[xcamel]

one problem... It's ugly as hell.

I'll stick with kde, and run it on a computer powerful enough to handle real graphics.

[N3WBI3]

the graphic I posted is not the current kde, thats from 1996 nobody uses FVWM95 any more and when they do its spruced up with better colors and fonts..

I like KDE but its a fat-fat WM. Ever since they started to become the feature king (by competing with gnome) they have gotten into bloat issues..

Oh well one of the nice things about Linux is a selection of WM's

[xmm0]

Ditto.

[Knitebane]

Yes, it's quite ugly.

But it's lightweight.

If you're recovering a P200 laptop with 32MB of RAM to be used for very light comm duties, FVWM isn't a bad choice.

That said, it wouldn't be my choice. I've got a terminal server that can have displays exported across dial-up + VPN. I needed a lightweight front end. I looked at both FVWM and TWM and felt that both of them would be too different for Windows users to figure out quickly.

I settled on XFCE.

Lightweight, fast, low overhead, and quite usable.