Opinions on the "enlightenment" window manager

[Philip J. Koenig]

On 13 Apr 2002, at 9:30, Tim Wunder boldly uttered: 

> Previously, Philip J. Koenig chose to write:
> > On 12 Apr 2002, at 23:02, Brett I. Holcomb boldly uttered:
> <snip>
> > 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.
> >
> 
> What's the most recent version of Moz you've used? It's currently quite 
> snappy on Windows (I use it at work) and equally so on linux. If you haven't 
> tried 0.9.9 or any recent nightly version, you should.
> <snip>


0.9.8.  When I looked at what changed in 0.9.9 I didn't think there 
was anything worth running out and upgrading for.  Mostly cosmetic 
stuff or stuff I don't use.

I can tell you this: if I wasn't running Mozilla on this relatively 
new fire-breathing monster (P4 1.7Ghz/256MB) I don't think I could 
tolerate it.  It was painful on all the slower/lower memory machines 
I'd used it on.

Mozilla is also heavily infiltrated by Netscape/AOL influence these 
days, and that bugs me.  Even though Mozilla is "open source", I am 
under the impression that the majority of code writers are Netscape/ 
AOL employees, and that Netscape/AOL maintains a certain "veto" power 
over certain aspects.

As an example of why this is an issue for me:

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175035.html



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