Me too. I would replace it with metacity in Gnome in a heartbeat if I could find a good how to that would tell me how to change themes (the default is super ugly - programming is Rasterman's forte).Originally Posted by Stormy Eyes
Me too. I would replace it with metacity in Gnome in a heartbeat if I could find a good how to that would tell me how to change themes (the default is super ugly - programming is Rasterman's forte).Originally Posted by Stormy Eyes
- Mark ShuttleworthThose folks who try to impose analog rules on digital content will find themselves on the wrong side of the tidal wave.
I'll give you a quick howto for downloading, installing, and using E17 themes:Originally Posted by poofyhairguy
1. Pick a theme from those listed at get-e.org and download it to a convenient location.
2. If the theme file you downloaded ends in .edj, then copy it to "~/.e/e/themes". If it's in a tarball, extract it first and then copy the resulting .edj file to ".e/e/themes".
3. Do the following so you can use the default if you must:
4. Wait a few seconds, or restart Enlightenment. Then left-click on your desktop, go to the "Themes" submenu, and pick out your new theme.Code:cp /usr/share/enlightenment/data/themes/default.edj ~/.e/e/themes/default.edj
I hope this helps. I recommend the ICE-2005 theme myself.
My sole duty is to my own happiness and well-being. I recognize no other.
Wow. Thank you very much. Good by forever metacity.Originally Posted by Stormy Eyes
- Mark ShuttleworthThose folks who try to impose analog rules on digital content will find themselves on the wrong side of the tidal wave.
You're welcome. There's something of a manual at get-e.org. I recommend referring to sections 3.3 and 3.4 for icons/menus and backgrounds. I've been making all my own icons, using the icons tarball provided by Gentoo.Originally Posted by poofyhairguy
Here's a screenshot of Enlightenment DR17 at work.
Last edited by Stormy Eyes; July 21st, 2005 at 02:55 AM.
My sole duty is to my own happiness and well-being. I recognize no other.
I'm running Ubuntu on a Celeron 2.4ghz and Windows was way faster on that machine. I saw that as a problem, which I thought was the point of this thread.Originally Posted by poofyhairguy
I hope gnome gets faster. I think the best way would be to get it accerated.Originally Posted by pmj
- Mark ShuttleworthThose folks who try to impose analog rules on digital content will find themselves on the wrong side of the tidal wave.
i'll say getting drivers for devices would be one of the major issues .... also battery support for laptops as well
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Linux User #391336
matthias media two ways to live - the choice we all face
www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl
Some "using Linux" problems:
1 - Poor support for mobile networking. The best tool I could find is the net-applet, but it doesn't take care of the proxy setup. Every time I move my laptop from home to work, getting a working network is a real pain. Every single other tool I tried was almost impossible to setup (but this is no longer a "using" problem...)
2 - Lack of compatibility with MS Office. I still cannot create a .doc file and be sure that it will look the way it is supposed to on a Windows box => I still need a Windows and MS Office on my computer just to check/modify the document I create. And this is definitely a "using" problem: I loose 15 min every time because I have to reboot and start again all my apps
3 - Nautilus keeps crashing, Nautilus sucks with the network... I hate Nautilus! Unfortunatly, Rox, which would be an almost perfect file manager for me does not nicely integrate with gnome (maybe setup problem here...)
4 - Lack of consistency between all the applications. Drag and drop doesn't work between GTK, QT or TK or even between Gnome applications. The right clic is not alway available when you would expect it to be, and so on. And this is probably the main reason why I would say that Linux is not "ready for the desktop" => my mother would never ever be able to learn that "for this application, it works this way, but for that one, it works that way". She already has enough problem with a "consistent" environment, she would be completely lost on Linux, no matter which distribution or environment (I know, I tried to make her use a Linux for 2 years).
5 - A small problem that should soon be solved (hopefully): the lack of good IM client with webcam support (to send or receive) and MSN compatibility (I hate this, but it's a fact that most people use MSN, and the number keeps growing).
6 - Bad system behavior with broken hardware. Hardware failures is the best way to get a lot of <defunct> processes, a slow system, hundreds of error messages and all this leads to the one thing I hate the most: a reboot. The perfect example is my Smart card reader. It works most of the time, but fails from time to time. If I make the mistake to read my pictures with gqview directly on the smart card, after a failure I always get a <defunct> qgview (which is impossible to kill) and I cannot start another one. It's also impossible to unload/reload the module (which sometime can solve the card reader's problem) because the module is used ... by the defunct process! All I can do in this case is to reboot the computer or stop using gqview. No such problem with windows... And I had similar issues with a bad HD and more recently with my CD-ROM drive.
You may argue that rebooting is not really such a big problem, and you may be right, but it is really annoying for me. One of the reason I like Linux is that I have to reboot far less often than with Windows, and I dream of a system that NEVER has to be rebooted!
7 - This list is far from being complete, but I guess I would consider Linux "ready for the desktop" if only the first 4 points could be addressed.
On a different subject, in reply to musicman2059 ...
I may be wrong, but for me multitasking means doing several things at the same time. Well, when I start Linux, I quickly clic on 4 or 5 icons to start my applications, and they show up in a reasonnable amount of time. Have you tried to do this on Windows? I did. I had to wait what seems to be hours before the first window actually opened! With Linux, I can also compile an application, copy a huge folder on another drive and continue to browse the net with Opera (with 7 opened windows and more than a 100 tabs). With Windows, as soon as I start moving the huge folder, I am almost stuck: no matter what I try to do, it's going to take ages. Even opening a single IE window. This is definitely not multitasking for me.4. Linux seem to do a really bad job at multitasking with a 366MHz processor.
5. Linux also seems to a a really bad job at managing memory with only 192MB. After startup, I find that 80-85% of my RAM is taken up, almost half of that being cached stuff, (That isn't neccesarily a problem though, seeing it's just a cache) whereas Win98 was only taking around half with no cache.
Beside, when looking at performances, you cannot compare Win98 with a current Ubuntu/Gnome environment. In 2000,I have been using a Debian (Potato) with WindowMaker on a P75 with 64Mb of RAM without problem, though I admit it may have been slower than Windows 98. On the other hand, Windows 2000 wouldn't even install on such a machine.
Later, I had both Windows XP and a Debian Unstable on a Celeron overclock at 375Mhz. The difference in performance was simply stuning: working with XP was a real pain and we couldn't even watch a Divx, whereas it was possible on Linux.
And finally, last year, I work on a P4 1.8Ghz, with 256Mb de RAM and Windows 2000. I have never seen such a slow system! My Athlon 1.6Ghz at home, still running a Debian unstable seemed to be flying compared to what I had at work.
In the end, I believe that the performances issue is a false one. What matters is to use a system designed and setup for your hardware, and in my experience Linux certainly not worst than Windows (it also probably not better either, though I like to think so. I am sure that a lot of Windows users out there can come up with similar experiences than mime where Windows turned out to be faster than Linux).
Still I would agree that Linux behave badly when the swap is full, and this is another "using" problem. If I remember correctly, Windows doesn't start an application if there isn't enough available memory. Linux tries to start it anyway, and at this point, just trying to kill an application to free memory can take up to 15 min!!
I hope my english wasn't to bad!
What possessed you to buy a machine with a Celery processor? Celerons are nothing but defective Pentiums.Originally Posted by pmj
My sole duty is to my own happiness and well-being. I recognize no other.
We all know Pentiums > Celeron. We also know that Celerons are less expensive than Pentiums. Extending this amazing logic, why do you think he bought it?Originally Posted by Stormy Eyes
Let's keep the trollish comments to a minimum.
Bookmarks