fvwm (was Re: Ex-Coherent user speaks)
Linus Torvalds
C. S. Hendrix <COHE...@VMA.CC.ND.EDU> wrote:
>> Actually, I have run the Open-Look Virtual Window Manager on Coherent
>> (olvwm) since June. It takes up less memory than twm.
>
> Really? It always took up more RAM on my system.
Sure, olvwm is a memory pig. As are most of the programs written for it
(but I still used it before getting fvwm). I can't imagine that it
takes less memory than twm under coherent.
> I run fvwm now
>and it's great. VERY small and fast. Has most of the features of the
>others and some they don't have. It (and an X11R5 from MIT) makes a
>Sun Sparcstation fly. Should be great for Linux, saves about 66% over
>twm on RAM usage.
Seconded. fvwm is the way to go, and probably works fine under coherent
too without any major tweaking. Looks nice, works fine, has all the
important features and is small to boot. I like much of the twm stuff,
but twm is rather ugly and has some problems. fvwm looks much nicer and
does it all and is very configurable.
Linus
Harry C Pulley
: In article <931214205...@pcs.cnu.edu>,
: C. S. Hendrix <COHE...@VMA.CC.ND.EDU> wrote:
: >> Actually, I have run the Open-Look Virtual Window Manager on Coherent
: >> (olvwm) since June. It takes up less memory than twm.
: >
: > Really? It always took up more RAM on my system.
: Sure, olvwm is a memory pig. As are most of the programs written for it
: (but I still used it before getting fvwm). I can't imagine that it
: takes less memory than twm under coherent.
Under ASC's (unfortunately defunct) X11 implementation, twm took 550K of
core and olvwm took 537K or so. Under MWC's implementation, they are
larger, probably due to the use of pipes to emulate sockets rather than a
socket driver. I ran it; I know. I too was amazed, but it really was
true. I have yet to run olvwm under MWC's X11 since it doesn't support my
Oak card so I use MGR (I can run MGR in 800x600 and 1024x... but I
couldn't get X run to in anything better than 640x480 mono). Thus, I
don't know how olvwm performs under MWC's X11; I have heard that it is
quite large though.
I hope XFree86 2.0 is ported to Coherent soon. I might do it myself except
that I heard someone else was already working on or finished it.
: > I run fvwm now
: >and it's great. VERY small and fast. Has most of the features of the
: >others and some they don't have. It (and an X11R5 from MIT) makes a
: >Sun Sparcstation fly. Should be great for Linux, saves about 66% over
: >twm on RAM usage.
: Seconded. fvwm is the way to go, and probably works fine under coherent
: too without any major tweaking. Looks nice, works fine, has all the
: important features and is small to boot. I like much of the twm stuff,
: but twm is rather ugly and has some problems. fvwm looks much nicer and
: does it all and is very configurable.
I've never seen fvwm but it sounds like I was really missing something.
Harry
--
hpu...@uoguelph.ca |This message released|It takes all kinds,
Harry C. Pulley, IV |to the PUBLIC DOMAIN.|and to each his own.
----------------------------------+---------------------|This thought in mind,
Stay away from the DOS side, Luke!|Un*x don't play that.|I walk alone.
Jon Dhuse~
Regarding fvwm on Coherent... I ported fvwm to Coh4.2 and my own X11R5 port, and
it was not a big problem. I could post come comments about what I needed to do,
but I don't think my binary would work for anyone else... I do use the 4.2
socket emulation, so maybe it's ok. If I see some response to this I'll post
or email my porting notes.
Jon.
--
Jon Dhuse | internet: jdh...@sedona.intel.com
Intel Corp. CH3-69 |
5000 W. Chandler Blvd. | Any opinions expressed are my own,
Chandler, AZ 85226 | not my employer's.
all...@news.delphi.com
You can consider this to be a response. I'm interested in at least
learning the comparative merits / "nonmerits" of various "wm's"
Thanks for any feedback
Allan
Udo Munk
: Sure, olvwm is a memory pig. As are most of the programs written for it
: (but I still used it before getting fvwm). I can't imagine that it
: takes less memory than twm under coherent.
This twm which comes with the X distribution really is larger than
olwm and olvwm. It's not the real twm from the MIT distribution, it
has more features than this one. It must be vtwm or something like
that, I don't know for sure.
: Seconded. fvwm is the way to go, and probably works fine under coherent
: too without any major tweaking. Looks nice, works fine, has all the
: important features and is small to boot. I like much of the twm stuff,
: but twm is rather ugly and has some problems. fvwm looks much nicer and
: does it all and is very configurable.
Will take a look at it, thanks.
--
Udo Munk, Oberstr. 21, 41460 Neuss, Germany
privat: u...@umunk.GUN.de CIS: 100021,2515
work: u...@mwc.com
Udo Munk
[...]
: Under ASC's (unfortunately defunct) X11 implementation, twm took 550K of
: core and olvwm took 537K or so. Under MWC's implementation, they are
: larger, probably due to the use of pipes to emulate sockets rather than a
: socket driver. I ran it; I know. I too was amazed, but it really was
It's not the socket emulation, this are a few bytes only compared to
xlib and the toolkits. The twm from the MWC X distribution isn't the
same as from the ASC distribution. It must be one of the improved
versions like vtwm, I don't know.
: true. I have yet to run olvwm under MWC's X11 since it doesn't support my
: Oak card so I use MGR (I can run MGR in 800x600 and 1024x... but I
: couldn't get X run to in anything better than 640x480 mono). Thus, I
: don't know how olvwm performs under MWC's X11; I have heard that it is
: quite large though.
Yes right, so I ported olwm too which in the moment is the smallest
available window manager.
: I hope XFree86 2.0 is ported to Coherent soon. I might do it myself except
: that I heard someone else was already working on or finished it.
Yep, I would like to see it too.
: : Seconded. fvwm is the way to go, and probably works fine under coherent
: : too without any major tweaking. Looks nice, works fine, has all the
: : important features and is small to boot. I like much of the twm stuff,
: : but twm is rather ugly and has some problems. fvwm looks much nicer and
: : does it all and is very configurable.
: I've never seen fvwm but it sounds like I was really missing something.
Me too, will take a look at this thing.
Andrew MacIntyre
>Regarding fvwm on Coherent... I ported fvwm to Coh4.2 and my own X11R5 port,
>and it was not a big problem. I could post come comments about what I
>needed to do, but I don't think my binary would work for anyone else... I
>do use the 4.2 socket emulation, so maybe it's ok. If I see some
>response to this I'll post or email my porting notes.
Please! :-)
Andrew MacIntyre
<and...@happy.dotc.gov.au>
These thoughts are mine alone ...
Udo Munk
[...]
: Seconded. fvwm is the way to go, and probably works fine under coherent
: too without any major tweaking. Looks nice, works fine, has all the
: important features and is small to boot. I like much of the twm stuff,
: but twm is rather ugly and has some problems. fvwm looks much nicer and
: does it all and is very configurable.
Yep, have it running, wasn't a great problem. I really like it, it looks
very nice, is pretty fast and uses much less memory (264KB only with the
virtual desktop compiled in) than any other windows manager. But it also
has all the features a windows manager should have, I'm missing nothing.
GCC is needed to compile it, it's written in ANSI C with prototypes.
I'll upload it to raven and mail to copy to MWC where an executable is
left in the archive, because most of you don't have a working GCC under
4.2.
Thanks again Linus to point it out and Merry Christmas.
Rick Kelly
: Seconded. fvwm is the way to go, and probably works fine under coherent
: too without any major tweaking. Looks nice, works fine, has all the
: important features and is small to boot. I like much of the twm stuff,
: but twm is rather ugly and has some problems. fvwm looks much nicer and
: does it all and is very configurable.
So, on what ftp site is fvwm archived?
--
Rick Kelly r...@rmkhome.com r...@bedford.progress.com
Udo Munk
: jdh...@sedona.intel.com (Jon Dhuse~) writes:
: >Regarding fvwm on Coherent... I ported fvwm to Coh4.2 and my own X11R5 port, and
: >it was not a big problem. I could post come comments about what I needed to do,
: >but I don't think my binary would work for anyone else... I do use the 4.2
: >socket emulation, so maybe it's ok. If I see some response to this I'll post
: >or email my porting notes.
The binary wouldn't work, the RTR X doesn't use the 4.2 socket emulation yet :-(
: You can consider this to be a response. I'm interested in at least
: learning the comparative merits / "nonmerits" of various "wm's"
You'll find it on raven.