GNOME

[Alan Garrison]

Tim Schmidt wrote:
> 
> I had 4.0 installed on SuSE 6.4, but could never get it to run as the
> default X server, I still had 3.3.6 installed, and Xinsisted on using
> that.
> I could type in XFree86 -version at the prompt, and it would display 4.0,
> but 3.3.6 was being used.

Just a suggestion:  When you get more adept with Linux, I'd 
recommend switching to a more "manual" distro.  I tried SuSE 
a while back (at version 6.0) with the hopes that YaST would 
make life easier.  Turns out I hated YaST, and I preferred the 
more manual approach (of course, your mileage may vary).
 
> Anyway, I've switched to Turbolinux 6.0 because I feel it's a lot more
> compatable with software (at least, it's a lot easier for me to find
> software that will install easily).  It's Red Hat based although heavily
> modified.  I have not ventured to install XFree86 4 yet (I'm just now
> sitting down at my box) and I don't have a lot of time to mess around with
> it as it's not very high on my priorities (the only reason I'm trying to
> tinstall it at all is for the nVidia accelerated graphcis drivers for 4
> that
> will let me play some Quake 3 at a decent speed (I have a GeForce, I also
> have DL'd the appropriate drivers).

I haven't done gaming with my Linux boxen yet, although my 
Matrox G400 Max is dying to be used in such a context... :)
 
> On a related note, I've finished the new GNOME instalation, it went
> flawlessly and is a beutiful and functional upgrade.  It'll definately be
> my
> default working environment (I'm running the sawfish wm).  It took a
> little
> tweaking from the default settings to make me comfortable, but it was well
> worth the download.

GNOME is great when stable.  KDE is geared for newbies, and I 
actually try to avoid it, but I am interested in the current 
capabilities of KDE 2.0.
 
> I will try to install XF86 4 on Turbolinux 6 and get back to you, maybe
> it'll be a little less painfull than SuSE.

I'd guess not, but give it a shot.
 
> --Tim
 
-- 
Alan Garrison  ___ agarris@voyager.net
"The fact that Microsoft found that many bugs [in Windows 2000] indicates
to me just how thorough their testing processes are," said the Windows
developer, who requested anonymity. -- ZDNet Article