Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 19:00:00 -0600 From: Vulpes Velox <kitlists@hotpop.com> To: ".VWV." <victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: the unix desktop was possible once Message-ID: <20031109190000.3e453c9c.kitlists@hotpop.com> In-Reply-To: <001301c3a713$776daf00$d6aeabd4@workstation> References: <000a01c3a59e$429ce460$7baeabd4@workstation> <20031108113432.35b59671.kitbsdlists@HotPOP.com> <3FAD2AA1.5060500@potentialtech.com> <000701c3a6d9$5aafca90$9bfc2dd5@workstation> <20031109135848.3eebea37.kitlists@hotpop.com> <001301c3a713$776daf00$d6aeabd4@workstation>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 23:47:34 +0100 ".VWV." <victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it> wrote: > > Vulpes Velox wrote: > > > Why not use 4.9 or 4stable? I see no problem using gtk or gtk+. As > > long as qt is advioded I don't see any real problems. Free hosting is > > largely a must... look how much various linuxs have managed to > > totally bungle the idea of creating a desktop by being commercial. > > > I have already explained, for a desktop it is necessary a common look for > the various environments. It can be obtained following the GNUstep standard, > adopted by Windowmaker. GTK 1.x has the graphical engines to match exactly > the same look. It is only necessary to find the way to start that bastard of > Nautilus 1.0.6, which should be docked as for desktop and main file manager. > As for KDE 3.x, I'll try to hack it to add on the old 'kdestep' style, even > if I have no idea if I'll be able of mixing the sources in the correct way. This is easy to fix... copy the .gtkrc to .gtkrc-2.0... then change the font line... a program that can edit all the config files would be much more useful... > > Installation tools are cool. Some nicer config tools would go a long > > way thought. I am currently working on one to make kernel builds > > simpler. > > This is an optional, as for desktops, because simply reading the Handbook > and the LINT file, the compilation goes perfectly at the first attempt. In > any case, it would be nice to have such tool as a part of a customized > 'sysinstall'. so all toolkits need to look the same, but /stand/sysinstall sucks for handling the config... far easier to edit it by hand then have to mess around with it... and it leaves a lot of things out to...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031109190000.3e453c9c.kitlists>