Request for window manager recommendations
herm...@gmail.com
impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least equally noteworthy
WM's around.
Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
Thanks for your attention,
Herminio Gonzalez
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Ishwar Rattan
1. w9wm (it is cool)
2. fluxbox
3. ion
I am sure there are others..
-ishwar
Anders Breindahl
> Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
> impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
> of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
> years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least equally noteworthy
> WM's around.
>
> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
>
> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> much appreciated.
Well -- I like wmaker, so that'd be my recommendation. Quite lightweight, a
part of the GNU project, and awesome if you never maximize windows -- like
me. :)
Screenshots at http://www.windowmaker.org/gallery.html.
Regards, Anders Breindahl/skrewz.
Roberto C. Sanchez
> Well -- I like wmaker, so that'd be my recommendation. Quite lightweight, a
> part of the GNU project, and awesome if you never maximize windows -- like
> me. :)
>
> Screenshots at http://www.windowmaker.org/gallery.html.
>
Ditto on WMaker. The big thing that drew me to it was the fond memories
I had of using NeXTStep on some NeXT machines in high school. It truly
was a joy to use. I must say that WMaker does an outstanding job of
replicating the interface.
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
Jeronimo Pellegrini
> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
>
> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> much appreciated.
openbox -- it's very small, fast and configurable.
J.
Thomas Adam
--- Jeronimo Pellegrini <pelle...@mpcnet.com.br> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:38:04PM -0700, herm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
> > CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
> >
> > A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> > much appreciated.
>
> openbox -- it's very small, fast and configurable.
We get this question from time to time, and all the replies are usually
meaningless, because of the biasedness in the reply. What would
distinguish it, from Just Another Poll, would be the likely things you
want from other WMs that your current DE/WM does not provide.
That said, I personally use fvwm as my WM and have done so for a number
of years. I don't need nor want the bloat and hideousness that GNOME
and KDE seem hell-bent on running. But then they're DEs and not WMs.
Perhaps the best place to look would be here:
it has to be my most favourite website.
-- Thomas Adam.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Rogério Brito
> 2. fluxbox
I also recommend fluxbox, especially when used with the "Minimal" style. It
is quite functional and lightweight.
I measured its memory consumption and that of openbox (which was claimed to
be faster and lighter) and I could not find any difference between the two.
So, I vote for fluxbox, which I have already been using for quite some time
and am pretty satisfied with it.
Before using fluxbox, I used to use Window Maker, but the problem is that I
wanted more space for my space and the dock is either occupying horizontal
space or hidden by maximized windows.
With fluxbox, I don't have this problem, since I can use the very same
applets that I am used to and fluxbox's "dock" (it's called slit) has an
autohide function that works the way I want (i.e., it hides itself and
comes to foreground when I move the mouse cursor on it).
I also have some handy keyboard shortcuts and I rarely need to use the
mouse, but I can, if I want.
Hope this helps, Rogério Brito.
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@ime.usp.br : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/
Chris F.A. Johnson
> On Monday 13 June 2005 00:38, herm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
>> impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
>> of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
>> years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least equally noteworthy
>> WM's around.
>>
>> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
>> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
>>
>> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
>> much appreciated.
>
> Well -- I like wmaker, so that'd be my recommendation. Quite lightweight, a
> part of the GNU project, and awesome if you never maximize windows -- like
> me. :)
And just as good if you do maximize windows -- like me. I usually
have one to four maximized windows on each of 10 desktops.
What I like most about WindowMaker is its configurability. Recent
versions of KDE have, perhaps, caught up with it.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
==================================================================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress
<http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html>
mic...@etalon.net
> Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
> impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
> of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
> years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least equally noteworthy
> WM's around.
>
> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
>
> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> much appreciated.
My favorite has always been icewm.
Very fast, and simple, but very configurable.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Bill Wohler
> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> much appreciated.
I used twm/awm back in the eighties. I've been using enlightenment for
years now though. I tried wmaker and sawfish but they lacked features
from enlightenment that I discovered I really missed. If you've loved
enlightenment and found an even better WM, please let me know.
Here are some of those features:
Sloppy focus. I *hate* click to type. I also hate it when setting the
focus brings the window to the top, occluding the window that you're
referencing. While you can set these things in Enlightenment, you can
also *not* set them.
Nice iconbox. My iconbox has a transparent background, does
not have borders and grows and shrinks as necessary. It uses the
application's icons.
Virtual desktops. I have three virtual desktops. There is a little
pager window that shows your windows in miniature which you can click
to view or drag between desktops.
Decorations. You can opt not to have any window decorations. Good for
XMMS, xfaces, asclock, and transparent terminal windows.
Explicit memory. Enlightenment can remember the applications size,
location, decoration, stacking style (always on top, bottom, or normal).
Opaque move and resize. Only way to really see the effects of your
actions.
Mouse gestures and keyboard shortcuts.
Alt-tab menu. Alt-tab brings up a menu of the window titles and also
brings the selected window to the top. The combination makes switching
applications very fast.
--
Bill Wohler <woh...@newt.com> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.
Steve Lamb
> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> much appreciated.
I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it wasn't practical
on my laptop w/only 192Mb of RAM. I tried different WMs and found most to be
either too bare bones, ugly or plain unusable. XFCE4's got the perfect mix of
small size, configurability and usability.
Barring XFCE4 I'd say give icewm a whirl as well. I was a big icewm fan
until KDE and now XFCE4. It's lightweight, looks good but isn't as easily
configured as the latter two.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
David E. Fox
herm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
They do take up more resources than lightweight window managers, but if
your box has the capability of handling the extra load - in terms of
RAM and CPU - then I don't see any reason not to use them. Personally,
I've been a big fan of KDE (yes, I could probably live without it)
since practically its inception.
The load time - at least to me - is a rather specious argument. Most
people, I would think, would keep the WM up and running as long as the
box is (personally, this box has been up for nearly four months, and I
could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've
restarted X/KDE). (I don't have or use a laptop, and I realize that
wouldn't really apply to those people on laptops.)
If you're new to Debian (or Linux systems in general) than KDE can give
you the best of both worlds - a command line for you to use, and a
graphical way to do things. I personally find advantages to both
methods.
Loading, in general, has gotten a lot better than it used to be. Yet I
see this argument come up from time to time as a detraction against
some system, or app, or what have you. It's a factor if you start an
app, do things in it, and then close it when you are done, but do
people without a lot of DOS/Windows baggage really run apps that way
anymore? (I confess I do to an extent, but I was a longtime DOS/Windows
user -- and in that environment you basically run apps that way.)
> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> much appreciated.
I don't really like GNOME. That's just a personal feeling; I just find
it a bit more "clunky" in comparison with KDE.
But there are some others to consider. xfce, rox, fluxbox, and so on.
olvwm is probably around but I haven't tried it in years. (olvwm is
ancient, but very reminiscent, I suppose, of older Sun wiindow
managers. I can't speak from experience there, since pretty much all
the Unix I've done is Linux, with a smattering of earlier *BSD.
> Herminio Gonzalez
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Fox Thanks for letting me
df...@tsoft.com change magnetic patterns
df...@m206-157.dsl.tsoft.com on your hard disk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Karsten M. Self
> Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
> impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
> of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
> years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least equally noteworthy
> WM's around.
vtwm's still around.
You can get a general sense of various WMs at the Window Managers for X
page:
> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
My own personal preference, which may have nothing to do with yours, is
WindowMaker: fast, light, configurable, unobtrusive, stable. GNOME/KDE
are generally too big and fussy for me.
For "complete" desktop environments, I've found XFCE4 to be pretty
sweet.
My _recommendation_ is that you install and try a few WMs. It's trivial
to install a WM via aptitude. And you can either run these on their own
X session or via Xnest:
Xnest :1 1024x768
<window-manager-of-choice> -display :1
...etc.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kms...@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Information is not power after all: Old-fashioned power is power. If you
aren't big industry or government, you have very little power. Once they've
hacked the electronic voting system, you'll have no power at all.
- Robert X. Cringely
Rogério Brito
> openbox -- it's very small, fast and configurable.
Hi, J.
I benchmarked the memory usage of openbox (which I installed given your
suggestion here some time ago) and I didn't see any difference between
it and fluxbox with the "Minimal" style.
Perhaps the slowness that you once commented about was due to other
styles doing fancy things, but I prefer my things in a simple way. Yes,
I do use the KISS principle as much as I can. :-)
Thanks, Rogério.
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@ime.usp.br : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/
Kevin Mark
> Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
> impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
> of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
> years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least equally noteworthy
> WM's around.
>
> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
>
> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> much appreciated.
>
I used a sun a few years ago and XFCE kind of reminds me of what it had
(CDE?).
Cheers,
Kev
--
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
`$' $'
$ $ _
,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$$$$$b $,d$$b
,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$ggggg$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $ $
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $ $
`Y$$P'$. `Y$$$$P $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$.
Rogério Brito
> herm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> > much appreciated.
>
> I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it wasn't
> practical on my laptop w/only 192Mb of RAM.
But neither XFCE nor KDE are window managers. They are desktop
environments. This is a common misconception among people discussing
"graphical environments" for X.
Cheers, Rogério Brito.
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@ime.usp.br : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/
Jochen Schulz
> Quoting herm...@gmail.com:
>
> >A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> >much appreciated.
>
> My favorite has always been icewm.
> Very fast, and simple, but very configurable.
Agreed. I use it, too. What I like most about IceWM is, erm, it's
window managing capabilities! You can easily toggle fullscreen display
of any application (fullscreen, not only maximized), make it appear on
every desktop, make it appear in the tray and not in the regular window
list (where you Alt-Tab through) and so on. If you want that to be
permanent, you have to write it down in a config file but it's really
not that hard and you can restart IceWM without logging out.
Another advantage of IceWM is the "smart window placement" option. I
really hate how windows are placed in MS Windows (sometimes cascaded,
sometimes abritrary, sometimes the applications themselves remember
their position...) and some window managers for Linux do it alike
(Metacity, for example is really bad). IceWM always uses the position
for a new window with minimum overlap over other windows. I really miss
this feature when using other window managers.
Of course you can use IceWM completely with your keyboard. Many actions
are reached through well known Shortcuts like Alt-F4 (close window),
Alt-Tab or Alt-Space (for window menu - if you cannot remember the
shortcut you wanted to use). It should even be easy to use for windows
converts.
I really tried using other window managers in the last approx. 4 years,
but I always returned to IceWM. Currently I am trying to use it in
conjunction with Gnome, but Gnome makes the login process so slow that I
will probably ditch it again.
J.
--
People talking a foreign language are romantic and mysterious.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Simon Huggins
> On Jun 12 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > herm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> > > much appreciated.
> > I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it wasn't
> > practical on my laptop w/only 192Mb of RAM.
> But neither XFCE nor KDE are window managers. They are desktop
> environments. This is a common misconception among people discussing
> "graphical environments" for X.
Some window managers blur the lines a bit anyway by including menus or
panels etc that you can't get rid of. Xfce is very modular so you can
just run the window manager (xfwm4) or you could run the window manager
and the xfdesttop (for the root screen and the menu when you right click
on the root screen) or you could run the panel as well as xfwm4 etc.
</plug>
Simon.
--
[ If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried. ]
Anthony Campbell
[snip]
> I really tried using other window managers in the last approx. 4 years,
> but I always returned to IceWM. Currently I am trying to use it in
> conjunction with Gnome, but Gnome makes the login process so slow that I
> will probably ditch it again.
>
Since we've started on this thread, I have to say that this is my
experience too - I've always come back to Icewm after trying others. I
don't use either KDE or Gnome so I don't know how it interacts with
them.
Anthony
--
a...@acampbell.org.uk || http://www.acampbell.org.uk for
using Linux GNU/Debian || blog, book reviews, electronic
Microsoft-free zone || books and skeptical articles
Adam Funk
> On Jun 12 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> herm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
>> > much appreciated.
>>
>> I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it wasn't
>> practical on my laptop w/only 192Mb of RAM.
>
> But neither XFCE nor KDE are window managers. They are desktop
> environments. This is a common misconception among people discussing
> "graphical environments" for X.
Educate me: what's the difference?
Thomas Adam
> Educate me: what's the difference?
A Desktop Environment provides a full framework of integrated
applications (such as a file manager, office applications, etc.) that
all share the same theme. Often common options applied to one program,
will affect the other components, because they're related.
A Window Manager, on the other hand, does just that -- it manages
windows. It doesn't dictate a file manager -- if you want one, you can
use one. There's no interoperability or common functions shared
between programs, like there is with DEs. It certainly provides a
great deal more flexibility.
So in that way, WMs are much faster, and most WMs are damn good at
managing the windows mapped to them.
-- Thomas Adam
"The Linux Weekend Mechanic" -- http://linuxgazette.net
"TAG Editor" -- http://linuxgazette.net
"<shrug> We'll just save up your sins, Thomas, and punish
you for all of them at once when you get better. The
experience will probably kill you. :)"
-- Benjamin A. Okopnik (Linux Gazette Technical Editor)
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Lee Braiden
> So in that way, WMs are much faster, and most WMs are damn good at
> managing the windows mapped to them.
That's debatable, actually. It could be argued that, since desktop
environments *do* share libraries etc, they reduce redundancy and therefore
memory and load times. One could even argue that, since the code in question
is shared by different projects, it's more likely to have many eyes scanning
it for opportunities to optimise code.
--
Lee.
Please do not CC replies directly to me. I'll read them on the list.
Jochen Schulz
> Rogério Brito wrote:
> >
> > But neither XFCE nor KDE are window managers. They are desktop
> > environments. This is a common misconception among people discussing
> > "graphical environments" for X.
>
> Educate me: what's the difference?
A window manager is a program that just "manages windows". It gives
applications an area on the screen where they can be displayed and most
often the WM draws a border around it, gives it a nice title and enables
the user to do things with these windows - put one on the foreground,
minimize another one etc.
Very often window managers come with some kind of a panel, virtual
desktop support and some kind of application launcher (a "start menu" or
icons on the panel), but strictly speaking, this is exceeding the task
of a minimal WM.
Desktop environments (KDE, Gnome. Xfce) do far more than that. They come
with a file manager, draw the background with pixmaps and icons, they do
some work behind your back to easily handle removable storage or enable
drag'n drop. They come with "control centers" to do system
administration and generally give the user a simplified, cleaned up view
on their system. Applications supporting the DE all look the same and
share a lot of routines to do common tasks. DEs also provide
applications with a way to register themselves for a filetype which they
can handle, which is then reflected when using the DE's file manager and
so on... Of course, this list is not complete.
J.
--
I wear a lot of leather but would never wear fur.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Cam
> Ditto on WMaker. The big thing that drew me to it was the fond memories
> I had of using NeXTStep on some NeXT machines in high school. It truly
> was a joy to use. I must say that WMaker does an outstanding job of
> replicating the interface.
WindowMaker is the best... it doesn't seem to be under development
anymore though... am i wrong?
Cameron Matheson
Thomas Adam
> That's debatable, actually. It could be argued that, since desktop
> environments *do* share libraries etc, they reduce redundancy and
> therefore
> memory and load times. One could even argue that, since the code in
Heh. When was the last time you tried to load KDE or GNOME? They take
an absolute age, pulling in I don't know what -- and whats more, the
case of KDE that loads a lot of libs for applications, whether you use
them or not.
But then, this discussion doesn't change the difference between a DE or
a WM.
-- Thomas Adam
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Simon Huggins
> --- Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Educate me: what's the difference?
> windows. It doesn't dictate a file manager -- if you want one, you
> can use one. There's no interoperability or common functions shared
> between programs, like there is with DEs. It certainly provides a
> great deal more flexibility.
> So in that way, WMs are much faster, and most WMs are damn good at
> managing the windows mapped to them.
Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the components
as you like once you have the basic libraries installed? ;)
Yes, yes, ok, I'll stop plugging it now.
I need to compile up 4.2.2 packages for sarge and bung them on the
alioth page at some point.
Simon.
--
oOoOo "Even if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?" - oOoOo
oOoOo Marvin oOoOo
oOoOo oOoOo
Jochen Schulz
> On 13 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
>
> > I really tried using other window managers in the last approx. 4 years,
> > but I always returned to IceWM. Currently I am trying to use it in
> > conjunction with Gnome, but Gnome makes the login process so slow that I
> > will probably ditch it again.
>
> Since we've started on this thread, I have to say that this is my
> experience too - I've always come back to Icewm after trying others. I
> don't use either KDE or Gnome so I don't know how it interacts with
> them.
I don't know about KDE, but IceWM and Gnome work quite ok. The Gnome
workspace switcher recognizes the current desktop and you can tweak
IceWM's winoptions file to ignore the panel and all this other stuff.
That's about it. ;-) If you tell nautilus not to draw the desktop you
can even use root-tail and torsmo together with Gnome.
J.
--
When I am at nightclubs I enjoy looking at other people and assessing
their imagined problems.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Thomas Adam
> Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
> these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the
> components
> as you like once you have the basic libraries installed? ;)
In that sense, then perhaps. But XFCE4's only good thing is that it
has plenty of eye-candy. You can't do a thing with it other than that.
-- Thomas Adam.
"The Linux Weekend Mechanic" -- http://linuxgazette.net
"TAG Editor" -- http://linuxgazette.net
"<shrug> We'll just save up your sins, Thomas, and punish
you for all of them at once when you get better. The
experience will probably kill you. :)"
-- Benjamin A. Okopnik (Linux Gazette Technical Editor)
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Cybe R. Wizard
Simon Huggins <hug...@earth.li> wrote:
> Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
> these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the
> components as you like once you have the basic libraries installed? ;)
Having been a loyal IceWM user since Potato was new I recently switched
to Xfce4 to see what it could do for me. Well, IceWM has /never/
crashed on me in all that time. Last week Xfce4 crashed on me five
times. Other than that, yes, it's a good compromise*.
I've gone back to the tried and true IceWM.
* Maybe that should be spelled, "/con/promise.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Q: What's the difference between MicroSoft Windows and a virus?
A: Apart from the fact that viruses are supported by their authors,
use optimized, small code and usually perform well, none.
Winduhs
Clive Menzies
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:35:23PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > --- Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Educate me: what's the difference?
> > A Window Manager, on the other hand, does just that -- it manages
> > windows. It doesn't dictate a file manager -- if you want one, you
> > can use one. There's no interoperability or common functions shared
> > between programs, like there is with DEs. It certainly provides a
> > great deal more flexibility.
>
> > So in that way, WMs are much faster, and most WMs are damn good at
> > managing the windows mapped to them.
>
> Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
> these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the components
> as you like once you have the basic libraries installed? ;)
I reckon ;) Having started with KDE and switched to xfce, it seems an
excellent compromise. I tried a few WM's and icewm came close to what I
was looking for but it was just a bit too light on frills and whistles.
Whereas xfce has some really useful features without the bloat of KDE.
Regards
Clive
--
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business
Simon Huggins
Do you have a real name? I always like to know who I'm talking to.
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:56:46 +0100
> Simon Huggins <hug...@earth.li> wrote:
> > Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
> > these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the
> > components as you like once you have the basic libraries installed? ;)
> Having been a loyal IceWM user since Potato was new I recently
> switched to Xfce4 to see what it could do for me. Well, IceWM has
> /never/ crashed on me in all that time. Last week Xfce4 crashed on me
> five times. Other than that, yes, it's a good compromise*. I've gone
> back to the tried and true IceWM.
How did you manage that? The panel plugins aren't sandboxed which can
cause problems if the plugins have bugs. Which ones did you have
installed?
I must admit I didn't see your bug report in the BTS despite getting all
of them for all the packages. Perhaps you can point me at it?
Simon.
--
[ "Rule six: There is no... rule six." - Monty Python ]
Black Cat Networks. http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/
Simon Huggins
> --- Simon Huggins <hug...@earth.li> wrote:
> > Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
> > these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the
> > components as you like once you have the basic libraries installed?
> > ;)
> In that sense, then perhaps. But XFCE4's only good thing is that it
> has plenty of eye-candy. You can't do a thing with it other than
> that.
I understand that a window manager/desktop environment is a personal
choice but saying you can't do a thing with it is just wrong; it
satisfies my requirements well. I wouldn't have put so much time into
fixing up the packages for Debian if I didn't think it was useful.
--
,--huggie-at-earth-dot-li--------stuff-thing-stuff----------DF5CE2B4--.
_| "Cerulean is a gentle breeze..." - Pusher |_
| |
`- http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ - http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ -'
Thomas Adam
> satisfies my requirements well. I wouldn't have put so much time
> into
> fixing up the packages for Debian if I didn't think it was useful.
That's nice that you spend time on it -- and if it suits you, then all
well and good. When I used it, it seemed to crash a lot, and offered
not a lot in terms of focus or placement policies in comparsion to
other WMs (and some DEs). But I can see why people like it.
-- Thomas Adam
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Eric P
> Quoting herm...@gmail.com:
>
>> Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
>> impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
>> of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
>> years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least equally noteworthy
>> WM's around.
>>
>> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
>> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
>>
>> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
>> much appreciated.
>
>
> My favorite has always been icewm.
> Very fast, and simple, but very configurable.
>
to start up.
Every so often, I'll pop into something else (gnome, xfce, kde (ugh) rat
poisen as of late), but I always come back to IceWM and the grin returns.
EP
Tom Allison
> Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
> impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
> of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
> years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least equally noteworthy
> WM's around.
>
> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
>
> A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> much appreciated.
>
> Herminio Gonzalez
>
>
I would like to recommend WindowMaker (wmaker).
It's extremely fast, light on RAM, and although not really what they
call a Desktop Environment, I can't find much of anything it can't do.
IIRC it takes about 4MB RAM when loaded, so you can imagine how fast it
will run and load on your machine.
Anecdotally, my wife and 2 kids have all abandoned Gnome and KDE for
WMaker as their interface of choice.
Another one that I've heard about is xfce but I didn't think that much
of it. Although nice, it didn't offer enough for me to consider moving.
Tom Allison
> And just as good if you do maximize windows -- like me. I usually
> have one to four maximized windows on each of 10 desktops.
>
> What I like most about WindowMaker is its configurability. Recent
> versions of KDE have, perhaps, caught up with it.
>
That may be, but there's a lot of memory footprint difference.
Tom Allison
I think you are wrong.
10/26/2004 was their last product release.
I would say they are still active. Mailing lists seem alive. Last post
was June 11.
Cybe R. Wizard
Simon Huggins <hug...@earth.li> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:00:18PM -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
...
> Last week Xfce4 crashed on
> > me five times. Other than that, yes, it's a good compromise*. I've
> > gone back to the tried and true IceWM.
>
> How did you manage that? The panel plugins aren't sandboxed which can
> cause problems if the plugins have bugs. Which ones did you have
> installed?
>
> I must admit I didn't see your bug report in the BTS despite getting
> all of them for all the packages. Perhaps you can point me at it?
>
> Simon.
>
Crashed is probably the wrong term. It locked up to the point that I
couldn't <ctrl><alt><F*> to a console in order to shut it down although
<ctrl><alt><backspace> still worked to kill it. I installed every
plugin I could find, isn't that the Proper Thing To DO?
As for a bug report, I just went right back to what works for me and
didn't feel right intruding into the operations of a package I don't
typically use and of which I might not know the inside workings very
well. Besides, I fear appearing too very foolish if there is an
easy and obvious fix that I'm just too dense to find. Perhaps I should
have devoted more time to it and filed that report, but, oh well. Now
had it been Ice...
Cybe R. Wizard
--
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we
can solve them.
- Isaac Asimov
John L Fjellstad
> WindowMaker is the best... it doesn't seem to be under development
> anymore though... am i wrong?
Last CVS snapshot is dated 2005-04-09
--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Simon Huggins
> --- Simon Huggins <hug...@earth.li> wrote:
> > satisfies my requirements well. I wouldn't have put so much time
> > into fixing up the packages for Debian if I didn't think it was
> > useful.
> That's nice that you spend time on it -- and if it suits you, then all
> well and good. When I used it, it seemed to crash a lot, and offered
> not a lot in terms of focus or placement policies in comparsion to
> other WMs (and some DEs). But I can see why people like it.
See I wouldn't use it if it crashed a lot. I don't understand that.
There are undoubtedly bugs in it as with every software but the ones
I've seen have all been minor.
--
,--huggie-at-earth-dot-li--------stuff-thing-stuff----------DF5CE2B4--.
_| If you want to put your cat out, use a high quality fire |_
| extinguisher. - ISIHAC |
Adam Funk
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:09:00PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
>> --- Simon Huggins <hug...@earth.li> wrote:
>> > Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
>> > these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the
>> > components as you like once you have the basic libraries installed?
>> > ;)
>> In that sense, then perhaps. But XFCE4's only good thing is that it
>> has plenty of eye-candy. You can't do a thing with it other than
>> that.
>
> I understand that a window manager/desktop environment is a personal
> choice but saying you can't do a thing with it is just wrong; it
> satisfies my requirements well. I wouldn't have put so much time into
> fixing up the packages for Debian if I didn't think it was useful.
Personally, I think XFCE4 is great (apart from a few minor things I haven't
been able to configure).
Adam Funk
> A window manager is a program that just "manages windows". It gives
> applications an area on the screen where they can be displayed and most
> often the WM draws a border around it, gives it a nice title and enables
> the user to do things with these windows - put one on the foreground,
> minimize another one etc.
>
> Very often window managers come with some kind of a panel, virtual
> desktop support and some kind of application launcher (a "start menu" or
> icons on the panel), but strictly speaking, this is exceeding the task
> of a minimal WM.
>
> Desktop environments (KDE, Gnome. Xfce) do far more than that. They come
> with a file manager, draw the background with pixmaps and icons, they do
> some work behind your back to easily handle removable storage or enable
> drag'n drop. They come with "control centers" to do system
> administration and generally give the user a simplified, cleaned up view
> on their system. Applications supporting the DE all look the same and
> share a lot of routines to do common tasks. DEs also provide
> applications with a way to register themselves for a filetype which they
> can handle, which is then reflected when using the DE's file manager and
> so on... Of course, this list is not complete.
Interesting, thanks.
Andre Venter
for you is your best option. Maybe try a few and see what works for you
Steve C. Lamb
> The load time - at least to me - is a rather specious argument. Most
> people, I would think, would keep the WM up and running as long as the
> box is (personally, this box has been up for nearly four months, and I
> could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've
> restarted X/KDE). (I don't have or use a laptop, and I realize that
> wouldn't really apply to those people on laptops.)
Not that it matters much. My work laptop from about 3 years ago ran KDE
and I had 2 docks set up for it. One at work, one at home. So it was
rebooted twice a day except on weekends. Walk into work, slide it into the
dock, turn it on, walk off to get my morning cup of cocoa/soda, by the time I
was back it was up. *shrug*
I liked that setup so much that when I moved on I kept the home dock
(bought it with my own funds) and purchased an identical laptop off of eBay.
It has served me well for 3 years though nowadays I run XFCE4 instead of KDE.
If I had a beefier laptop that I'd put Debian on[*] I'd run KDE again.
> I don't really like GNOME. That's just a personal feeling; I just find
> it a bit more "clunky" in comparison with KDE.
I never liked why GNOME came about. KDE was formed to make a decent
desktop for 'nixes. GNOME was formed because people didn't like KDE's choice
of QT and wanted to kill it. Odd sidenote, though, I prefer GTK to QT.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Steve C. Lamb
> But neither XFCE nor KDE are window managers. They are desktop
> environments. This is a common misconception among people discussing
> "graphical environments" for X.
Both incorporate the functionality of WMs into them. Personoal preference
is that a "pure" WM is too barebones. I never quite understood the logic
behind requiring command line tools and text files to configure a graphical
environment.
Also calling XFCE a desktop environment is pushing it a little. It
certainly does not have the integration of KDE or GNOME and there's very
little that goes on the desktop. It has a panel/kicker (choose your idiom)
and a task switcher. Both of which can be shut off and both of which can be
added to a "pure" WM.
Steve C. Lamb
> applications (such as a file manager, office applications, etc.) that
> all share the same theme. Often common options applied to one program,
> will affect the other components, because they're related.
Oddly enough when you said "share a common theme" my first reaction is
"that's a WM" as a WM controls the widgets on the application which is part of
the theme.
> A Window Manager, on the other hand, does just that -- it manages
> windows. It doesn't dictate a file manager -- if you want one, you can
> use one. There's no interoperability or common functions shared
> between programs, like there is with DEs. It certainly provides a
> great deal more flexibility.
So how does XFCE4 fail that test? Let's see, I have 3 file managers to
choose from. XFFM, Konqueror, Nautilus. Those were configured automagically.
I could add more if I like, just like a WM.
BTW, when trying to rid myself of Windows earlier this year I was using
Nautilus under KDE as installed by Ubuntu.
> So in that way, WMs are much faster, and most WMs are damn good at
> managing the windows mapped to them.
Actually I've found WMs lacking at managing windows. I consider starting
a window with the desired application part of good management. Configuring
that portion for most WMs is a PITA. The other portions they are equal to the
DEs like KDE/Gnome and the odd-man-out that is XFCE4.
Thomas Adam
> I never quite understood the
> logic
> behind requiring command line tools and text files to configure a
> graphical
> environment.
No? See this:
http://edulinux.homeunix.org/fvwm/user_enumerate.html
> Also calling XFCE a desktop environment is pushing it a little.
No, it's the exact, and proper definition.
-- Thomas Adam
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Thomas Adam
> reaction is
> "that's a WM" as a WM controls the widgets on the application which
> is part of
> the theme.
No, I meant it from an aesthetical point of view only. Umm, where did
you get the idea that a WM controls the widgets on an application?
That's not true.
> So how does XFCE4 fail that test? Let's see, I have 3 file
> managers to
> choose from. XFFM, Konqueror, Nautilus. Those were configured
> automagically.
> I could add more if I like, just like a WM.
Because XFCE4 has XFFM built into it -- that's the file manager that is
used. Yes, you can use another one if you like, but that commonality
between applications will then be lost.
> BTW, when trying to rid myself of Windows earlier this year I was
> using
> Nautilus under KDE as installed by Ubuntu.
Yes, that's your right to do so.
> Actually I've found WMs lacking at managing windows. I consider
> starting
> a window with the desired application part of good management.
> Configuring
> that portion for most WMs is a PITA. The other portions they are
Configuring that aspect is usually what makes the whole process fun,
IMO. I am curious though which WMs you feel were "lacking" in that
regard. I'd have said the issue isn't so much with the WM, as it might
have been with the application, for reasons I won't bore you with.
-- Thomas Adam
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Steve C. Lamb
> to Xfce4 to see what it could do for me. Well, IceWM has /never/
> crashed on me in all that time. Last week Xfce4 crashed on me five
> times. Other than that, yes, it's a good compromise*.
> I've gone back to the tried and true IceWM.
I'd be curious as to why XFCE4 is crashing on you. Just recently I ended
a 73 day uptime on my laptop. XFCE4 was in use the entire time, not a single
crash. Most common applications used were Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice,
Azureus and GNOME's Terminal. The only thing that crashed regularly was
Azureus at 2.2.0.0 and 2.3.0.0 because of a lack of memory on this machine and
JAVA's pigishness.
Steve C. Lamb
> I reckon ;) Having started with KDE and switched to xfce, it seems an
> excellent compromise. I tried a few WM's and icewm came close to what I
> was looking for but it was just a bit too light on frills and whistles.
> Whereas xfce has some really useful features without the bloat of KDE.
I'm betting one of them is the launch bar. Loved it in KDE and when I had
to regain some memory only XFCE4 had it. Can't understand how anyone can live
without it. :D
Steve C. Lamb
> I need to compile up 4.2.2 packages for sarge and bung them on the
> alioth page at some point.
Mmmm, upgrades. I really should see if there's something later than 4.0.6
out. :D
Steve C. Lamb
> No? See this:
> http://edulinux.homeunix.org/fvwm/user_enumerate.html
Doesn't change my opinion. I believe it was either Larry or Guido (one of
those P language makers) who once said that what makes a language suited for a
particular task is what it makes easy to do and what it makes hard to do. So
why should something which I do all the time and can be made simple be
purposely made hard.
KDE/XFCE: I want to start an application which I've just installed. I
know the command name for it. Both have a launch bar. I enter the name, it
starts up.
Damn. That was easy! So easy in fact that 80% of the time I don't
configure a launch button for any particular application.
Want to do the same with a "pure" WM. Step 1: open a CLI. Step 2: enter
the command name. Step 3: close the CLI. Step 4: realize I forgot &! at the
end of the command. Step 5: reopen CLI. Step 6: type in the command name and
&!. Step 7: close CLI.
What if I want a fancy button. XFCE RMB on the launcher, add new item,
launcher, enter the command name, close. Done. Damn. That was easy!
Want to do the same with a "pure" WM. Step 1: open a CLI. Step 2: CD to
the right directory. Step 2a: create it if it doesn't exist. Step 3: Fire up
the editor on the right text file. Step 3a: create it if it doesn't exist.
Step 4: try to find the right location for the menu. Step 5: Enter the
configuration information in the proper format. Step 6: Save and exit editor.
Step 7: exit CLI. Step 8, this is my faborite... RESTART THE WM SO IT CAN
LOAD THE NEW CONFIGURATION! Step 9: Pray for no typos or redo 1-8.
Yes, I am fully aware of the power behind text configuration. I however
am not about to put on the blinders and say that all configuration should be
done through text and that text is appropriate for all configuration. Basic
configuration should be provided in a simple manner. WMs don't do that.
> No, it's the exact, and proper definition.
And yet it performs hardly any of the fuctions attributed to DEs like
KDE/GNOME or Winders.
Steve C. Lamb
> No, I meant it from an aesthetical point of view only. Umm, where did
> you get the idea that a WM controls the widgets on an application?
> That's not true.
The fact that when you shut down the WM without shutting down X the window
border along with the close/minimize/maximize buttons (aka, the widgets)
disappear? :P
> Because XFCE4 has XFFM built into it -- that's the file manager that is
> used. Yes, you can use another one if you like, but that commonality
> between applications will then be lost.
Uh, no, it doesn't. XFFM is a separate application. XFFM can be used
with ICEWM if you so chose. Don't believe me? Do an apt-cache show xffm4 and
read the suggests line:
Suggests: xfwm4, xfce4
Not requires. Not depends. Suggests.
> Configuring that aspect is usually what makes the whole process fun,
> IMO. I am curious though which WMs you feel were "lacking" in that
> regard. I'd have said the issue isn't so much with the WM, as it might
> have been with the application, for reasons I won't bore you with.
Hrm, which WMs did I use in the past? FVWM2, WM, BB, a few others that
were supposed to be the kitty's titties but I uninstalled in about 5m flat
because they were completely lacking. IceWM was one that I used for about a
year but even so it was too minimalistic for me. KDE was a good standard.
GNOME was just wacked. XFCE4 seems to be an excellent compromise.
Steve C. Lamb
> I liked that setup so much that when I moved on I kept the home dock
> (bought it with my own funds) and purchased an identical laptop off of eBay.
> It has served me well for 3 years though nowadays I run XFCE4 instead of KDE.
> If I had a beefier laptop that I'd put Debian on[*] I'd run KDE again.
Meh, put a star there for a later note and forgot to enter it at the
bottom. So, here it is...
[*] "That I would run Debian on" meaning I am seriously looking at a
powerbook or ibook as my next laptop purchase. Mac experience would help on
my resume and with basically FreeBSD as the underlying OS I would be running a
'nix variant with excellen commercial support. I always thought that a OSX
mac would be a good non-gaming machine for serious productivity work because
of its lineage and appeal to commercial vendors. Of course my lasy job had a
requirement on IE6 and MS had only ported IE5 to OSX. Go fig. >.<
Thomas Adam
> 2: enter
> the command name. Step 3: close the CLI. Step 4: realize I forgot
> &! at the
> end of the command. Step 5: reopen CLI. Step 6: type in the command
> name and
> &!. Step 7: close CLI.
Yup -- and therein lies the difference between the two.
> Want to do the same with a "pure" WM. Step 1: open a CLI. Step
> 2: CD to
> the right directory. Step 2a: create it if it doesn't exist. Step
> 3: Fire up
> the editor on the right text file. Step 3a: create it if it doesn't
> exist.
> Step 4: try to find the right location for the menu. Step 5: Enter
> the
> configuration information in the proper format. Step 6: Save and
> exit editor.
> Step 7: exit CLI. Step 8, this is my faborite... RESTART THE WM SO
> IT CAN
> LOAD THE NEW CONFIGURATION! Step 9: Pray for no typos or redo 1-8.
Sure -- but at least doing it that way means you yourself have defined
how it is to operate, rather than relying on the existing operability
of what's available. I have no doubt that right-clicking (or whatever)
on XFCE's panel thing to add a new button is intuitive to some -- but
so what? What if I didn't like that? What if I wanted to do it some
other way? With a WM I would have to define all of these things myself
(to a lesser or greater extent, depending on the WM) -- but the
advantage is that I took the time to do it myself, so I _know_ how it
works, and what to expect.
> Yes, I am fully aware of the power behind text configuration. I
> however
> am not about to put on the blinders and say that all configuration
> should be
> done through text and that text is appropriate for all configuration.
In certain circumstances I agree.
> Basic
> configuration should be provided in a simple manner. WMs don't do
> that.
Simple manner? That's subjective.
> > No, it's the exact, and proper definition.
>
> And yet it performs hardly any of the fuctions attributed to DEs
> like
> KDE/GNOME or Winders.
It still provides inherent look and feel across those applications that
XFCE supports.
Thomas Adam
> The fact that when you shut down the WM without shutting down X
> the window
> border along with the close/minimize/maximize buttons (aka, the
> widgets)
> disappear? :P
Those are window decorations that the WM defined, so of course they'd
disappear -- but the widgets of the _application_ will still be there.
The window decoration is part of the application.
> Uh, no, it doesn't. XFFM is a separate application. XFFM can be
I meant that in terms of it is still used and recognised by XFCE.
> Hrm, which WMs did I use in the past? FVWM2, WM, BB, a few
> others that
> were supposed to be the kitty's titties but I uninstalled in about 5m
> flat
> because they were completely lacking. IceWM was one that I used for
Completely lacking _how_?
-- Thomas Adam
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Clive Menzies
> --- "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> > Oddly enough when you said "share a common theme" my first
> > reaction is
> > "that's a WM" as a WM controls the widgets on the application which
> > is part of
> > the theme.
>
> No, I meant it from an aesthetical point of view only. Umm, where did
> you get the idea that a WM controls the widgets on an application?
> That's not true.
>
> > So how does XFCE4 fail that test? Let's see, I have 3 file
> > managers to
> > choose from. XFFM, Konqueror, Nautilus. Those were configured
> > automagically.
> > I could add more if I like, just like a WM.
>
> Because XFCE4 has XFFM built into it -- that's the file manager that is
> used. Yes, you can use another one if you like, but that commonality
> between applications will then be lost.
I use xfe (file manager) on xfce and it seems fairly integrated but not
to the extent of xffm
Regards
Clive
--
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business
Clive Menzies
> --- "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
>
> > I never quite understood the
> > logic
> > behind requiring command line tools and text files to configure a
> > graphical
> > environment.
>
> No? See this:
>
> http://edulinux.homeunix.org/fvwm/user_enumerate.html
Thanks Thomas
Whenever I've looked at pure WM's I've always floundered. When I've got
some time I'll revisit fvwm on the strength of your excellent
explanation;)
Regards
Clive
--
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business
--
Anthony Campbell
>
[snip]
> Actually I've found WMs lacking at managing windows. I consider starting
> a window with the desired application part of good management. Configuring
> that portion for most WMs is a PITA. The other portions they are equal to the
> DEs like KDE/Gnome and the odd-man-out that is XFCE4.
>
It's certainly pretty easy in Icewm. You just add a suitable line in the
menu file and it then appears in the menu list when you press Ctrl-Esc.
Example:
prog "Mutt" xterm xterm -T Mutt -fg ivory -bg gray35 -fn 8x13bold -geom 120x45 -e mutt
prog "News" xterm xterm -T News -fg gray35 -bg bisque -fn 9x15bold -geom 120x45 -e slrn
prog "Mozilla" mozilla mozilla
These can be added or deleted on the fly and then activated by
refreshing Icewm without stopping it.
Anthony
--
a...@acampbell.org.uk || http://www.acampbell.org.uk for
using Linux GNU/Debian || blog, book reviews, electronic
Microsoft-free zone || books and skeptical articles
Steve C. Lamb
> --- "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> > Uh, no, it doesn't. XFFM is a separate application. XFFM can be
> I meant that in terms of it is still used and recognised by XFCE.
But Natilus and Konqueror were recognized so clearly they are integrated
with XFCE by your narrow limitation.
> > Hrm, which WMs did I use in the past? FVWM2, WM, BB, a few others
> > that were supposed to be the kitty's titties but I uninstalled in about 5m
> > flat because they were completely lacking. IceWM was one that I used for
> Completely lacking _how_?
Uhm, isn't that what I went into in my other message? Part of managing a
window is being able to easily and readily configure opening/closing windows
(and the applications in thos windows). Most fail spectacularly on that
point.
Steve C. Lamb
> Sure -- but at least doing it that way means you yourself have defined
> how it is to operate, rather than relying on the existing operability
> of what's available.
And you have done any less? Unless you coded the WM you are only using
what the WM offers to you. No less, no more.
> What if I didn't like that? What if I wanted to do it some
> other way?
Such as? You're implying that there's something magical going on without
giving specifics upon which to discuss.
> With a WM I would have to define all of these things myself (to a lesser or
> greater extent, depending on the WM) -- but the advantage is that I took the
> time to do it myself, so I _know_ how it works, and what to expect.
No. You know how it can be configured. Again, unless you're digging in
the code, you don't know how it works. The point I am making is that the two
are not mutually exclusive. I like the 80% rule. IE, if something does 80%
of what is need well then the other 20% can be hard. That is especially true
if the 80% that is easy is what people are going to do 80% of the time anyway.
Text configuration of a WM is 20% well, 80% hard. Unacceptable. Simply
adding a launch button, which is a common application, should not be hard just
for a learning experience. Make it easy. If I need more than the basic
application I can RTFM. It is your mentality which is why vi is so rough for
people to learn up front even though IMHO a variant of vi(m) is one of the
best damn editors out there and I use it religiously. Want to know why?
*Because they made the easy things easy to find and learn.* The harder
concepts I learn when I need to.
> > Basic configuration should be provided in a simple manner. WMs don't do
> > that.
> Simple manner? That's subjective.
No. It's rather objective I think. Can I do it:
A: without 3 other tools.
B: opening another application unrelated to the application at hand.
C: in a manner which is understandable with minimal documentation in under 5m.
D: in a manner which fits about 80% of my needs?
That'd be easy because it's at hand, readily consumed and I'd be off doing
something else in a short amount of time.
> > > No, it's the exact, and proper definition.
> > And yet it performs hardly any of the fuctions attributed to DEs like
> > KDE/GNOME or Winders.
> It still provides inherent look and feel across those applications that XFCE
> supports.
So you're saying that TK is a DE? Or MOTIF? GTK? QT?
How about Windowmaker? I mean you toss in the panel/kicker that it has
along with the plugins designed for it they provide a consistant look and
feel.
Thomas Adam
> Such as? You're implying that there's something magical going on
> without
> giving specifics upon which to discuss.
No, I'm merely stating that with most WMs, the emphasis is on yourself
to define how things are to operate -- and that you yourself have the
freedom to do so.
> No. You know how it can be configured. Again, unless you're
> digging in
> the code, you don't know how it works. The point I am making is that
Code? Oh, no. Just reading docs, examples, other people's configs,
etc.
> for a learning experience. Make it easy. If I need more than the
> basic
> application I can RTFM. It is your mentality which is why vi is so
> rough for
> people to learn up front even though IMHO a variant of vi(m) is one
> of the
> best damn editors out there and I use it religiously. Want to know
> why?
> *Because they made the easy things easy to find and learn.* The
> harder
> concepts I learn when I need to.
That's a little harsh, isn't it? Especially to make assumptions about
my "mentality".
> D: in a manner which fits about 80% of my needs?
Sure -- but it's still subjective. Which is not a bad thing, but it
cannot be applied across the board. If that's what works for you, then
that's nice.
-- Thomas Adam.
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Thomas Adam
> Uhm, isn't that what I went into in my other message? Part of
> managing a
> window is being able to easily and readily configure opening/closing
> windows
> (and the applications in thos windows). Most fail spectacularly on
> that
> point.
Ah, so you're referring to it from a configurable point, rather than
something which wasn't possible, such as a lacking feature? OK.
First off, "easily and readily" is still subjective. What's easy or
readily so to you, might not be to me, or might not be to someone else
-- so there's already certain levels of disagreement about that. But
that's OK. One thing all WMs and DEs do that I have seen, is they try
and provide a set of defaults -- that is they'll usually (through some
means) make it known that if you click this button or that button, an
action is performed. Whether that action is what you were expecting or
not, depends. But like all good WMs, they can be changed -- as to how
this happens, depends on the WM, and to an extent, depends upon how far
one is prepared to dig to do it.
-- Thomas Adam.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Steve C. Lamb
> It's certainly pretty easy in Icewm. You just add a suitable line in the
> menu file and it then appears in the menu list when you press Ctrl-Esc.
How are the lines added? My previous example, only minorly exagerrated,
was based on IceWM. ;)
> Example:
> prog "Mutt" xterm xterm -T Mutt -fg ivory -bg gray35 -fn 8x13bold -geom 120x45 -e mutt
> prog "News" xterm xterm -T News -fg gray35 -bg bisque -fn 9x15bold -geom 120x45 -e slrn
> prog "Mozilla" mozilla mozilla
> These can be added or deleted on the fly and then activated by
> refreshing Icewm without stopping it.
By IceWM or through the use of other applications?
See, Thomas pointed to a web page where a WM's text file configuration was
defended because it was too complex to represent graphically. Yet in the
above we have 5 items.
1: type of menu item (program or folder)
2: The name to attribute to that item
3: The icon to associate with the item
4: The application/program to run
5: The command lines to pass on
Oddly enough XFCE and KDE can manage a graphic representation of those 5
items. So, uh, where's the problem? Why does it NEED to be in text?
Steve C. Lamb
> But like all good WMs, they can be changed -- as to how
> this happens, depends on the WM, and to an extent, depends upon how far
> one is prepared to dig to do it.
Then name one WM where I can press a button to add a menu item without
having to resort to the intervening process of a CLI window, text editor and
manual entry/formatting and I might be interested in it. Without that,
however, which is all that I have tried thus far, it is lacking.
Thomas Adam
--- "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> Then name one WM where I can press a button to add a menu item
> without
> having to resort to the intervening process of a CLI window, text
> editor and
> manual entry/formatting and I might be interested in it. Without
> that,
> however, which is all that I have tried thus far, it is lacking.
Using fvwm-themes, you can. But that relies on you using the FvwmForm
along with it. It's not an inherent part of the WM.
But I personally don't see how it is "lacking" if you have to use a
text editor to change a menu entry -- I see it as just another means to
achieve the same goal. Just because that means might not be how you
wanted, that is not lacking; the functionality still exists.
-- Thomas Adam
Thomas Adam
> See, Thomas pointed to a web page where a WM's text file
> configuration was
> defended because it was too complex to represent graphically. Yet in
> the
> above we have 5 items.
It's not that it's too complex -- it's just that *trying* to do so --
to be a comprehensive means would be a hinderance in the long-run.
> Why does it NEED to be in text?
If you haven't dug into fvwm (as an example), I can appreciate how you
might think this so -- but there are a lot of aspects of fvwm that you
just couldn't represent graphically. fvwm has hundreds of style
options, and many focus policy hints. You can't enumerate these easily
in such a way that the user could understand or know what they mean.
Fvwm-themes does a good job at bridging this gap, mind.
-- Thomas Adam
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Steve C. Lamb
> --- "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> > Such as? You're implying that there's something magical going on
> > without giving specifics upon which to discuss.
> No, I'm merely stating that with most WMs, the emphasis is on yourself to
> define how things are to operate -- and that you yourself have the freedom
> to do so.
Which is no different than what I am doing save for in presentation. So
where's the problem here?
> > No. You know how it can be configured. Again, unless you're digging
> > in the code, you don't know how it works. The point I am making is
> > that
> Code? Oh, no. Just reading docs, examples, other people's configs, etc.
Then you don't _know_ what is going on any more than I do? You are
configuring it with the options given to you exactly the same I am doing.
> > for a learning experience. Make it easy. If I need more than the basic
> > application I can RTFM. It is your mentality which is why vi is so rough
> > for people to learn up front even though IMHO a variant of vi(m) is one of
> > the best damn editors out there and I use it religiously. Want to know
> > why? *Because they made the easy things easy to find and learn.* The
> > harder concepts I learn when I need to.
> That's a little harsh, isn't it? Especially to make assumptions about my
> "mentality".
Nope. It's spot on. Forcing people to learn loads up front to be
productive is not as friendly, easy and productive as being able to learn what
is needed, when it is needed and building on a basic set of skills which can
be used immediately.
> > D: in a manner which fits about 80% of my needs?
> Sure -- but it's still subjective. Which is not a bad thing, but it cannot
> be applied across the board. If that's what works for you, then that's
> nice.
I don't see it as subjective. What I presented was not subjective, it was
objective. Several less steps. Less change for breakage. Tell me, presuming
a bad default configuration which prevents access to a shell through the X
session and using a thin client for connectivity how exactly is one supposed
to effect changes to the configuration file when one can't access the darned
thing to modify in the first place? Having a good portion of the
configuration inside the application itself, readily accessible does not
preclude text file configuration. If you think it does, go try configuring
Pine sometime. However, not having those tools can present problems. They
should be there to provide a consistant interface within the application
itself.
Jochen Schulz
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 10:09:31PM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
> > I reckon ;) Having started with KDE and switched to xfce, it seems an
> > excellent compromise. I tried a few WM's and icewm came close to what I
> > was looking for but it was just a bit too light on frills and whistles.
> > Whereas xfce has some really useful features without the bloat of KDE.
>
> I'm betting one of them is the launch bar. Loved it in KDE and when I had
> to regain some memory only XFCE4 had it. Can't understand how anyone can live
> without it. :D
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a "launch bar"? Is it Xfce's thing
at the bottom of the desktop that shows menus and the like? What's so
special about it?
J.
--
Tony Blair is a hypnotised self-seeking scarecrow just like all the
rest.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Jochen Schulz
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:48:29PM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> > It's certainly pretty easy in Icewm. You just add a suitable line in the
> > menu file and it then appears in the menu list when you press Ctrl-Esc.
>
> How are the lines added?
With the right tool to do the job, of course - that means your $EDITOR.
;-)
> 1: type of menu item (program or folder)
> 2: The name to attribute to that item
> 3: The icon to associate with the item
> 4: The application/program to run
> 5: The command lines to pass on
>
> Oddly enough XFCE and KDE can manage a graphic representation of those 5
> items. So, uh, where's the problem? Why does it NEED to be in text?
It needs to be text so console junkies like me can change it with their
text editor! ;-) That said, there /are/ programs just to edit menus,
preferences and key bindings for IceWM. I do not like them and they are
not neatly "integrated" into IceWM, but they are there.
J.
--
I eat meat and am concerned about bugs which are resistant to
antibiotics.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Steve C. Lamb
> But I personally don't see how it is "lacking" if you have to use a
> text editor to change a menu entry -- I see it as just another means to
> achieve the same goal. Just because that means might not be how you
> wanted, that is not lacking; the functionality still exists.
The default configuration for shell access is munged and doesn't work.
You're using a thin-client with only the X session to work with. How do you
edit the text file when you can't get to it? That's not lacking? The
functionality does not exist. It can be obtained through other means but it
is like saying that vim has a spell checker because one can install aspell and
use the vimspell plugin.
Steve C. Lamb
> --- "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> > See, Thomas pointed to a web page where a WM's text file configuration
> > was defended because it was too complex to represent graphically. Yet
> > in the above we have 5 items.
> It's not that it's too complex -- it's just that *trying* to do so -- to be
> a comprehensive means would be a hinderance in the long-run.
Which is why I mentioned the 80% rule. Why leave this out when it is a
fairly common operation that shouldd be made as simple as possible to do as it
ties directly to the main thrust of the program; starting, managing and
closing windows which contain applications!
> > Why does it NEED to be in text?
> If you haven't dug into fvwm (as an example), I can appreciate how you might
> think this so -- but there are a lot of aspects of fvwm that you just
> couldn't represent graphically. fvwm has hundreds of style options, and
> many focus policy hints.
Pardon me if I don't believe you when you say that the miriad of
*graphical style options* can't be represented *graphically*. If they
couldn't then they wouldn't exist, would they?
Thomas Adam
> Nope. It's spot on. Forcing people to learn loads up front to
No, I've said, it's just another means to configure something. If
something is predominately a text-based configuration, then that can be
just as intuitive as a graphical one, IMO.
> I don't see it as subjective. What I presented was not
> subjective, it was
> objective. Several less steps. Less change for breakage. Tell me,
> presuming
> a bad default configuration which prevents access to a shell through
> the X
> session and using a thin client for connectivity how exactly is one
> supposed
> to effect changes to the configuration file when one can't access the
> darned
> thing to modify in the first place? Having a good portion of the
Any editor will do at the console -- nano, jed, vim, emacs, etc.
> configuration inside the application itself, readily accessible does
> not
> preclude text file configuration. If you think it does, go try
> configuring
I never said it did.
-- Thomas Adam.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Steve C. Lamb
> Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a "launch bar"? Is it Xfce's thing
> at the bottom of the desktop that shows menus and the like? What's so
> special about it?
XFCE calls it the "Mini Command Line". KDE calls it something else which
I am most likely misremembering as "Launch Bar". It is not the panel at the
bottom, it is a plugin for the panel which allows the user to enter a command
as if it were on the CLI and have it executed. Neither the XFCE or KDE
versions have tab compilation and only the KDE version has a history.
Where it comes in handy is when I want to start something that I know the
name of and that name isn't ungodly. For example, xchat. I've never made an
icon, menu item or other such thing to start xchat. I put get a cursor in the
MCL type "xchat" and return and up it comes. gaim, same thing. openoffice,
same thing. In fact the only things in the panel as launch buttons are:
My terminal: I never learned the command line for the GNOME Terminal and
rxvt's command line which I have memorized is too long to type out every time.
(rxvt -bg black -fg white -cr green -sl 1500)
XFFM/Nautilus/Konqueror - Yes, one icon for each as it is a small menu. Never
learned exactly what was needed for the first two and I am a cronic misspeller
of the last one.
Firefox: Because for some reason Debian's command line for it is
mozilla-firefox which is too long for casual use.
Thunderbird: same as above, mozilla-thunderbird? Guh.
Azureus: Dunno why that's an icon, really. Hmmm, should remove that.
Anyway the MCL pretty much takes care of anything else that I need at a
moments notice without the need of opening up a terminal first.
Thomas Adam
> Pardon me if I don't believe you when you say that the miriad of
> *graphical style options* can't be represented *graphically*. If
> they
> couldn't then they wouldn't exist, would they?
This one of those things you'd realise, if you used the WM in question.
Trying to explain it otherwise, is tricky.
-- Thomas Adam
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Thomas Adam
> work.
> You're using a thin-client with only the X session to work with. How
> do you
> edit the text file when you can't get to it? That's not lacking?
> The
> functionality does not exist. It can be obtained through other means
> but it
> is like saying that vim has a spell checker because one can install
> aspell and
> use the vimspell plugin.
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking to. If you can't get to
it, none of the options would work -- simple. That's not something
neither you or a WM could do anything about.
-- Thomas Adam
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Jochen Schulz
>
> KDE/XFCE: I want to start an application which I've just installed. I
> know the command name for it. Both have a launch bar. I enter the name, it
> starts up.
>
> Damn. That was easy! So easy in fact that 80% of the time I don't
> configure a launch button for any particular application.
Me neither. I have under twenty keyboard shortcuts (all
Win+single-character and most of them mnemonics) for the apps that I use
most often.
> Want to do the same with a "pure" WM. Step 1: open a CLI. Step 2: enter
> the command name. Step 3: close the CLI. Step 4: realize I forgot &! at the
> end of the command. Step 5: reopen CLI. Step 6: type in the command name and
> &!. Step 7: close CLI.
Well, to start gui programs I do not have a keyboard shortcut for, I
just hit Win-Space and IceWM gives me a little command line. It couldn't
be much easier. And btw: if you are using terminals a lot, you don't
need a separate one just for starting a gui app.
I think one big difference between our usage patterns is that I prefer
to use the keyboard for every action. That may not sound user friendly
but it's very efficient, especially when I use my laptop (which is 99%
of the time I spend using a computer outside of my workplace). I guess
if I used my desktop always with a mouse in the rigth hand, I would
prefer configuration via a gui too.
J.
--
I feel yawning hollowness whilst talking to people at parties.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Steve C. Lamb
> --- "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> > Nope. It's spot on. Forcing people to learn loads up front to
> No, I've said, it's just another means to configure something. If
> something is predominately a text-based configuration, then that can be
> just as intuitive as a graphical one, IMO.
Not true. To configure with a text file I have to know far more than I
need to know with internal configuration.
a: Where the configuration is located.
b: The format in which the configuration is expected.
c: The possible potions the configuration file expects.
Internal configuration mitigates A and B and can provide prompts for C.
For example in XFWM I can double click the menu bar to shade the window, close
the window, minimize the window or have it be ignored. All that information
was presented to me in a simple dropdown. Granted this could be imparted in
the configuration file through the use of comments but that makes many
configuration files completely unwieldly. Squid's configuration file is a
prime example for that. o.O
> > Several less steps. Less change for breakage. Tell me, presuming a bad
> > default configuration which prevents access to a shell through the X
> > session and using a thin client for connectivity how exactly is one
> > supposed to effect changes to the configuration file when one can't access
> > the darned thing to modify in the first place?
> Any editor will do at the console -- nano, jed, vim, emacs, etc.
You're not grasping the scenerio I described. One, I might add, I didn't
ull out of my ass because I ran into it while working on a thin client
implementation. Let me explain.
Bad configuration which prevents access to shell through the X session: No
shell via X. None. You hit it and because of a typo in the configuration
file the shell does not start.
Using a thin client: IE, it provides a display for remote applications to use
but does not have a console of its own. VNC being the most recognizable but a
hardware X thin client is not out of the question.
So, nano, jed, vim, emacs, etc all *are useless because you can't use any
of them as there is no access to them*.
> > configuration inside the application itself, readily accessible does not
> > preclude text file configuration. If you think it does, go try
> > configuring
> I never said it did.
Sure are acting like it.
Steve C. Lamb
> This has nothing to do with what I'm talking to. If you can't get to
> it, none of the options would work -- simple. That's not something
> neither you or a WM could do anything about.
Incorrect. If the WM allowed the person to modify it's own configuration
that is exactly something the WM could address.
Steve C. Lamb
> This one of those things you'd realise, if you used the WM in question.
> Trying to explain it otherwise, is tricky.
Again pardon me if I don't believe you when you say that something which
you cannot explain to me through text is best configured through text. That
implies that it is explained and understood in text.
Steve C. Lamb
> Me neither. I have under twenty keyboard shortcuts (all
> Win+single-character and most of them mnemonics) for the apps that I use
> most often.
Ye gads. Never understood that fetish as surely one will eventually step
on some application's keys or an un-intentional key combo. Like, for example,
having ALT mapped to some function in a first person shooter and then hitting
TAB to access another function and suddenly be staring at the desktop. :D
> Well, to start gui programs I do not have a keyboard shortcut for, I
> just hit Win-Space and IceWM gives me a little command line. It couldn't
> be much easier.
That's new. :D
> And btw: if you are using terminals a lot, you don't need a separate one
> just for starting a gui app.
Presumes one is at the CLI on a terminal which is at the local machine,
not in several situations where X isn't available and remembers &! the first
time around. :P
> I think one big difference between our usage patterns is that I prefer to
> use the keyboard for every action.
Careful, you're assuming a lot of my usage habits. So says I writing this
in vim to be handled by mutt while inside a GNOME terminal on my laptop
connected to my server at home. :P
> That may not sound user friendly but it's very efficient, especially when I
> use my laptop (which is 99% of the time I spend using a computer outside of
> my workplace). I guess if I used my desktop always with a mouse in the rigth
> hand, I would prefer configuration via a gui too.
I just don't see how the miniscule efficiencies amount to much of anything
when they are negated by odd quirks elsewhere. In the time it takes to fire
up a CLI, editor and edit a text file to add a menu item I can do it far
faster with the nipple and rmb even if my hands dare to leave the home row.
;P
Thomas Adam
> Not true. To configure with a text file I have to know far more
> than I
> need to know with internal configuration.
>
> a: Where the configuration is located.
True.
> b: The format in which the configuration is expected.
Which, if you're lucky is in some sort of human-readable form.
> c: The possible potions the configuration file expects.
Which, assuming b. is half-decent, you can usually ascertain.
Although, granted, not always.
> was presented to me in a simple dropdown. Granted this could be
> imparted in
> the configuration file through the use of comments but that makes
> many
> configuration files completely unwieldly. Squid's configuration file
> is a
> prime example for that. o.O
Yes, but squid's config excells with the use of comments. It explains
everything I needed to know -- giving both explanation and examples,
where it was necessary. And the defaults are generally not too bad.
Had the comments not been in the configuration file, I'd have had to
read the manual -- something many wouldn't do, I'd imagine --
especially if they need to use or set it up quickly. So I thought the
comments helped. Unweildly? Perhaps.
> Sure are acting like it.
Welcome to a text-based medium. Ambiguity, anyone?
-- Thomas Adam.
Steve C. Lamb
> --- "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> > b: The format in which the configuration is expected.
> Which, if you're lucky is in some sort of human-readable form.
That's not the only consideration. Take for example where one program
requires the use of quotes around the options while others they are optional
while a third would consider the quotes part of the option.
So...
path_to = /some/file
path_to = "/some/file"
...could work in the first form, the second form or both forms. Yet all are
"human readable".
> > c: The possible potions the configuration file expects.
> Which, assuming b. is half-decent, you can usually ascertain.
> Although, granted, not always.
Which I pointed out.
> > Sure are acting like it.
> Welcome to a text-based medium. Ambiguity, anyone?
I'm betting that wouldn't happen in a graphical medium.
Thomas Adam
--- "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> Incorrect. If the WM allowed the person to modify it's own
> configuration
> that is exactly something the WM could address.
Well, the WM would save that data somewhere. If it can't reach it, at
best, one would hope the WM fell back to some internal defaults.
-- Thomas Adam.
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Jochen Schulz
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:01:33PM +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> > Me neither. I have under twenty keyboard shortcuts (all
> > Win+single-character and most of them mnemonics) for the apps that I use
> > most often.
>
> Ye gads. Never understood that fetish as surely one will eventually step
> on some application's keys or an un-intentional key combo. Like, for example,
> having ALT mapped to some function in a first person shooter and then hitting
> TAB to access another function and suddenly be staring at the desktop. :D
Never had a problem with that. It's only Gnome and IceWM that I have
sometimes seen fighting who may catch the keypresses. But well, as I
have already predicted, I ditched Gnome just yesterday.
> > Well, to start gui programs I do not have a keyboard shortcut for, I
> > just hit Win-Space and IceWM gives me a little command line. It couldn't
> > be much easier.
>
> That's new. :D
I think it was already there when I started using IceWM (~4 years ago)!
Unfortunately, it lacks Tab-completion and history. What I like is that
when you finish the command with Ctrl-Enter the command is started
inside a terminal. Very handy for things like 'top'.
> > I think one big difference between our usage patterns is that I prefer to
> > use the keyboard for every action.
>
> Careful, you're assuming a lot of my usage habits. So says I writing this
> in vim to be handled by mutt while inside a GNOME terminal on my laptop
> connected to my server at home. :P
I am using PuTTY ssh'ing to my home machine running a screen session
with mutt and vim. :-P
> > That may not sound user friendly but it's very efficient, especially when I
> > use my laptop (which is 99% of the time I spend using a computer outside of
> > my workplace). I guess if I used my desktop always with a mouse in the rigth
> > hand, I would prefer configuration via a gui too.
>
> I just don't see how the miniscule efficiencies amount to much of anything
> when they are negated by odd quirks elsewhere. In the time it takes to fire
> up a CLI, editor and edit a text file to add a menu item I can do it far
> faster with the nipple and rmb even if my hands dare to leave the home row.
Well then, it's obviously just a matter of taste and we should stop
arguing. :-)
J.
--
If I could travel in time I would show my minidisc to the Romans and
become Caesar until the batteries ran out.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Thomas Adam
> Again pardon me if I don't believe you when you say that
> something which
> you cannot explain to me through text is best configured through
> text. That
> implies that it is explained and understood in text.
OK. I'll try. In FVWM, windows can have a lot of style hints applied
to them. Here's a list of them:
BorderWidth, HandleWidth, NoIcon / Icon, MiniIcon, IconBox,
IconGrid, IconFill, IconSize, NoTitle / Title, TitleAtBottom /
TitleAtLeft / TitleAtRight / TitleAtTop, LeftTitleRotatedCW /
LeftTitleRotatedCCW, RightTitleRotatedCCW / RightTitleRotatedCW,
TopTitleRotated / TopTitleNotRotated, BottomTitleRotated / Bot-
tomTitleNotRotated, !UseTitleDecorRotation / UseTitleDecorRota-
tion, StippledTitle / StippledTitleOff, IndexedWindowName /
ExactWindowName, IndexedIconName / ExactIconName, !Borders /
Borders, NoHandles / Handles, WindowListSkip / WindowListHit,
CirculateSkip / CirculateHit, CirculateSkipShaded / Circulate-
HitShaded, Layer, StaysOnTop / StaysOnBottom / StaysPut, Sticky
/ Slippery, StickyAcrossPages / !StickyAcrossPages, Sticky-
AcrossDesks / !StickyAcrossDesks, StartIconic / StartNormal,
Color, ForeColor, BackColor, Colorset, HilightFore, HilightBack,
HilightColorset, BorderColorset, HilightBorderColorset, IconTi-
tleColorset, HilightIconTitleColorset, IconBackgroundColorset,
IconTitleRelief, IconBackgroundRelief, IconBackgroundPadding,
Font, IconFont, StartsOnDesk / StartsOnPage / StartsAnyWhere,
StartsOnScreen, ManualPlacementHonorsStartsOnPage / ManualPlace-
mentIgnoresStartsOnPage, CaptureHonorsStartsOnPage / Cap-
tureIgnoresStartsOnPage, RecaptureHonorsStartsOnPage / Recap-
tureIgnoresStartsOnPage, StartsOnPageIncludesTransients / Start-
sOnPageIgnoresTransients, IconTitle / NoIconTitle, MwmButtons /
FvwmButtons, MwmBorder / FvwmBorder, MwmDecor / NoDecorHint,
MwmFunctions / NoFuncHint, HintOverride / NoOverride, NoButton /
Button, ResizeHintOverride / NoResizeOverride, OLDecor / NoOLD-
ecor, GNOMEUseHints / GNOMEIgnoreHints, StickyIcon / SlipperyI-
con, StickyAcrossPagesIcon / !StickyAcrossPagesIcon, Sticky-
AcrossDesksIcon / !StickyAcrossDesksIcon, ManualPlacement / Cas-
cadePlacement / MinOverlapPlacement / MinOverlapPercentPlacement
/ TileManualPlacement / TileCascadePlacement, / CenterPlacement,
MinOverlapPlacementPenalties, MinOverlapPercentPlacementPenal-
ties, DecorateTransient / NakedTransient, DontRaiseTransient /
RaiseTransient, DontLowerTransient / LowerTransient, DontStack-
TransientParent / StackTransientParent, SkipMapping / ShowMap-
ping, ScatterWindowGroups / KeepWindowGroupsOnDesk, UseDecor,
UseStyle, NoPPosition / UsePPosition, NoUSPosition / UseUSPosi-
tion, NoTransientPPosition / UseTransientPPosition, NoTransien-
tUSPosition / UseTransientUSPosition, NoIconPosition / UseIcon-
Position, Lenience / NoLenience, ClickToFocus / SloppyFocus /
MouseFocus|FocusFollowsMouse / NeverFocus, ClickToFocusPass-
esClickOff / ClickToFocusPassesClick, ClickToFocusRaisesOff /
ClickToFocusRaises, MouseFocusClickRaises / MouseFocusClickRais-
esOff, GrabFocus / GrabFocusOff, GrabFocusTransientOff / GrabFo-
cusTransient, FPFocusClickButtons, FPFocusClickModifiers,
!FPSortWindowlistByFocus / FPSortWindowlistByFocus, FPClickRais-
esFocused / !FPClickRaisesFocused, FPClickDecorRaisesFocused /
!FPClickDecorRaisesFocused, FPClickIconRaisesFocused / !FPClick-
IconRaisesFocused, !FPClickRaisesUnfocused / FPClickRaisesUnfo-
cused, FPClickDecorRaisesUnfocused / !FPClickDecorRaisesUnfo-
cused, FPClickIconRaisesUnfocused / !FPClickIconRaisesUnfocused,
FPClickToFocus / !FPClickToFocus, FPClickDecorToFocus /
!FPClickDecorToFocus, FPClickIconToFocus / !FPClickIconToFocus,
!FPEnterToFocus / FPEnterToFocus, !FPLeaveToUnfocus / FPLeave-
ToUnfocus, !FPFocusByProgram / FPFocusByProgram, !FPFocusByFunc-
tion / FPFocusByFunction, FPFocusByFunctionWarpPointer / !FPFo-
cusByFunctionWarpPointer, FPLenient / !FPLenient, !FPPassFo-
cusClick / FPPassFocusClick, !FPPassRaiseClick / FPPass-
RaiseClick, FPIgnoreFocusClickMotion / !FPIgnoreFocusClickMo-
tion, FPIgnoreRaiseClickMotion / !FPIgnoreRaiseClickMotion,
!FPAllowFocusClickFunction / FPAllowFocusClickFunction, !FPAl-
lowRaiseClickFunction / FPAllowRaiseClickFunction, FPGrabFocus /
!FPGrabFocus, !FPGrabFocusTransient / FPGrabFocusTransient,
FPOverrideGrabFocus / !FPOverrideGrabFocus, FPReleaseFocus /
!FPReleaseFocus, !FPReleaseFocusTransient / FPReleaseFocusTran-
sient, FPOverrideReleaseFocus / !FPOverrideReleaseFocus, Start-
sLowered / StartsRaised, IgnoreRestack / AllowRestack, FixedPo-
sition / VariablePosition, FixedUSPosition / VariableUSPosition,
FixedPPosition / VariablePPosition, FixedSize / VariableSize,
FixedUSSize / VariableUSSize, FixedPSize / VariablePSize, !Clos-
able / Closable, !Iconifiable / Iconifiable, !Maximizable / Max-
imizable, !AllowMaximizeFixedSize / AllowMaximizeFixedSize,
IconOverride / NoIconOverride / NoActiveIconOverride, Depress-
ableBorder / FirmBorder, MaxWindowSize, IconifyWindowGroups /
IconifyWindowGroupsOff, ResizeOpaque / ResizeOutline, Backing-
Store / BackingStoreOff / BackingStoreWindowDefault, Opacity /
ParentalRelativity, SaveUnder / SaveUnderOff, WindowShadeShrinks
/ WindowShadeScrolls, WindowShadeSteps, WindowShadeAlwaysLazy /
WindowShadeBusy / WindowShadeLazy, EWMHDonateIcon / EWMHDontDo-
nateIcon, EWMHDonateMiniIcon / EWMHDontDonateMiniIcon, EWMHMini-
IconOverride / EWMHNoMiniIconOverride, EWMHUseStackingOrderHints
/ EWMHIgnoreStackingOrderHints, EWMHIgnoreStateHints / EWMHUseS-
tateHints, EWMHIgnoreStrutHints / EWMHUseStrutHints, EWMHMaxi-
mizeIgnoreWorkingArea / EWMHMaximizeUseWorkingArea / EWMHMaxi-
mizeUseDynamicWorkingArea, EWMHPlacementIgnoreWorkingArea /
EWMHPlacementUseWorkingArea EWMHPlacementUseDynamicWorkingArea,
MoveByProgramMethod, Unmanaged, State.
You could, I suppose place these on a form, one after the other and
have a checkbox or something. But anyone can do that -- indeed, the
original reference I cited to the fvwm config page, does say that doing
this is counter-productive. You could place a textual description next
to each option, but is that of any help? Not when you consider the
intricacies of the various options listed above. The man page for fvwm
goes into a lot of detail, that trying to represent on a form in this
way, would not be that possible. I've tried it -- it's not that
intuitive.
You could argue that you could split the difference, and group various
like components together (as Schniedermann would no doubt agree with)
-- but the problem here is that often one function relies on another,
not necessarily in the same group -- it would therefore be a visual
nightmare.
Then there's the problem of getting those style hints to apply to
various windows -- do you just apply it to the currently selected
window, or all windows? How do you represent that graphically,
already, given the vast number of options possible. By graphically, I
don't just mean a drop-down list, with a mass of text then appearing
detailing the option. To depict anyone of those options would be quite
a challenge.
As a semi-example of a GUI disaster, just look at the program
"xcolors".
-- Thomas Adam.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Nikolai Hlubek
> herm...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>>A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
>>much appreciated.
>
>
> I used twm/awm back in the eighties. I've been using enlightenment for
> years now though. I tried wmaker and sawfish but they lacked features
> from enlightenment that I discovered I really missed. If you've loved
> enlightenment and found an even better WM, please let me know.
[...]
Hi everyone
I can absolutely acknowledge that. I've been using enlightenment for
five years now and don't know of any better window manager.
Bill already listed most of the great features so let me say something
on performance:
I'm using enlightenment on a few machines ranging from a notebook
with 133MHz and 48Mb of memory to my office machine with 3GHz and
1GB of memory. The felt performance is roughly the same on every
machine, even with all the nice features turned on.
The above mentioned office machine has an uptime of a few month now
and enlightenment is using a total of 4.2MB now. :-o
If you are more into numbers you can have a look at
http://www.rasterman.com/
Cheers,
Nikolai
--
"1984" is not a howto!
Anthony Campbell
> > > Well, to start gui programs I do not have a keyboard shortcut for, I
> > > just hit Win-Space and IceWM gives me a little command line. It couldn't
> > > be much easier.
> >
> > That's new. :D
>
> I think it was already there when I started using IceWM (~4 years ago)!
> Unfortunately, it lacks Tab-completion and history. What I like is that
> when you finish the command with Ctrl-Enter the command is started
> inside a terminal. Very handy for things like 'top'.
>
This has me a bit confused. What is this Win-Space? So you mean the
double-height Taskbar?
Anthony
--
a...@acampbell.org.uk || http://www.acampbell.org.uk for
using Linux GNU/Debian || blog, book reviews, electronic
Microsoft-free zone || books and skeptical articles
Herminio Gonzalez
different WM's and will make my choice eventually. I think xwinman.org
is a great starting point, thank you for the tip.
I'm glad that there are still many users of 'traditional' window
managers out there :)
Herminio
Mr Mike
Rogério Brito <rbr...@ime.usp.br> wrote:
> On Jun 12 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > herm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
> > > much appreciated.
> >
> > I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it wasn't
> > practical on my laptop w/only 192Mb of RAM.
>
> But neither XFCE nor KDE are window managers. They are desktop
> environments. This is a common misconception among people discussing
> "graphical environments" for X.
>
>
I used fluxbox for quite a while after having unresolved dissappearing menu trouble with KDE.. Now I'm using Windowmaker and it's great.. BUT.. I do miss those tabbed windows..
--
Cheers: Mike
.. Now, a little humor compliments of Linux Fortune...
Micha Feigin
Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jochen Schulz wrote:
>
> > A window manager is a program that just "manages windows". It gives
> > applications an area on the screen where they can be displayed and most
> > often the WM draws a border around it, gives it a nice title and enables
> > the user to do things with these windows - put one on the foreground,
> > minimize another one etc.
> >
> > Very often window managers come with some kind of a panel, virtual
> > desktop support and some kind of application launcher (a "start menu" or
> > icons on the panel), but strictly speaking, this is exceeding the task
> > of a minimal WM.
> >
> > Desktop environments (KDE, Gnome. Xfce) do far more than that. They come
> > with a file manager, draw the background with pixmaps and icons, they do
> > some work behind your back to easily handle removable storage or enable
> > drag'n drop. They come with "control centers" to do system
> > administration and generally give the user a simplified, cleaned up view
> > on their system. Applications supporting the DE all look the same and
> > share a lot of routines to do common tasks. DEs also provide
> > applications with a way to register themselves for a filetype which they
> > can handle, which is then reflected when using the DE's file manager and
> > so on... Of course, this list is not complete.
>
Actually thats not completly true.
File type registration is done through /etc/mailcap and ~/.mailcap. Drawing
background with pixmap and/or color can be done using xsetroot (or a bunch of
others also) through .xsession for example. Icons on the desktop can be handled
by most window managers, but if you want a desktop environment with folders,
drag and drop and such you can always use rox filer. There are several stand
alone toolbars and docks that can handle KDE, Gnome and other dock applets
(which use a standard interface) and the window manager contacts the desktop
environment through a standard interface nowadays (you can switch the gnome
standard window manager with a bunch of others, and even KDE). There are even
several daemons that can handle removable storage.
I've heard of people running both gnome and kde over fvwm among others.
What I don't like about gnome and kde is that they both start a setting daemon,
file polling daemon and a few others in the background and they don't die
easily (some stay after you log out). Too much overhead.
Personally I am a fvwm fan, it can take some time to setup to your liking but
can be setup to do just about anything. The only thing that its a bit
problematic with is window tabs (grouping several unrelated windows together).
It has a plugin thats not bad but it requires perl which bumps up the memory
requirements.
My fvwm setup takes about 2.5 megs of memory (thats right) and the whole
machine with X, urxvt and screen comes up at a bit under 30 megs (compare that
to about 120 for win2k and 180 for winxp ;-)
> Interesting, thanks.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
> at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
Simon Huggins
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:56:46PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > I need to compile up 4.2.2 packages for sarge and bung them on the
> > alioth page at some point.
> Mmmm, upgrades. I really should see if there's something later than
> 4.0.6 out. :D
If you're on x86 then http://the.earth.li/~huggie/xfce4/ might just work
for you.
Simon.
--
oOoOo Deja Moo - the feeling you've heard this bull before. oOoOo
oOoOo oOoOo
oOoOo oOoOo
Jochen Schulz
> On 14 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> >
> > I think it was already there when I started using IceWM (~4 years ago)!
> > Unfortunately, it lacks Tab-completion and history. What I like is that
> > when you finish the command with Ctrl-Enter the command is started
> > inside a terminal. Very handy for things like 'top'.
>
> This has me a bit confused. What is this Win-Space? So you mean the
> double-height Taskbar?
Yes and no. With Win-Space I meant my keyboard shortcut: Windows key +
Space bar. You could also do Ctrl-Alt-Space.
If you use the double-height taskbar, then the command line gets input
focus. Otherwise, the command line is displayed instead of the task list
until you hit Enter. I prefer the latter since I have only 1024x768 on a
14" display. I try to minimize waste of display space as much as I can.
J.
--
When standing at the top of beachy head I find the rocks below very
attractive.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Anthony Campbell
> Anthony Campbell:
> > On 14 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it was already there when I started using IceWM (~4 years ago)!
> > > Unfortunately, it lacks Tab-completion and history. What I like is that
> > > when you finish the command with Ctrl-Enter the command is started
> > > inside a terminal. Very handy for things like 'top'.
> >
> > This has me a bit confused. What is this Win-Space? So you mean the
> > double-height Taskbar?
>
> Yes and no. With Win-Space I meant my keyboard shortcut: Windows key +
> Space bar. You could also do Ctrl-Alt-Space.
>
> If you use the double-height taskbar, then the command line gets input
> focus. Otherwise, the command line is displayed instead of the task list
> until you hit Enter. I prefer the latter since I have only 1024x768 on a
> 14" display. I try to minimize waste of display space as much as I can.
>
> J.
Thanks for this clarification. My Windows keys don't seem to do this
(probably because I re-assigned them to other things and don't know what
they used to be) but Ctrl-Alt-Space does work. Very useful - don't know
how I missed this one.
AC
Jochen Schulz
> On 15 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> >
> > Yes and no. With Win-Space I meant my keyboard shortcut: Windows key +
> > Space bar. You could also do Ctrl-Alt-Space.
>
ModSuperIsCtrlAlT=1 # 0/1
J.
--
I am getting worse rather than better.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Anthony Campbell
I have that but it doesn't make a difference. Pressing those keys brings
up a Workspace list.
AC.
Jon Dowland
> Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
> CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
They do indeed - because they are desktop environments, not WMs. E.g. in
GNOME's case, you've got a file manager, panel (launching tool), various
panel applets (clocks, etc.) as well as the WM.
David E. Fox
Thomas Adam <thomas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Lee Braiden <j...@tundra.ath.cx> wrote:
> > That's debatable, actually. It could be argued that, since desktop
> > environments *do* share libraries etc, they reduce redundancy and
> > therefore
> > memory and load times. One could even argue that, since the code in
>
> Heh. When was the last time you tried to load KDE or GNOME? They take
> an absolute age, pulling in I don't know what -- and whats more, the
About 104 days ago, when I booted the machine. (Actually that's not
quite correct -- I restarted the X (thus KDE) session shortly after
upgrading to Sarge a few days ago). Still, the load time doesn't bother
me all that much, even though I"m running a relatively underpowered
machine by today's standards (Athlon 1000 mhz). I do have quite a bit
of RAM here (768 megs), though.
> case of KDE that loads a lot of libs for applications, whether you use
> them or not.
Which parts of libraries will likely be "evicted" from RAM when it
becomes necessary -- or even if not. Only the really needed parts of
libraries are really brought in. Some KDE apps do bring in more
libraries than "traditional" (non-KDE) tools, for instance:
dfox@126[~]$ ldd `which konsole` | wc -l
40
dfox@126[~]$ ldd `which xterm` | wc -l
19
But, as another poster pointed out, there are shared similarities
among various components of a desktop environment, and because of
shared memory, one might only haev a single copy of a library shared
among those components at any one time.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Fox Thanks for letting me
df...@tsoft.com change magnetic patterns
df...@m206-157.dsl.tsoft.com on your hard disk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Fox
"Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> XFCE calls it the "Mini Command Line". KDE calls it something else which
> I am most likely misremembering as "Launch Bar". It is not the panel at the
Alt-F2, or "run command". Actually, I am not certain that it has
another term. You're right, there's no tab completion, which is a nice
feature to have, and I don't see why it couldn't be included. After
all, the kparts feature (one that really turned me onto KDE in the
first place) means that I could actually be running 'bash' while in
that command window.. On the other hand, semantically it might not
work, simply because <TAB> has a different contextual meaning while in
that window -- to wit, "move to the next box on the form.")
> My terminal: I never learned the command line for the GNOME Terminal and
> rxvt's command line which I have memorized is too long to type out every time.
> (rxvt -bg black -fg white -cr green -sl 1500)
In the "old" days, one would put the X preferences of applications
inside a custom .xinitrc file, so that every time you typed "rxvt &"
the session would apply the preferred options. Doing that, or
using a shell wrapper or alias would alleviate that issue.
Incidentally, my shell sessions usually have a long history associated
with them. Oftentimes, my fingers can't remember all the options I used
when I used a command, and I might only use such a command once a week,
or even less. A long time ago, I learned to rely on a neat feature of
bash: ctrl-R, "backwards interactive search". I just got used to
hitting ctrl-R and typing the first letter or two of the command I
wanted.
> --
> Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
> PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
> -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Steve C. Lamb
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:52:00 -0700
> "Steve C. Lamb" <gr...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> > XFCE calls it the "Mini Command Line". KDE calls it something else which
> > I am most likely misremembering as "Launch Bar". It is not the panel at the
> Alt-F2, or "run command". Actually, I am not certain that it has
> another term.
Nope, that's not it. That's something else. This is a text entry box
embedded in the panel.
> In the "old" days, one would put the X preferences of applications
> inside a custom .xinitrc file, so that every time you typed "rxvt &"
> the session would apply the preferred options. Doing that, or
> using a shell wrapper or alias would alleviate that issue.
True, which is effectively what the icons are. They just don't need to
start a terminal to access the alias or wrapper first. ;)
> A long time ago, I learned to rely on a neat feature of
> bash: ctrl-R, "backwards interactive search". I just got used to
> hitting ctrl-R and typing the first letter or two of the command I
> wanted.
zsh has something similar. First 2-3 letteres then Esc-P to go through
all matching commands. :D