Re: Enlightenment news (fwd)

["Cj Stremick" <stremick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What's the most accepted Window Manager at this point?  I'm pretty happy
with AfterStep so far, but I'm also pretty new to this whole thing.  I'm not
really interested in sticking with AfterStep just because I don't know
anything else.  Is there a "better" (I know that's subjective - just asking!
;) Window Manager?  KDE, perhaps?  I don't really do anything that wild on
my computer (I just code a MUD...) so I haven't run into any limitations so
far that make me feel like AfterStep isn't good enough.  I don't know,
though...  I can't imagine AfterStep being able to look like that bottom
picture on the Enlightenment Screenshot page...

By the way - I used the SlackWare distribution to get off the ground and now
that I'm getting more in to this, it's causing some little troubles.  I
mean, sure the kernel is the same and it's not like the utilities care about
the distribution, but I always seem to end up having to download "toolkits"
or a new glibc or something.  I see these RPM's and as far as I can tell,
they make it really easy to add/update programs.  Is that right?  Is it
worth switching over to a Red Hat distribution to do this?  All my Linux
stuff is on one partition so I suppose it'd be easiest to nuke it so I don't
end up with two copies of everything (or will Red Hat find existing versions
of stuff and leave them alone?)  I'd appreciate any opinions on this...

Thanks!
-Cj


----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Smith <bruce@armintl.com>
To: <klug@klug.armintl.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Enlightenment news (fwd)


>> > http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/990105/software/software2.html
>>
>> I read the article, it sounded interesting, but what does
>> enlightenment do that other windows managers fail to do...
>>
>> has anyone used this thing, any opinions on it?
>
>I tried a long time ago.  It's very unique.  A different
>look and feel to any other window manager I've ever seen.
>Almost impossible to describe unless you actually see it.
>
>Back then it was still in development and was not very stable.
>I'm not sure how far along it's come since then.
>