Red Hat's Bluecurve (was: Red Hat 8.0 is 'official')

[pll at lanminds.com]

In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 14:55:11 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:

>On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:14, pll at lanminds.com wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >  It's now impossible to have the Gnome panel(s) be anything but
>> >always-on-top.
>> 
>> Is this only if you're running Gnome? Or does it apply to running the 
>> panel in other windows managers?
>
><NITPICK>
>Gnome is not a window manager.  You can use any gnome compliant (there
>is actually a document for programmers on how to make their window
>managers gnome compliant) window manager in gnome.
></NITPICK>

<REALLYNITPICK>

I know Gnome, and KDE, CDE, etc. for that matter, are more than 
"window managers".  However, I explicitly asked if you need to be 
"running GNOME".  This implies, IMO, that I am *not* running Gnome, 
but rather, using ANYTHING ELSE, but choose to run a Gnome 
application, of which the Gnome panel is but one.

Therefore, my question is more than valid, since no where did I 
equate or even state that Gnome was just "a window manager".

</REALLYNITPICK>

<SARCASM>
Btw, I have yet to see Gnome or KDE do anything overly useful other 
than provide a more visually appealing and resource intensive window 
manager replacement ;)
</SARCASM>

>> IOW, I use fvwm, but I run the Gnome 
>> panel (mostly because I really like the the AfterStep clock applet:)
>> Does that mean I can no longer go to Panel->Properties->All Properties
>> and select my own Panel Window level?
>
>  Yup, it's a Gnome 2.0 thing, not a window manager thing.  There are
>*much* fewer properties available for setting in the Gnome 2.0 panel. 

Guess I'll be sticking with fvwm for quite a while then :)

>As a matter of fact:
>
><GRIPE MODE="ON" LEVEL="EXCRUCIATINGLY HIGH">
> Apparently, it is a friggin' *stated goal* to remove many configuration
> options from Gnome.

So where's the value add to switch from MS ?  Sure, there's the "it's free"
argument, but for most users, they don't care.  They paid for "a computer"
which comes with an OS.  They don't care which one, and as far as 
they're concerned, MS is "free with the purchase of their computer".

Therefore, the only diffentiating factor is, what can Linux do that 
MS Windows can't.  If the answer is nothing, but it looks cool, then 
we just lost.
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
	It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

	 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!