Projects / EDE / Comments

Comments for EDE

04 Sep 2006 03:58 coeli

Xfce v. EDE

No one seems to have mentioned Xfce in this discussion. It's lean, mean, fast, and configurable. A tiny footprint with a lot of basic functionality. Good for running GTK apps, without all the bloat of KDE/Gnome etc.

To the developer of EDE - How would you say it stacks up ram- and speed-wise against my favorite: Xfce?

How would you, personally, contrast the two?

02 Apr 2006 06:43 dlekic

Re: *fltk*
There is an ongoing effort to redo EDE and make it use FLTK 2.0 instead of good, old eFLTK, fork of old, cvs version of FLTK 2.0.

01 Apr 2006 17:49 haary

*fltk*
I really like EDE. The problem is, that it uses efltk and no other app does.

There are in general few apps based on FLTK, but it would be okay if they would all be based on one version or would be source compatible.

There is the standard FLTK, EDE uses efltk and XD640 (a project similar to EDE) uses fltk-utf8. It would be nice, if the fltk folks would agree to merge all these versions...

27 Jan 2005 06:07 almanley

Re: Windows...


>

> % This thing look like windows... So,

> what

> % the point?

>

>

> I think You've missed one very important

> point... It's not important what it

> LOOKS like - it's important how it works

> and "what's behind"...

>

> EDE team contains experienced C/C++

> developers, pople that work software for

> more than 15 years.

>

> Compare EDE to Your beloved KDE, GNOME,

> Enlightenment (...) and what You see? -

> You seen good looking environment for

> which You need XXX Mb RAM to run even

> simple application like some mail client

> or editor. Face one fact - even simplest

> GNOME applet need MORE than few

> megabytes to RUN! That's X times MORE

> than You will need for EDE and all EDE

> applications running at same time.

>

> Have You ever tried running mentioned

> environments on less powerfull computers

> like 486, or old Pentiums, I won't

> mention i386 machines, on which EDE

> works without problems as well...? - No,

> You haven't - if You had You wouldn't

> say what You said here. :)

>

> Somebody mentioned IceWM here, and

> BlackBox, these are really good WM's but

> lack some friendlyness EDE posess...

>

> Oh, btw. If You are not satisfied how

> EDE looks like, pelase do me a favour

> and contribute some new ede themes, each

> theme is about 300kb, compare it to KDE

> or GNOME themes...

>

> Best regards

Bravo! I applaud you for not becoming too 'angry' in your reply. I know how hard it is not to. We oldtimers must always remember that a vast majority of Unix/Linux aficianados switched over from microSOFT or other OS's (term used loosely here). I came over from Vax myself! A while back. It remains that some serious users have astetic needs as well as those of functionality. But anyone who actually uses, and I mean really uses an OS, will fast learn the pitfalls of ms windoahs. It is like racing a car with slick tires with holes in them, and a leaky radiator. I still can't call any version of ms windoahs, an OS. The early to mid NTs had a glimmer of promise, momentarily. But that disappeared quickly. The IBM affiliation seamed to add some professionalism. But only some. And XP pro and Home are THE worst of all, I think! Jeeze, they will NEVER come out with a decent piece of software! If you can remember back that far, ms was even able to screw up their first Linux Distro!

I will now again applaud you sir, for an honest, truthful opinion. It is rare indeed to find someone who doesn't spout one party line or another! And give your' software 5 out of 5 stars.And implore you to continue including solid functionality as well as everything else.

22 Nov 2002 18:53 dlekic

Re: Windows...

> This thing look like windows... So, what
> the point?


I think You've missed one very important point... It's not important what it LOOKS like - it's important how it works and "what's behind"...

EDE team contains experienced C/C++ developers, pople that work software for more than 15 years.

Compare EDE to Your beloved KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment (...) and what You see? - You seen good looking environment for which You need XXX Mb RAM to run even simple application like some mail client or editor. Face one fact - even simplest GNOME applet need MORE than few megabytes to RUN! That's X times MORE than You will need for EDE and all EDE applications running at same time.

Have You ever tried running mentioned environments on less powerfull computers like 486, or old Pentiums, I won't mention i386 machines, on which EDE works without problems as well...? - No, You haven't - if You had You wouldn't say what You said here. :)

Somebody mentioned IceWM here, and BlackBox, these are really good WM's but lack some friendlyness EDE posess...

Oh, btw. If You are not satisfied how EDE looks like, pelase do me a favour and contribute some new ede themes, each theme is about 300kb, compare it to KDE or GNOME themes...

Best regards

13 Aug 2001 19:42 nutbar

Re: Windows...

>
> % This thing look like windows... So,
> what
> % the point?
>
> Yep, all of them do. GNOME, KDE, now
> this. And GNOME even has a gnome-ui
> team.
> What a shame. So that's why Apple is
> chasing everyone who
> copies their cool GUI. Too bad it
> looks like windoze. I would
> have installed it if it didn't.
> Sticking to blackbox in the meantime...


Don't hop on the bandwagon without informative intent ... You bash the way something looks because it resembles Microsofts' Windows platform?

I think you're missing the 'idea' behind why people hate Microsoft and some of its applications. Most people switch OS's because Microsoft Windows has serious stability issues. It crashes often. I doubt anyone who uses windows puts up a serious fuss about 'how it looks' because the look doesn't seem to change often.

Yes, I do use Microsoft Windows. I have Windows 98se and Windows 2000 Pro installed, of which 98se has some problems with crashing. Windows 2000 is ok, and I happen to find its look quite attractive and appealing. I also use linux, however refuse to use X or any of the windows managers out there because the linux GUI seems to be sub-par to Windows, to me anyways.

Refusing to even try something out purely based on its look is not a good way to go about things... and if you think this GUI looks so bad, learn to program and make your own - lets see you do better hm?

29 Apr 2001 12:20 karellen

Re: Windows...

> This thing look like windows... So, what
> the point?

Yep, all of them do. GNOME, KDE, now this. And GNOME even has a gnome-ui team.
What a shame. So that's why Apple is chasing everyone who
copies their cool GUI. Too bad it looks like windoze. I would
have installed it if it didn't. Sticking to blackbox in the meantime...

11 Feb 2001 00:46 cinchel

Re: Windows...

> This thing look like windows... So, what
> the point?


well from the desciption the developer claims a "simple, fast, light" WM she/he never claims that it is ground breaking in design or
idea.

as a side note if you down load the binaries that she/he makes available they seem to be compiled with glibc2.1.3.


10 Feb 2001 21:08 simmons75

Re: Windows...

> This thing look like windows... So, what
> the point?


Perhaps it's just to annoy the piss out of people
who lack the imagination to see the value of
alternatives to the software everyone else uses.

19 Nov 2000 09:56 bomek

Windows...
This thing look like windows... So, what the point?

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

ReciJournal

An open, cross-platform journaling program.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Veusz

A scientific plotting package.