nanogui: re:
Subject:
RE:
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
11 May 1999 22:05:42 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905112233100.1368-100000@hyperspace>
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> I agree that the window mgr should be modular, but if you want different window
> managers, you might as well use X. Actually, although it was a good idea,
> the fact that X's design allowed for so much flexibility with differing looks and feels
> contributed to Microsoft's taking over with their faster, more consistent gui...
That's only one side of the story. A lot of people (myself included)
_like) the fact that there are a million and one different window
managers, most of them extremely configurable (and more recently,
themeable), to play with. People keep saying that "users want the
interface to always look exactly the same so that they only need to learn
it once", but to me that's just plain boring. The fact that Motif is
non-free did the most damage, IMO. Only now with modern widget sets
like GTK+ can you really produce a _decent_ looking X app.
> The first version of nanoX that I write will definitely have some built-in window
> management, in order to keep it small. In my opinion, *all* of nanoX should be
> kept small, so that it can be used where X can't. Otherwise, why not just use X?
X is _really_ big and bloated. Just adding a versatile set of hooks to
Nano-X which allow you to link in a decent WM if you want isn't going to
cause a significant amount of bloat.
--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
