[plug] Gnome + Enlightenment + X Windows

[David Buddrige]

Phillip Summers wrote:

> I was wondering what people thought about Gnome.

Haven't used GNOME much - KDE (from what I've read) uses less resources - and
is probably (IMO) easier to use in that GNOME for newbies.  (although GNOME has
many technical advantages as well as being much more configurable).

> I can see that Linux has many advantages over Windows but its weakest point
> seems to be the GUI. In particular the fact that you need three layers of
> software to run a GUI i.e. Gnome + Enlightenment + X Server. This seems to
> place a huge load on the host machine. In comparison, Windows 3.1 had a full
> integrated GUI and used far less resources. I would even say that W98 was
> more resource friendly than this combo.

1. Win 3.1 does not release resources properly, and so after running 1 or 2
major apps you'll probably need to reboot.
2. Win95 has all of the sortware you speak of - but as one mega chunk rather
than componentised - whereas Unix/Linux has it seperated into it's seperate
sections - thereby giving u choice.  In any case, you don't really _need_ to
know about these - you can get distro's that automatically install one or the
other of various WM's.

> The way I see it, before linux become viable for desktop use, someone will
> have to combine these three technologies into a single compact efficient
> package.

Why?  You do not use logic here.  8-)

Besides which, as I've already said, various distro's have a number of defaults
that will install it all without u needing to know about the various options
(The Mandrake distro for example installs KDE by default).  But you still have
the _option_ if u don't like/want KDE - alternately you can go with a
completely different distro.