Re: ::scr tell me why you're using OSX, you big geek

[David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:14:12AM +0000, Simon Batistoni wrote:
> Gnome and KDE are both too twiddly for me, although to be frank, I
> can't see any meaningful differences between Gnome and Windows,
> besides the fact that Gnome has multiple workspaces, and X's
> clipboard handling sucks compared to Windows'.

Being careful to avoid religious-warfare territory ...

I use Gnome.  It Works For Me (tm).  Yes, is is pretty similar to Windows,
but then, I think that the Windows interface, at least in Win95 and NT4,
works pretty well.  As for the frequent claim that Gnome is bloated - yes,
true, it has lots of packages and takes quite a bit of disk space.  But
disk space is almost free now, and even on this old x86 laptop, with a mere
192Mb, Gnome doesn't slow it down at all.  If I switch to the thoroughly
minimalist evilwm* instead of my normal Gnome desktop + Sawfish WM, I notice
a small decrease in memory usage, but there's no noticeable effect on speed.

And at least Gnomified apps use a consistent widget set, thus curing the
biggest gripe I have about X.

> I actually think [OS X] looks more grown-up, too.

Ooh no.  The internals are more grown-up, but the Aqua interface is
unpleasant.  To me, it looks like a toy OS (which is OK, it's a toy
computer as well - it doesn't draw nearly enough power :-) and worst
of all, the widgets and the WM decorations are far too large.  On a
1024x768 screen, they take up valuable screen space.  OS 9 was, IMO,
the better GUI.  They should have used plain ol' X for windowing,
with a Mac OS 9-a-like window manager.

* - <http://evilwm.sourceforge.net>

-- 
David Cantrell | david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

       The Americans will always do the right thing...
       after they've exhausted  all the alternatives.
                                  -- Winston Churchill