Is it true that the only way to get rid of Bluecurve is to build and install either KDE or GNOME over it? If so, then my issue is that doing so doesn't get Bluecurve off my system.

Has anyone tried doing an install without all the Bluecurve rpm's and seeing if the dependencies are /really/ needed?

I changed my system around so it doesnt use bluecurve. You can use something else and not use bluecurve. I forgot what screen i was in, i dont have it in front of me at the moment or i'd be able to tell you.

You can always install another window manager. Installing without all the Bluecurve rpms is risky, because most GUI programs depend on KDE/GNOME (Bluecurve is KDE/GNOME...).

"You can always install another window manager."

Nah, I'd rather have a hacked GNOME than no GNOME at all.

:Installing without all the Bluecurve rpms is risky, because most GUI programs depend on KDE/GNOME (Bluecurve is KDE/GNOME...)."

This is the thing pushing me away from Red Hat. I've been using it since 6.2 and although I love 8.0, if you can't install it the way you want to then it has, AFAI can tell (in reference to Bluecurve moved so far from where it started that it may be time to find another distro.

Hell, if I wanted to be locked in to software that I had no control over I would have Windows somewhere on this system.

Thanks for all your help.

/chuck

You know, I find this quite amusing.

When Microsoft made sweeping changes to the Windows user interface all a lot of people wanted to do was turn it off. This was despite the fact that Windows actually looked better afterward than it had done in years and the upgrade didn't really do anything to the basic GUI functionality, virtually everything worked the same afterward as it did before.

Now, when Red Hat (a company whose actions are frequently compared with MS's but I'm not going to take that any further than this simple comparision) does something similar, even if it is for the long-term good of Linux, they get treated the same way: People desperately wanting to turn it off.

Bluecurve represents the first major step in addressing what is quite possibly Linux' most obvious shortcoming: The lack of a unified GUI. Take a look at Windows and the MacOS (even OSX) and what do you see? For the most part, uniformity. Windows and window elements like buttons, text boxes etc look virtually identical (accounting for differences between Win16/Win32 and Classic/Aqua).

Now, compare that with the average XWindow session. It's the exact opposite. The various methods of drawing user interface widgets result in a dogs breakfast of mismatched GUI elements and while that may be acceptable to most current and new users, it's not going to win over the vast majority of people.

This is the situation that Bluecurve is attempting to correct (and one of only a handful of things I still appreciate about Red Hat Linux). It's not perfect, not by any stretch of imagination but it's a start and thats the main thing.

I agree whole-heartedly. Bluecurve is a tremendous step in a direction that needed to be made for the long-term good of any, and quite possibly - all, Linux-based distributions. My seemingly dejected feelings aren't based on some "Redh-Hat-as-a-business-is-too-close-to-Microsoft" way of thinking.

Red Hat as a business model is great and profitable (as all businesses should be) and that in and of itself is the biggest step in the right direction for the further use of a Linux distro. Companies are only going to use a product if the product can prove it is worth using. Once, in this instance, RH is able to prove (as I believe it has been doing) that it is a viable option for businesses to look into then moving to the desktop will be a cinch. This I have no problems with whatsoever; quite the contrary - I want this to be.

But, (there's always one) as good a thing as Bluecurve is for the furthering of Red Hat Linux as a product, as a distro for users now I think that not having the option to not use it is a movement in the wrong direction. One of the things that drew me to Linux was choice. The thing that drew me to RH was the seamless mixture of ease-of-use and functionality and still being quite robust and (in the very best sense of the word) brutish.

I want to see Bluecurve in RH and I think that having a Bluecurve-ish GUI in all distro's may be a Good Thing (TM) but to not have the choice of not using it - to me at least - is a Bad Thing (TM). That goes against the ideals that Linux was created with and that may be the thing that upsets me (and others) in regards to Red Hat.

Bluecurve is in every sense of the word a Good Thing (TM) but being able to not use it in a Linux distribution would be a Better Thing (TM).

/chuck

Bluecurve is a good idea. It's great for newcommers. But people who use Linux and know it have their own prefered programs, GUI look (KDE/GNOME or any other window manager). Not allowing them to make their KDE or GNOME look as they wish it to look like it's not a good idea.

Bluecurve makes Linux actually usable and competitive vs. Winbloze.

I love it!

Bluecurve is wonderful for the desktop user. Linux is so diverse that an over the top GUIs like Bluecurve don't cut it for everyone. Linux was made to run flawlessly on old equipment. Bluecurve was not. Have you seen Bluecurve on 800x600? Two icons take up the entire screen! (yes, I know you can make the icons microscopic if you want.)

For servers, Bluecurve is too much. Fluxbox is what we run when we need a GUI.

I guess I'm agreeing here, but some of us need to get Bluecurve out of the base X install. Unfortunately, I can't help you, I installed Fluxbox over top of Blue.