Hey Kids-

[tom_smythe]

whew, finally found a better forum than the linux section at Ars......

anyway, what's the deal with desktops? is KDE just sorta agreed to be better than gnome, or is there plenty of variety? i'm kinda new to this "linux" thing, but it seems like gnome is synonymous with "first install" whereas all the people who know what they're doing eventually switch to KDE.

e.g. all the apps that get recommended are KDE-based. (i guess you can run them in gnome, like i said, i'm no guru).

just an impression i get. let me know what you think.


tim

[Strike]

People who "know what they're doing" actually "eventually switch" to dropping the X Window System altogether http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/wink.gif j/k

KDE and GNOME are just two different choices. There aren't any very obvious advantages of one over the other as far as I know. In fact, a lot of the people here don't use either. I know when I'm in X, I don't. I used to use GNOME (and for a very short stint, KDE), but I don't use either of them anymore for X stuff. Of course, I also haven't used X in a long time. (Strange, since I'm the moderator for this forum ... http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif)

[tom_smythe]

heh, nice. here is was, feeling like a badass cause i got all my stuff together in redhat with gnome, and you come make me feel like a lamer! j/k

umm, i have another question, while you're at it- namely, there's a lot of stuff associated with x-windows that confuses the hell out of me, coming from an NT background.

Xfree86, enlightenment, and Gnome. (let's stick to these for now)- see if i have this straight- Xfree86 is synonymous with x11, which is the base for xwindows- enlightenment runs on top of this, and is the "window manager"; what this means i really don't know- Gnome runs on top of enlightenment, and is more of a "theme" than a desktop. sound kosher to you guys?

once again, the impressions of someone who has learned everything about linux from failed redhat installs. (i say failed because at the moment, i'm in the middle of formatting my partitions for a reinstall :^)

discuss- and dont' tell me to read the man pages, cause they assume you already know this kinda stuff.

tim

btw, i really like this forum! good stuffs for sure

[This message has been edited by tom_smythe (edited 27 December 2000).]

[Strike]

bah, I'd never say "read the man pages", unless either I know the person can understand it (like they just didn't know what command to use), or if I couldn't put it any better than they do (in which case I generally don't post at all).

Okay, you've got the layering correct, but not quite the functionalities.

Let's step-by-step this --

The X Window System - a client/server way of running a graphical environment, the user starts up an X server which then awaits connections from clients. The clients that connect to it are the graphical programs that the user wants to run. Basically any program that runs within the X Window System environment can be called an "X client". Generally the first X client (program) that someone runs is their "window manager" (but, note, that it doesn't have to be - for example, you can run an xterm without having a window manager running. It will simply sit in the upper-left corner, and it won't have a real visible "window" associated with it).

Window Managers - These programs (some of which are fvwm, twm, olwm, enlightenment, sawfish, and icewm) take the very rudimentary capabilities of the X Window System and create a "prettier", more manageable environment with a more distinctly windowed feel. They control how windows look, act, and how they behave for certain actions. They control how the mouse and keyboard events are trapped. They control sound events and more. They can do all of the things I mentioned or a small subset of them, or they can do even more. There's not a real specific way of defining what a window manager should do. But, you generally need a window manager in order to do serious multi-window sessions (and hence, multitasking in general, really)

Desktop Environments - The only three in serious usage in the Linux world that I know of are GNOME, KDE, and XFCE. These provide extra functionality on TOP of the window managers (and some of the functionalities overlap even). Drag-and-drop, desktop icons, taskbars, panels, etc. Those are some common features of desktop environments. You do NOT need to use a desktop environment like you do a WM. All desktop environments use window managers, few window managers depend upon having a desktop environment.


Hope that clears it up a bit. And I'll tell you, failed Red Hat installs can teach a man quite a bit about your system, I should know - you are doing what I was a year ago today with one of my Xmas gifts - RedHat 6.1

[tom_smythe]

heh.... one thing linux DEFINATELY has over windows- the installation is just difficult enough to make you at least TRY to fix it before skipping straight to a clean format.

thanks, Strike- that cleared a lot of stuff up.


tim

[TheBouleOfFools]

actually, KDE is more of a newbie desktop. Most distro's I've used have KDE as default, and in 2 of them I've noticed it's default because it's "Easier for newer Linux users to understand" whereas Gnome is more of a more advanced Desktop sort of, and most intermediate users switch from KDE to Gnome. Now why would you want to go and only use the command prompt??? What's the fun in that? No movies, no pictures, barely any mouse, and all the games suck bad. Then why not use DOS? The only things I can't do in DOS that I can do in Linux are:
1. Multiuser
2. That autofinish feature that works magic when you press tab
3. the Cat command
Everything else I can do in DOS. Not saying I'm a DOS person, I just don't understand all of this linux command prompt hype. And what's up with all those h4x0r d00ds? They say don't use DOS! YOu can't do nothin'! Use Linux cause you can do so much more. I think they use Linux because it makes them feel smarter. And that's my two cents.

------------------
"I'm sorry Peter. I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought."

[Strike]

Originally posted by TheBouleOfFools:
Now why would you want to go and only use the command prompt??? What's the fun in that? No movies, no pictures, barely any mouse, and all the games suck bad. Then why not use DOS? The only things I can't do in DOS that I can do in Linux are:
1. Multiuser
2. That autofinish feature that works magic when you press tab
3. the Cat command
Everything else I can do in DOS. Not saying I'm a DOS person, I just don't understand all of this linux command prompt hype. And what's up with all those h4x0r d00ds? They say don't use DOS! YOu can't do nothin'! Use Linux cause you can do so much more. I think they use Linux because it makes them feel smarter. And that's my two cents.


Because things are done MUCH more quickly. Starting programs (i.e. typing a command versus navigating a menu) is much quicker. Console programs run faster, and there are many many MANY more apps that are designed for console use than those that require X.

Now, I use X of course. But, I still do 90% of my work from a terminal window because that's where the apps that I use are. vim alone probably accompanies 50% of the time I spend in a console - programming, editing config files, writing reports, etc. I know there's gvim, but I prefer vim because it's lighter and it's a consistent interface for when I have to use a command-line interface (i.e. either I'm having problems with X that I'm trying to fix, or X is broken, or I'm on a machine with no X server).

I guess I use the command line so much (again, I know this is odd since I'm the moderator for this forum, the Window Managers/Desktop Environment forum), because I like to get into the guts of things. Most of that is either editing source or config files, and since I use vim that means I'm at a command-line most of the time, whether it be a tty or an xterm window.

Also, your list of three is a bit off. First off, #3 is just "type" in DOS (you can even pipe it to more if you have more on the system, otherwise /p works with some versions of type). And secondly, networking in DOS is something I've never even really heard of, so that should be on there. Besides, there are literally 1000's of command-line apps for *nix. I doubt the number of DOS command-line apps reaches four digits.

[iDxMan]

Hmm... What about blackbox? Its a fast and light little mofugger..

http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

-r

[A_Lawn_GNOME]

Heh, I got RH6.1 for Christmas last year. 3 dollars and worth every penny. After the install, I had no sound and GNOME looked like absolute junk. Still, it was new and did everything I needed.

Huh, just realized something. I've been using Linux for 1 year and 3 days. Doesn't really seem that long but wow, that kinda puts everything in perspective. That is, how much I've learned.