Re:Why Not? (Score 1)

>Most nice-looking GUI apps now require you to be >running Gnome or KDE, and I personally don't care >to run either. WindowMaker can be built with GNOME and KDE support (./configure --enable-kde --enable-gnome), and run the majority of the aps just fine. I've found very few that break in wmaker. >GnomeICU, for instance, starts up the Gnome panel >when you run it ! And it won't run at all if >Gnome is not installed. As it was already mentioned, you can run it with the -a flag which frees it from the need of the panel. >There must be a root menu in the lower left corner >There must be a task list along the bottom edge of the screen >There must be an X in the upper right to close the window As much as I'm getting a little tired of most GUI's interfaces borrowing from each other, with very little fresh ideas, let's give credit where credit is due. Some of the ideas are pretty good. Now I'm no a Start Menu freak, but some ideas like standard dialogue layouts, symbols, etc...are the result of user testing, and trial and error. THey just didn't pull these features out of their ass and declare it as the defacto standard. Some features are good because they've stood the test of dumb users and succeeded. Linux X wm's and DE gui's, with the exception of a few, borrow from these features, because they work, and because the programming community doesn't have the 'benefit' of dumb users--yet. Now if you want to make a user's head explode, put them in WindowMaker or AfterStep for a day. Watch their mouse cursor gravitate towards the bottom of the screen, in hopes a start menu will appear. Then try to explain the difference between a dock and a clip, and give up after an hour. It's kinda of sad really. I was one of those people for a couple days, but fortunately I stuck around and found out that truly different interfaces can make one more adaptable to various platforms...and I've never looked back since.