool... by nickos · · Score: 1

      Oh, I assure you I do know something about Linux. I know that KDE and GNOME can be replaced by other desktop environments, but I also know that for instance Red Hat prefers to use GNOME while SuSE prefers KDE. This is one of the main things that differentiates these two distros and so, if you ask for help with Red Hat, people will assume that you're using the RedHat/GNOME/GNU/Linux stack rather than the RedHat/KDE/GNU/Linux stack. Apart from this Elive thing I don't know of any distro that prefers Enlightenment.

    10. Re:Cool... by nickos · · Score: 1

      This was the best link I could find quickly.

      I'll quote from a discussion that was linked to from a recent post on /.

      The Unix programmer will create a command-line or text-driven core and occasionally, as an afterthought, build a GUI which drives that core. This way the main operations of the application will be available to other programmers who can invoke the program on the command line and read the results as text. The Windows programmer will tend to start with a GUI, and occasionally, as an afterthought, add a scripting language which can automate the operation of the GUI interface.

    11. Re:Cool... by imr · · Score: 1

      I don't see your point, really.
      If shell scripting is all that matters to you, both environment can do it. And kde even have the dcop environment to interract with the applications from the shell.

      But to me, unix philosophy is more abstract than just making a reference to or the use of, scripting.
      From what I understand of it, it means making the smallest piece of software possible so that you can build more complex uses by connecting them.

      Gnome did that their way by developping a lot of specialized librairies, that are tied together for more complex uses.
      KDE's interpretation, imho, really shines in konqueror, which is only a framework where you can have whatever new use you can think of easily through IOslaves and kparts. It is now a browser, it is now a file manager, it is now a video app, it is now a network crawler, it is now a ssh session, etc etc. It is in fact a visual shell where instead of doing 'ssh there' you just do 'fish://there' and works visually just like you would in a terminal.
      And all those can be programmed easily as konqui is designed just for that, wich is the important point for our discussion. It is an app that is designed to let you work with it with the same mindset than you would script a shell app.

    12. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and what connects the smallest pieces of software?

    13. Re:Cool... by oringo · · Score: 1

      There used to be a distro called peanut linux, which was based on vector linux. It's a small distro that fits in a ~200MB iso and it came with enlightenment (no KDE or Gnome). It ran pretty smoothly on my old P3-600MHz workstation. Not sure if the distro still exists today, thought.

    14. Re:Cool... by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Why, your mom, of course.

    15. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite Lisp, but it does have Embryo.

  2. Firefox/Mozilla icon by bach37 · · Score: 1

    I like that 3D Firefox icon. Anyone know where to find it?

    1. Re:Firefox/Mozilla icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Found this, but I don't see a link to an actual icon file download.

    2. Re:Firefox/Mozilla icon by strider44 · · Score: 1

      It's a PNG file for linux - right click and click "save image as". Yes linux icons are usually that big.

  3. bottom toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That bottom-center taskbar is pretty snazzy.

    Anyone know where I can get it for OS X?

    1. Re:bottom toolbar by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to make some sort of actual point, or are you expecting people to assume the inane worst?

    2. Re:bottom toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither. It's just a combination of being bored and seeing that hardly anyone else is posting.

      I actually like the Dock better than the taskbars in Windows/KDE, but... meh... think I typed enough for this post and am losing interest...

  4. So many live-cds... by Saiyine · · Score: 1

    Is there any bootloader able to load an OS, even RO, from a ISO in a fat/ext2 partition?

    It would be cool.

    --
    Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
    1. Re:So many live-cds... by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

      Several ways to try:

      chroot to the ISO mounted as a loopback device (mount -t loop /dev/hdax/elive.iso /mnt/elive might work)

      Gujin bootloader on loopback
      http://gujin.sourceforge.net/

      Smart Boot Manager might find the kernel, too.
      http://sourceforge.net/projects/btmgr/

      Using a loopback, you won't need a whole partition to itself, but the filesystem sees the file (ISO) as a partition.

  5. E-Pants? by Tim_F · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    This is why Linux is never going to be a widely adopted desktop OS. What is E-Pants (for that matter, what is an Epplet? why not simply call them what they are, applets?) and what does it do? The names for some of the Epplets were straightforward, but E-Biff left me confused as well (at least it had a letter icon indicating that it might be an inbox monitor). This is even worse than KDE and GNOME beginning every application name with K and G respectively.

    If you guys want Linux to be as widely used as Windows and OSX you have to standardize. One (visible) desktop manager and a standard set of applications. Leave all the tweaking in a nice graphical environment instead of forcing the user to edit text files, and for heaven's sake make the preferences screen for each application at least slightly similar and in the same location. It doesn't help when the prefs for FireFox are in a different menu location for Windows than for Linux or OSX.

    Eye Candy is all well and good, but unless there is a solid and unified environment behind it (like Windows and OSX) Linux is never going to go anywhere on the desktop. Present a true alternative to those two OS and the PC manufacturers will take notice.

    1. Re:E-Pants? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Well biff is a traditional unix tool for watching your mail box, so Ebiff is an englightenment applet fo doing the same.

      --
      Why not fork?
    2. Re:E-Pants? by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. biff has been called biff since time immemorial. Every OS has illogical or obtuse application names -- hell, what's the difference between "Finder", "Chooser", and "Sherlock"?
      2. Who's "you guys?" The development team of the Linux kernel? Every Linux user? I certainly don't want to lose my choice to use the Ion window manager and the naim instant messaging client and the Mozilla browser just because of some ill-advised quest for market share.
      3. OS X has what, 4, 5 percent of the market?
      4. Let's not even get into the i-apps on OS X. How is that any better than G or K or X or E-everything?
      5. Firefox is Firefox, not Linux. The prefs are in different menu locations because of different conventions on the different platforms. Firefox already looks and feels too much like a Windows application on Linux.
      6. Many distributions have graphical interfaces for manipulating system settings. All of the prominent desktop environments have settings dialogs as well. This shouldn't and doesn't prevent me from using a distribution (Slackware) that relies on directly editing configuration files.
      7. When Windows has even the slightest amount of consistency in terms of preference windows (or, hell, file choosers), you may have a point.
      8. Actually, you still wouldn't. KDE and GNOME applications both have perfectly good reasons to maintain consistency within themselves. Fans of GNOME don't want the clutter of KDE, and fans of KDE don't want the stark minimalism of GNOME. I don't want either.
      9. Some people work on eye candy. Some don't. People work on what they want to.
      10. Again, let me reiterate: I don't give a flying fuck what the PC manufacturers take notice of. As long as Slackware works fine on my machine, I'm perfectly content. "World domination" is not a goal. There's no valid reason that Linux should be prominent over any other free (as in freedom) operating system. Choice is good.
      11. Finally: Enlightenment users are currently a minority of Linux users. You can't use a specific complaint about the former to damn the latter.

    3. Re:E-Pants? by redog · · Score: 1

      "This is why Linux is never going to be a widely adopted desktop OS."

      I assume you know what they say about assumptions.

      "If you guys want Linux to be as widely used as Windows and OSX you have to standardize."

      Standardize what? The look? The feel? The administration tools?

      "a standard set of applications."
      Applications? What's unstandard about the avaliable linux desktop applications?
      I think you might mean A set of applications exactily like Windows OR OSX since the ones I am thinking of are not standard across those OSs.

      "unless there is a solid and unified environment behind it (like Windows and OSX) Linux is never going to go anywhere on the desktop."
      Like windows? Windows and the word solid shouldn't be put into the same sentance unless that sentance is: "Windows is very much unlike a solid terd since it barly ever holds together while afloat"

    4. Re:E-Pants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Completely agree. I will never swap my freedom of choice with the 10% of the desktop market.
      Let people actually learn how to choose and they will be happy, just like every e user.

    5. Re:E-Pants? by Reorax · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks for the advice. I'll start working on that right away.

      --
      This sig is only here so people stop skipping the last lines of my posts.
    6. Re:E-Pants? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Eye Candy is all well and good, but unless there is a solid and unified environment behind it (like Windows and OSX)"
      You are insaine.
      Have you ever tried to find the location of the SendTo folder in widows? Guess what you have to do something totally different in win 98 and XP.
      I could go on and on but why bother. You have never written code for windows or else you would never make that statement.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Re:E-Pants? by wbren · · Score: 1
      "If you guys want Linux to be as widely used as Windows and OSX you have to standardize."

      Standardize what? The look? The feel? The administration tools?
      Yes, standardizing all three of those things would be a good start.
      "a standard set of applications." Applications? What's unstandard about the avaliable linux desktop applications?
      Linux: vi, emacs, pico, gedit, OpenOffice.org, etc. Which one should I use to type up a grocery list? The problem is that I could use any of those programs to write a grocery list, and most if not all of those programs come preloaded with most Linux distros. But they all use very different interfaces. Everything from big differences like GUI/non-GUI and the coice of KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment/(all the others) to little things like different toolbar icons for nearly every program makes Linux different and ugly. And different = difficult. Not to mention installing new software. Will I have to compile the source? Will there be a text-based script to run? Will a nice GUI pop up and guide me? Do I have the right permissions to install this software?

      Windows: I could use Notepad to type my grocery list... maybe Wordpad if I need fancy formatting and colors. The icons in Wordpad are the same as almost every other Windows program. I know which button is the "Save" button, and which will create a new document. If I want to use a different program, I could download one and install it easily because 99% of Windows programs use Windows Installer or InstallShield. No messy text-based installers, no headaches.

      The problem is choice (I didn't intend to quote The Matrix, really). Consumers are mostly clueless when it comes to computers. Those of you who work in a retail environment will likely agree with me there. They don't want half a dozen different programs that do essentially the same thing. They want one program that does what they need to do and nothing more. They aren't interested in learning something new or using something that's ugly.

      I realize Linux supporters want people to move away from Microsoft and towards F/OSS (I do too, believe it or not), but you can only push people so far so fast. They won't go out of their way to learn something new, or use something that's ugly or inconsistent. You have to make the transition easy.
      Windows and the word solid shouldn't be put into the same sentance unless that sentance is: "Windows is very much unlike a solid terd since it barly ever holds together while afloat"
      Saying something like that is a great way to lose any credibility your comment might have.

      Here's the deal: The makers of Linux distributions want people to embrace Linux, but they refuse to embrace the average person. The won't budge an inch. They won't emulate Windows concepts, just because it's Windows and it's "evil".

      I'm tech-literate, yet I choose to use Windows for everyday stuff like web browsing, email, chatting, research, word processing, etc. No, I don't use some obscure Windows-only program daily. Linux can do everything I need it to do, but I don't use it because it's ugly, inconsistent and a pain to use. It's fine for my home's file server, but I wouldn't make one of my family members use Linux if you paid me.

      This comment will probably get modded down as a troll or flaimbait, but it is not intended as either. It's intended as constructive criticism. I want Linux to be a kick-ass operating system that my grandmother can use, but as of right now, it has a long way to go.
      --
      -William Brendel
    8. Re:E-Pants? by Tim_F · · Score: 1

      That comment is like asking me to compare KDE 3.4.1 to KDE 1. Things are going to be drastically different.

    9. Re:Re:E-Pants? by chjones · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, William, I'm almost exclusively a free software user, avoid Windows like the plague, and agree with nearly everything you've said. Generally, the trouble is that evangelism doesn't work, but is significantly easier than making a product that makes people want to use it.

      This isn't a critique of Linux or F/OSS. I'm happy to use it instead of Microsoft products, but I don't expect my friends, family, or colleagues to unless I can actually show them something compelling. Saying "I don't have to reboot for months" or "I can use really powerful command-line scripts" only makes them think (more) that I'm a geek; showing them Firefox's tabs and a few extensions fitting in (relatively) nicely into their already-available Windows or OS X installation switches them as quickly as giving them a URL.

      As I said, I agree with you, and I'm certainly not criticizing the software--but it would help if a few more people (there are one or two out there) would concentrate on the product instead of the selling. Done right, it will sell itself.

      --

      Christian Jones
      Medicine. Mathematics. Mediocrity.

    10. Re:E-Pants? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Umm except you can require people do upgrade from KDE 1 to KDE 3.4 since they are free.
      But if you want try and put write the code that finds the sendto in ME and XP? they where out at the same time and the methods are very different and poorly documented!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:E-Pants? by Tim_F · · Score: 1

      And you think the KDE code is better documented? I doubt it. People who get paid for the code that they write tend to actually document their code.

    12. Re:E-Pants? by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes KDE is better documented. And yes I have written windows code and KDE code. If all else fails I can look at the source in KDE. Windows is a MESS. MFC is a nightmare. Whole sections of the multimedia subsystem in windows just does now work as documented. TAPI is a total messs. And Yes I HAVE been paid to write windows code. About 10,000 people are using my code under windows right now. It works but it was UGLY.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:E-Pants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here Here.

    14. Re:Re:E-Pants? by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      As a longtime computer user who has recently switched to Linux, I think some of your points miss the point.

      vi, emacs, pico, gedit, OpenOffice.org, etc. [...] The problem is that I could use any of those programs[...] But they all use very different interfaces.

      I could use Notepad [...] Wordpad if I need [...] The icons in Wordpad are the same as almost every other Windows program. I know which button is the "Save" button [...]. [...] No messy text-based installers, no headaches.

      okay, sorry for the messy snipping. Your comparison is not valid. vi, pico, emacs et al are CLI, terminal based editors with a history that predates widespread acceptance of GUI. Notepad, wordpad et al are GUI apps for a GUI OS. Oo.org and Abiword are GUI apps for a GUI OS. They use essentially the same icons and menu structure as the windows apps you mention. True there are differences, but nothing beyond the difference say between Word and WordPerfect. You are comparing pre-GUI terminal apps to GUI apps. Better to compare vi, pico, etc to WordPerfect 5 (I think, was that the last terminal one? can't recall) or to whatever gawdawful editor we used on the old Apple IIe's for Pascal (dating myself) code. Of course the interfaces are different -- its apples and oranges, or penguins and paper-clips.

      Choice is not the problem, choice is the solution. We can have whatever we want, and if noone has made it, then we can make it ourselves (assuming a lot here). So if you want to use a Windows type app, you can, but if you don't want to, you don't have to. In current Windows, you don't have the choice. Just try and run an old DOS editor in one of those XP fake MS-DOS shells (going out on a limb here as I've not tried it... making an ass out of uma thurman). Linux has merely allowed you that option, which you can choose to ignore (more and more). Further, apps that compare directly to notepad and wordpad and Word all use nice graphical installers, or can be installed with nice graphical front-ends to CLI package managers.

      They want one program that does what they need to do and nothing more.

      not true. if it was true, we'd all still be using pentiums with 32 megs and a whopping huge 3 gig HD... people want as much bang as they can get for their buck whether they'll ever use it or not. That's not the point. and frankly, Linux is becoming more and more bang for the buck ($0) as time goes on.

      They won't go out of their way to learn something new, [sad but oh so true.]

      or use something that's ugly [eye of the beholder]

      or inconsistent. [have you looked at anything other than MS proprietary stuff? try all over the map]

      The makers of Linux distributions want people to embrace Linux, but they refuse to embrace the average person. The won't budge an inch. They won't emulate Windows concepts, just because it's Windows and it's "evil".

      You're right. And it seems they do this for the wrong reasons. If they don't want to embrace Windows concepts in the quest for something different or better or more purple, fine, but this shunning of Windows because of its "Evil", real or perceived, is misguided.

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    15. Re:Re:E-Pants? by redog · · Score: 1


      "Linux: vi, emacs, pico, gedit, OpenOffice.org, etc. Which one should I use to type up a grocery list?"

      Windows: edit, wordpad, notepad, Word, acrobat, wordperfect, acrobat, openoffice.org. Type your grocery list in any or all of them.

      The linux approach to "keeping the icons the same" is through the various toolkits. gtk, qt, ewl to name a few. You think that they are ugly, I think that windows is ugly.

      "The problem is that I could use any of those programs to write a grocery list, and most if not all of those programs come preloaded with most Linux distros. But they all use very different interfaces."

      So what? Pick 1 learn its ugly interface and move on, thats what everyone did with windows.

      "Everything from big differences like GUI/non-GUI and the coice of KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment/(all the others) to little things like different toolbar icons for nearly every program makes Linux different and ugly."

      Talking about the Linux Desktop gui is assumed.
      If choice is ugly Chevy wouldn't have different colors on the same models, or different modles for that matter. 1 size fits all only in Redmond. Little things? Cmon, I think your confusing ugly with new and unrecognizable since you have admitted that you don't use a linux desktop this is understandable.

      "And different = difficult"

      A Desktop Computer is typicaly a personal computer. I don't care if my computer is difficult for you to use. If this is an enterprise desktop deployment, I say learn it or get another job. I can do that since I am the boss.

      "Not to mention installing new software."

      Software manufactures need to do a better job.
      This is a huge hinderance to Linux Desktop adoption.

      "Will I have to compile the source?"

      Luckly with FOSS that is an option, and one that works %99 of the time. Try that with a failed windows install.

      "Will there be a text-based script to run?"

      If so the GUI should run it.

      "Will a nice GUI pop up and guide me?"

      Next, Next, Next, Next, Accept, Next...Finish.
      I have never thought that windows has had a "nice gui" to guide software installation. But thats just me.

      "Do I have the right permissions to install this software?"

      In windows everyone has the right permissions to install any software.
      Again the software developers need to do a better job. The most difficult issue that I see is cross distro packaging. I think that gentoo's portage is best positioned to fix this. Unfortunatly their developers don't seem to what to have much to do with binary packaging. If someone can get portage to convert between the many binary package types (example: rpm emerged.tbz)
      this could give all distribution packagers(i.e.software manufactures) a single development and package building tool(i.e.portage). They may then use their distro's installer's gui to install the binary package. This is only not a problem with the different windows OS's because they are all neerly identical.

      "I'm tech-literate, yet I choose to use Windows for everyday stuff like web browsing, email, chatting, research, word processing, etc. No, I don't use some obscure Windows-only program daily. Linux can do everything I need it to do, but I don't use it because it's ugly, inconsistent and a pain to use."

      Saying something like that is a great way to lose any credibility your comments might have.

  6. Boreing..... by redog · · Score: 2, Informative

    The screenshots are of e16.
    Pulleeze try theeese
    http://get-e.org/Screenshots/Official/_previews/e1 7-34.jpg.html
    http://get-e.org/Screenshots/User_Submitted/_previ ews/e17_japan.png.html
    http://get-e.org/Screenshots/Official/_previews/e1 7-33.jpg.html
    http://get-e.org/Screenshots/User_Submitted/_previ ews/e17_gant_theme2.png.html
    http://get-e.org/Screenshots/Official/_previews/e1 7-31.jpg.html

  7. Torrent Download by jmazzi · · Score: 1, Informative

    Incase the mirrors are slow or you prefer torrent:
    http://mirror.hrnoc.net/pub/torrents/Elive_0.1_nib eta_nialpha.iso.torrent

  8. haha... blech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Riiiight. It's like they tried to copy Apple but it looks like a crappy knockoff.

    Don't get me wrong, their intensions are good but it's just not right. It feels "wrong" in your gut. Like the CG Final Fantasy movie that tried to do realistic characters but that usually ends up with a creepy "off" feeling.

    By the way, who the freak wants transparent terminals?! I just don't get that. It sucks. It must just be morons who don't actually do anything with their computer and just want pretty funky looking stuff.

    1. Re:haha... blech by Cecil · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's like they tried to copy Apple but it looks like a crappy knockoff.

      It may seem like that. But Enlightenment was first. I was using Enlightenment well before OS X first came out (and I then bought a Mac with OS X and retired my Enlightenment machine, mind you).

      But Enlightenment was excellent way back when. There are some things I still miss, like the pagers (although Expose is cool as well).

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to assume you're talking about OS X, and not talking about OS 9 or previous systems. Because they bear absolutely no resemblance at all to Enlightenment. So if that's what you're suggesting than you're not just wrong, you're insane.

      --
      Random and weird software I've written.
  9. wow by rebug · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it scale terribly? I know on OS X icons are usually rendered at various midpoints between 128 px and 16 px so they can look good at any size. A 256 px wide icon can't look very good at 16 px.

    --

    there's more than one way to do me.
    1. Re:wow by strider44 · · Score: 1

      some (if not most) icons are manually mipmapped (kde supports this - generally you put the 16x16 icons in a directory called 16x16 and so on), however this icon doesn't seem to scale badly at all and still looks fantastic at 16x16. Depends on the type and complexity of the icon I suppose.

  10. ah enlightnement by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

    I remember the good old days (1996?) when I downloaded and ran 'e', and it took 60% of my CPU just to display the background pic of a big flaming reflective marble

    --
    1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
  11. Enlightenment is Slow by iignotus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is great work and an interesting project, but Enlightenment is quite slow on my 750mHz p3, even to the point where the mouse falls behind when eyecandy is going off. Kde nor Gnome have these problems, even with SuperKaramba or GDekslets running.

    1. Re:Enlightenment is Slow by flyneye · · Score: 0, Interesting

      thats odd since it works great on my 550 p3.Perhaps the drivers for your videocard are lacking or if I may be so bold,your videocard is an underpowered dinosaur. Im running on an nvidia GF 5200 with 128 mb. The only odd thing Ive noticed about this live disk is the default keymapping doesnt seem to be default u.s.
      Runs smooth and fast for me.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:Enlightenment is Slow by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1
      Im running on an nvidia GF 5200

      That's more powerful than the P3, isn't it? ;^D
    3. Re:Enlightenment is Slow by flyneye · · Score: -1

      thats the video card.LOL probably more powerful than the P3 but not important for the point.Video card should be sufficient to the task of rendering E.P3 is fine for kernel,programs,etc.whats your diagnosis doctor?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  12. Paradigm by npcole · · Score: 1

    As a recently (converted?) Mac user, one of the aspects of the system I most like is the fact that the Dock displays one icon per application, rather than one icon per window, which rapidly beomes less useful than it might be, but is the norm for Gnome/KDE/Windows.

    As a user, I'd much rather click to say, "I want to go back to _this_ application."

    If E17 has adopted the Mac paradigm in this respect I'm most impressed.

    On a more general note, I wonder how long it will take Apple Legal to become interested.

    1. Re:Paradigm by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft

      Also, last time I checked, both KDE and Windows XP had taskbar grouping which does roughly the same thing. (Although I don't remember the feature you're talking about.)

    2. Re:Paradigm by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      gnome has it too, just for the record...

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  13. screenshots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please stop linking to osdir's screenshots... they are useless...

    1. Re:screenshots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      True.. nobody wants to see screenshots. Who would want to actually see what a distro looks like before they download it. I'm fully content just crossing my fingers and randomly choosing a distro, hoping it will look good along with being stable, etc. I think all distro sites should stop posting screenshots of their releases too. They are only a distraction from what really matters. Who cares what your OS looks like.

      osdir's screenshots are a bad service... I wish their was no sites out there where I could casually browse distro desktop images. Who compares distros anyway? Yeah, stop linking to osdir cause I have no self control when I see a link... I have to click it. Although others like osdir, links to osdir should be removed so you can please me.

      I'm with you!

  14. Get-e.org by RiotXIX · · Score: 1

    As the enlightenment website says in 'news' somewhere, http://get-e.org/ is quite useful. It's probably less effort to follow this site then bothering to change your setup entirely. Go with whatever distribution you prefer.

    --
    "You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret