OT: Linux

[Taqwus]

XFree86 provides an implementation for the X Window System, which provides a nifty standard for networkable windows. One normally uses one of a variety of window managers for it which generally provide a consistent means for manipulating windows (minimizing them, resizing, whatever) plus usually right-click menus. mwm, twm, vtwm, tvtwm, fvwm, fvwm95, olvwm (?) etc.

KDE / Gnome go further and try to provide an entire desktop environment with stuff like a taskbar, some basic applications, perhaps a control panel for configuration, etc. Much easier for the novice to use. Plus, they provide widget libraries and APIs for easier and more consistent application GUI development.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually I try to avoid all 3 since I run my linux as a server only. But in general I think it goes
X-windows oldest
Gnome next oldest
KDE newest of the 3 most common desktops

Of course there are alot of pros and cons that go with that. They all have the basic needs covered so it tends to be how many toys available, how fancy the toys are, and how much support you can find for questions. But I think those fall fairly well in line with old or new desktop. Such as, newest would tend to have fancier toys but less of them and less answers.

-- If I only GNU then what I GNOME now then I would have realized what a fad fashion statement a Red Hat makes with a Tux

[nakomus]

Adding onto what Taqwus said, in case it isn’t clear: Gnome or KDE sits on top of the XFree86 system, which provides the low level interface.

Normally the hierarchy is like this:

XFree86 -> Window Manager -> Desktop Environment -> Applications

Gnome and KDE technically lie in the “desktop environment” Category. By default with use their own window managers as well (sawfish and Kwin, respectively, I think), but can be used with other window managers that provide the right features. Also applications using the KDE and Gnome libraries (QT and gtk) will generally work whether or not you are using the corresponding desktop environment.

You can also completely skip the Desktop Environment and just use the window manager of your choice (what I do).

Gandalf:

If its Linux and Windows XP then wouldnt it be easier to run the WinXP as FAT32 or even just FAT instead of NTFS?

In my case this wouldn’t be easy to do: I don’t have a real XP installation disk, only a recovery disk which I think would restore the format and partitioning to factory state (I haven’t tried it). In order to get XP onto FAT I’d have juggle the live system off onto some other storage and than change the formatting, which sounds like a hassle.

guybrush threepwood: I suspected that was probably the case but hadn’t tried it.

[Thilock_Dominus]

I ran into a problem.
I've switch to Cable connection now and have a Motorola SB5100 usb modem that I can't get to work. I tried with google to find a solution but without any luck.
Help appriciated dearly!!!

best regards
Thilock

[Thilock_Dominus]

Nevermind, I found a solution