Opinions on the "enlightenment" window manager

[Philip J. Koenig]

On 12 Apr 2002, at 23:02, Brett I. Holcomb boldly uttered: 

> Well, Konq is one reason I left KDE.  Konq as a browser is useless - it 
> can't handle most of the pages I visit (and they aren't browser specific 
> either).  However, Mozilla can handle those same pages without a problem at 
> all.  It got so I would open in Konq, close Konq because it couldn't handle 
> the page, open Mozilla and it would work.  My frustration is from the fact 
> I like many of Konq's features but it's broken.  When it was reported (by 
> many of us) we got the standard KDE response to all bugs - "It is fixed in 
> the version we are working on (KDE 3 at the time) so we aren't going to 
> waste time fixing it in the version everyone is using".  At that time KDE 3 
> was almost a year away - like what was I supposed to do - work with a 
> broken browser!  No way.   I now use Mozilla.  


I realize the OSS purists yell four-letter words at the thought, but 
you should also consider Opera.  If Mozilla runs on Linux anything 
like the way it runs on Windows, Opera will run rings around it 
performance-wise and not use up half the resources either. 

I run Opera and Netscape on my (admittedly not extremely cutting-edge 
stock Caldera eWkstn 3.1) Linux/KDE box, and it puts Netscape 4 to 
shame.  Been using it as standard browser under Windoze and I'm 
personally *glad* to pay these guys to keep in the market a legit 
alternative to those "free" browsers that are just acting as funnels 
to the vendor's other software or content. (Mozilla seems 
increasingly poisoned by the Netscape influence these days too, it's 
kinda depressing to see the default 'skin' look *identical* to how 
Netscape looked 4 years ago)

What little I played with Konqueror was a sorry experience indeed.



--
Philip J. Koenig                                       pjklist at ekahuna.com
Electric Kahuna Systems -- Computers & Communications for the New Millenium