Opinions on the "enlightenment" window manager

[Net Llama!]

Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> 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.

If you use Mozilla, then you use the stuff that was improved in 
Mozilla-0.9.9.  For starters its more stable, and runs faster.

> 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.

Perhaps the problem was your window manager/environment, and not 
Mozilla.  Mozilla-0.9.9 runs damn well on all of my boxes, from a lowly 
P300 to a PIII-1Ghz.  The difference in performance between them is 
negligible.

> 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.

That's not  even close to being true.  Have you looked at the content on 
http://www.mozilla.org lately?

> 
> As an example of why this is an issue for me:
> 
> http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175035.html

Do not confuse Netscape with Mozilla.  They are not the same beast.



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step:   			    http://netllama.ipfox.com

   4:55pm  up 15 days,  6:47,  3 users,  load average: 0.45, 0.24, 0.25