fmII
Sun, May 11th home | browse | articles | contact | chat | submit | faq | newsletter | about | stats | scoop 16:30 PDT
in
Section
login «
register «
recover password «
[Article] add comment [Article]
Theme topics | Apps | Resources | Window Managers | Afterstep | Blackbox | Enlightenment | Fluxbox | GTK | IceWM | KDE | MetaCity | Sawfish | Window Maker

 Window Managers
 by Matt Chapman, in Category Reviews - Sat, Nov 30th 2002 00:00 PDT

The freedom of choice offered by GNU and Linux, combined with the technological design of the X Window System, gives desktop users a windowing environment with a flexibility and capability that is unrivaled. In recent times, the desktop Linux world has been enriched beyond recognition by the KDE and GNOME projects, but window managers are still at the heart of these environments, as well being used widely on their own. In this review, I'll delve into this exciting world and look at the development and the state of the art of some of the most significant and most popular window managers.


Copyright notice: All reader-contributed material on freshmeat.net is the property and responsibility of its author; for reprint rights, please contact the author directly.

Given the volume of entries in this category, I can't hope to cover all of them in any sort of detail, so instead I will concentrate on a select few in more detail. I've tried to pick a selection representing a range of styles and philosophies, weighted by their current popularity and importance in the development of windowing technologies. Many of the features explained along the way are found in other window managers, and each window manager's level of support for the GNOME and KDE environments is also discussed. I'll offer my apologies in advance to all those great window managers that haven't been mentioned in this article.

FVWM

FVWM is one of the oldest window mangers that is still in widespread use and actively maintained. It dates back to around 1993 and was originally developed by Robert Nation, based on the then dominant TWM, which stands for either Tab Window Manager or Tom's Window Manager. The "VWM" in FVWM stands for Virtual Window Manager, as virtual desktop functionality had been added, but the meaning of the "F" has been lost in the mists of time -- see the FVWM FAQ for some possibilities.

The early days of FVWM development were exciting times. After being stuck with the bland and somewhat featureless TWM, the new appearance and functionality offered by the rapid stream of FVWM releases breathed new life into the X Window System, even on a monochrome X terminal. In more recent times, it has been overshadowed to some extent by newer window managers and the GNOME and KDE desktop environments, but it has stood the test of time well and remains a solid, popular, and feature-rich window manager. We will now examine a few of its many features in a little more detail.

In addition to the virtual desktop capability mentioned above, one of the main selling points of FVWM in the early days was its high speed and low memory consumption. Many years of feature adding can lead to bloated software, and FVWM has tried to tackle this by providing some of the extra functionality as separate modules which are only loaded if required. Also, two different releases were maintained for some time: FVWM 1.xx (ending with 1.24r) was the streamlined version for low resource environments, and FVWM 2.xx (2.4.13 is the latest stable release at the time I write this) is the slightly larger but more capable version. The 1.xx versions are no longer supported or distributed; the recommended version is the latest 2.xx stable release, which, in terms of resource requirements, still compares favorably with many other window managers.

The first and foremost FVWM module was called GoodStuff, which was later renamed "FVWM Buttons". It was primarily an application launcher, consisting of a grid or line of buttons, typically with icons, each of which launch a particular application or command when pressed. Variations and extensions of this are present in a large number of window managers, including Afterstep's "Wharf" (and also "Zharf"), Window Maker's "dock", and the "slit" from Blackbox and its descendants. Another important feature of this FVWM module is its ability to swallow other applications. This involves running a program (for example, an email watcher such as xbiff), and, instead of FVWM adding window borders and placing it on the desktop as a normal window, it is captured by the GoodStuff/Buttons module and displayed inside the module's window. This functionality was so popular that a large number of small applications have been written specifically for this purpose, and are known variously as applets, epplets (for Enlightenment), and dockapps.

Some of the other features common to both the 1.xx and 2.xx versions are full support for keyboard operations (which improves usability and accessibility), full color shaped (non-rectangular) icons, switching of viewports or virtual desktops by "pushing" the pointer against the edges of the screen, automatic raising of windows when they receive the input focus, and support for multiple policies for icon placement and initial placement of opened windows. Many of these features are now provided by other window managers, but some of them were pioneered by FVWM.

We will now briefly cover some of the additional features present in the latest stable 2.4 series. First, there is full support for internationalization, so FVWM can handle the fonts and conventions of the languages and locales supported by the underlying operating system. Standards are also important to FVWM, which provides full compliance with the ICCCM (Inter-Client Communication Conventions Manual) version 2 and recognition of windows hints for Open Look, Motif, and GNOME. Support for KDE 2.xx and later and GNOME 2.xx is available as a patch, or in the latest development versions. Various font rendering capabilities are available, such as anti-aliasing, vertical text, and shadows on text. The "WindowShade" function allows windows to be temporarily "collapsed" out of the way. This function can operate horizontally or vertically, or even diagonally. A very useful feature for those with two or more physical displays is support for the Xinerama X11 extension, which allows all of the available displays to be combined into a single seamless desktop. Finally, there is also support for session management, dynamic changes to most properties, mouse strokes (executing functions based on patterns of mouse movement), PNG image support (including alpha blending), and modules for building GTK+ dialogs and Perl extensions.

As you can see, FVWM has an almost endless feature set, and there's plenty more that hasn't been mentioned. The modular approach of FVWM works well to reduce the "bloat" factor of all these features, so the only real drawback is the work required to customize your setup to make use of the desired features.

IceWM

IceWM was first released in 1997 by Marko Macek, who coded it from scratch in C++ instead of starting with an existing window manager (as is more common). It is designed primarily to be small, fast, and lightweight. A key feature of the early versions was the ability to emulate the look and feel of Motif, OS/2, and Windows desktops. Since then, this feature has evolved into a flexible theme engine, with a large number of readily-available themes. IceWM is a popular window manager which is still in active development.

Other features of IceWM include full keyboard support, multiple focus modes, sound support, multiple workspaces, dynamically updating menus, a taskbar, and complete internalization support. It is also compliant with a number of standards and conventions, such as Motif window hints, KDE hints, almost full ICCCM compliance, and full GNOME integration support.

Window Maker

Window Maker is designed to emulate the look and feel of part of the NEXTSTEP GUI. The AfterStep window manager has a similar goal, but was based on FVWM, whereas Window Maker is written largely from scratch. The first release of Window Maker (or "WindowMaker" as it was then -- the space in the name came later) was made in 1997, and the principal author was (and still is) Alfredo K. Kojima. Window Maker is part of the GNU project, and is designed to integrate with the GNUstep desktop framework.

The application dock provided by Window Maker is powerful and easy to use, supporting drag-and-drop operations. A large number of specifically-written "dockapps" are available. Another good usability feature is the built-in GUI configuration utility which allows you to adjust the window manager's settings without having to edit the configuration files directly with a text editor.

Like many modern window managers, support for themes is also present, with a large number of themes available. Support for different window hints is also very good, covering GNUstep, GNOME, KDE, Motif, and OpenLook, which improves the integration of Window Maker with those environments.

Other features of this fast and easy-to-use window manager include internationalization support, near ICCCM compliance, icon dithering for displays with low color depths, multiple workspaces, and the ability to change all preferences and menus without having to restart.

Sawfish

Developed by John Harper, Sawfish began life in 1999 as Sawmill, but later changed its name to avoid a clash with another product. It is a lightweight and highly configurable window manager which makes use of an Emacs Lisp-like language. It is designed to implement only core window manager functionality, and not any extras such as panels and desktop backgrounds. This makes it ideal for use with desktop environments (particularly GNOME, as both use the GTK+ toolkit). In fact, Sawfish is the default window manager for 1.xx versions of the GNOME desktop (replacing Enlightenment), and a version for use with GNOME 2.xx is available.

Configuration can be done by writing Lisp code, but more accessible is the GUI customization system, which provides a quick and easy way of controlling the many aspects of this flexible window manager's behavior and appearance. It supports themes, so complete frame decoration can be changed in one go. Global and window-based keyboard shortcuts can be easily defined for a very large number of operations. Different focus policies are available with many options, such as auto-raise delay, and different properties can be set for individual windows or groups of windows, specified by name or wildcard.

Metacity

The first release of Metacity, by Havoc Pennington, was version 2.3 in 2001, so it is still in a fairly early state of development. Like Sawfish, the intention is to only implement core window manager functionality, but Metacity takes this even further and only implements a very low level of flexibility and configuration options. Current versions require GTK+ 2.0, and it does not work with 1.xx versions of the GNOME desktop. It is now the default window manager for some GNOME 2.xx configurations, although it can also be used with KDE, version 3.xx onward. The current trend with GNOME 2.xx and Metacity seems to be to follow the approach of other windowing systems, to hide the window manager separation from the user and present a single desktop interface. This means that the limited configuration options available for Metacity are shown as desktop options, not as Metacity options (although there is an optional "Metacity-setup" panel which conflicts with this approach). There is also currently no panel to allow the user to switch to a different window manager (this can be done manually by killing one window manager and starting another, relying on session management to record the change).


Author's bio:

Matt Chapman is the creator and maintainer of the xwinman.org: "Window Managers for X" site, which has been providing a wealth of window manager-related material since 1995.


T-Shirts and Fame!

We're eager to find people interested in writing articles on software-related topics. We're flexible on length, style, and topic, so long as you know what you're talking about and back up your opinions with facts. Anyone who writes an article gets a t-shirt from ThinkGeek in addition to 15 minutes of fame. If you think you'd like to try your hand at it, let jeff.covey@freshmeat.net know what you'd like to write about.

[Comments are disabled]

 Referenced categories

Topic :: Desktop Environment :: Gnome
Topic :: Desktop Environment :: GNUstep
Topic :: Desktop Environment :: K Desktop Environment (KDE)
Topic :: Desktop Environment :: Window Managers
Topic :: Desktop Environment :: Window Managers :: Applets
Topic :: Desktop Environment :: Window Managers :: Enlightenment :: Epplets
Topic :: Desktop Environment :: Window Managers :: Window Maker :: Applets

 Referenced projects

AfterStep - A Window manager for X based on the NeXT look and feel.
Blackbox - A window manager for X11 written in C++.
Enlightenment - A fast, flexible, and very extensible Window Manager.
FVWM - The classic highly-configurable virtual window manager.
GNUstep - GNU OpenStep API
IceWM - A Window Manager designed for speed, usability, and consistency.
KDE - A powerful graphical desktop environment for Unix workstations.
Metacity - A light-weight window manager for GNOME.
sawfish - An extensible window manager.
Window Maker - An X11 window manager with a NEXTSTEP look and feel.

 Comments

[»] Window Managers???
by Riko - Mar 30th 2003 04:56:09

Who needs them!!! Just start with fullsize Emacs, and use it.

[reply] [top]


[»] Ion -- radical new direction for a WM
by Ian Bicking - Jan 15th 2003 17:46:49

Anyone who feels more comfortable inside a terminal using screen, or with Emacs maximized for the entire session, should try using ion. It's also great for anyone who wants to use the mouse less or use their screen real estate more efficiently. I think it would work very nicely on a laptop.

Ion is a tiled window manager -- there are no overlapping windows. The screen is split up horizontally and vertically into various tiles, and an application takes up the entirety of its tile. Multiple applications in a tile are tabbed. As a result 100% of the screen is always in use, and window arrangement is much similar. In most cases I leave me window split in two, with different tasks on different virtual desktops. I may have an editor on the right, browser on the left. Or browser/email, etc.

It's one greatest flaw is dealing with popup dialogs. There's no windows. Some dialogs just appear at the bottom of the window, but others are forced to completely obscure the parent window. It would be nice if the tiling wasn't quite so complete.

Ratpoison seems very similar, and specifically aimed at screen fans.

PWM provides some of the same features without completely discarding overlapping windows. I believe it shares some sort of history or developer base with Ion.

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Ion -- radical new direction for a WM
    by Avi Y - Jan 15th 2003 23:46:19

    They share the same developer (i think). PWM had been an innovative window manager with it's tabbed window (or meeged/groupped window) concept. It could have easily been the BEST window manager today, but unfortunately its development had been abandoned. it can deal easily with transients/pop-ups unlike its succesor (ion). Today, some new and modern window managers like fluxbox and pekwm (and waimea in its CVS version) has adopted PWM concepts. But no one can be as speedy and small as PWM....

    --
    avi Y

    [reply] [top]


[»] Hi
by jitender - Jan 9th 2003 02:31:33

Like me & my lines

--
Well I like it

[reply] [top]


[»] Ommissions...
by Moritz Moeller-Herrmann - Dec 4th 2002 05:20:34

Well I think the most popular WM should at least have
been mentioned: kwin

kwin features themes, customizability (in GUI!),
supports icewm decorations, is fast and lightweight and
was created from scratch. It supports all modern
standards and of course the best KDE integration, but it
works with GNOME2 as well, if you use recent versions.

Also enlightenment has been influential, even though I
have never used it for longer than 5 minutes.

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Ommissions...
    by Buy Gifts - Jan 29th 2004 12:24:45

    I must agee with your comment i also think kwin is the way to go :D

    --
    Digital Cameras - Biz

    [reply] [top]


[»] Sawfish still lightweight?
by TordJ - Dec 4th 2002 01:43:13

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can Sawfish still really be considered a lightweight window manager? I know it started out as being "more lightweight than enlightenment with better Gnome integration and configurability", thus giving it its popularity, but I doubt it still can be considered to be lightweight.

Feature creep, own rendering engine and running interpreted code must clearly make it much heavier than for example Metacity, IceWM and BlackBox.

I remember seeing a more detailed comparison where a modern version was shown to be many times heavier than the ones I mentioned (at least 3-4 times!) and even heavier than enlightenment, but I haven't managed to find it again since then.

Of course, certain factors always play in like what theme is being used and what other programs are being run (Metacity might for example take up more resources than many other window managers if it's the only GTK2 application in use since the weight of the toolkit then must be entirely attributed to Metacity).

Please correct me if I'm wrong or add some details if you have more information.

[reply] [top]


[»] the killer enlightenment
by deathb - Dec 2nd 2002 08:58:31

rastermans team made it, the one, the only one that makes an desktop winning just everything.

configurable, clean, the choice to have just nothing on the desk !

www.enlightenment.org

[reply] [top]


[»] Skimpy article.
by Ava Jarvis - Nov 30th 2002 21:31:43

Very skimpy, doesn't say anything new, and doesn't even cover the new features of FVWM (of which there are a *lot*). Or that many window managers. Not even that many old window managers.

No useful comparisons, either. A table would be nice (like "Supports virtual desktops" "Supports multiple workspaces" "dynamic workspaces" "scriptable" etc.).

[reply] [top]


[»] objective of article?
by safemode - Nov 30th 2002 17:20:33

The initial paragraph is promising. "Delving into the exciting world and looking into the development..." of window managers is a worthwhile thing to bring people new up to speed on things and others who just never bothered to care before. But it accomplishes none of this. More than half of the article is about fvwm and comparing it to some other window managers. The fact that fvwm was the default window manager for redhat for a long time makes it no surprise that this would be a window manager people would be fairly knowledgable about. But like the author said, the sheer number of window managers make discussing individual features of a select few window managers unable to even touch the scope of the article. If you want to talk about the exciting world of window managers talk about it's progressive function on top of X and with other software. Most window managers support the same functions, there is no point in naming particular window managers to talk about a feature that likely more than half have. Talk about important basic features and why they are basic to a window manager. Talk about the speed of development and the footprint left behind by different window managers. Talk about where window managers are heading. Are they going to have a future of common use ? Talk about what is the state of the art before you call something state of the art. Is E state of the art? Why? Is there justification for the popularity of the window managers that were in this article or are they just enjoying use because of authority and by justification i mean other than simple subjectivity? No discussion was even mentioned about the state of cvs branches of even the window managers discussed, much less interesting cvs projects going on that aren't popular yet but very original and/or creative. Canvas should be the first thing mentioned in the article for cutting edge state of the art window managers. Likely, the entire article should focus mostly on what's going on in cvs trees. KDE/gnome/xfce/cde and the desktop environment groups should be nothing but a passing mention in the article.

there my rant is done. Proof-reading is a good thing. I'm sure somene would have caught the problem with the over zealous scope.

[reply] [top]


[»] if you like amiga and speed try this
by Gürkan - Nov 30th 2002 11:51:33

amiwm, which looks like an amiga. If you don't have/want X but still like amiga, try amigashell. Should you be a debian user on an amiga, register.

[reply] [top]


[»] Same old same
by Frank Hale - Nov 30th 2002 10:28:40

For once I'd like to read a review that concentrated on the less popular window managers out there. So many times I've read reviews about FVWM, Blackbox, Window Maker and the likes. Time after time its the same junk just repeated by different people on different websites. Just about every review says something along the lines that there are far too many window managers to cover in depth. So they cover the window managers that everyone is already using and already know about.

Is there any possibility that somebody could write an unbiased review of the less popular window managers like aewm, pekwm, larswm, ratpoison, evilwm, pawm, etc...? These window managers get treated 9 times out of 10 like they do not exist. They don't have big named developers and hoards of script kiddie groupies but they do work and perform the functions a window manager is intented to do. They all appeal to different audiences than the elite window managers covered in this review.

All I'm asking for is a change in the norm, can we get a review that is different for a change?



[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Same old same
    by kevcol - Dec 3rd 2002 19:31:30

    Is there any possibility that somebody could write an unbiased review of the less popular window managers like aewm, pekwm, larswm, ratpoison, evilwm, pawm, etc...?

    The obvious question...
    Why don't you write one and submit it?

    [reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Same old same
    by Nylr - Feb 21st 2003 16:10:15

    Looks like you have a great introduction and thesis! :) Nice start; I can't wait to see the finished draft.


    > For once I'd like to read a review that
    > concentrated on the less popular window
    > managers out there. So many times I've
    > read reviews about FVWM, Blackbox,
    > Window Maker and the likes. Time after
    > time its the same junk just repeated by
    > different people on different websites.
    > Just about every review says something
    > along the lines that there are far too
    > many window managers to cover in depth.
    > So they cover the window managers that
    > everyone is already using and already
    > know about.
    >
    > Is there any possibility that somebody
    > could write an unbiased review of the
    > less popular window managers like aewm,
    > pekwm, larswm, ratpoison, evilwm, pawm,
    > etc...? These window managers get
    > treated 9 times out of 10 like they do
    > not exist. They don't have big named
    > developers and hoards of script kiddie
    > groupies but they do work and perform
    > the functions a window manager is
    > intented to do. They all appeal to
    > different audiences than the elite
    > window managers covered in this review.
    >
    > All I'm asking for is a change in the
    > norm, can we get a review that is
    > different for a change?
    >
    >
    >
    >

    [reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Same old same
    by Jason Clouse - Apr 19th 2003 19:24:38

    One WM I haven't seen mentioned much (mostly because the project is still in its infancy) is InterfaceWM. It's a window manager written entirely in Objective-C and taking advantage of the excellent GNUstep frameworks.

    The project was stalled for a while but two new developers have come on board recently, so things should start moving along pretty soon. Not ready for prime time yet but keep it in mind if you're interested in seeing a Linux-kernel-based NeXT clone. And when the GNUstep theme engine matures, maybe a Mac OS X clone too...

    [reply] [top]


[»] This could have been better
by X-Nc - Nov 30th 2002 09:28:02

The lack of Openwin, mwm, CDE and twm keeps this from being an informative history. There's a ton of WM's out there but there's only 4 real options for desktop environments; KDE, GNOME, CDE & XFce. It would have been better to talk about either DE's or try and include most of the WM's out there.

--
If I actually _could_ spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: This could have been better
    by Jason Clouse - Apr 19th 2003 20:10:33

    There's a ton of WM's out there but there's only 4 real options for desktop environments; KDE, GNOME, CDE & XFce.

    There's also GNUstep. It's an object oriented framework for developing user applications, and there are already quite a few apps. It also aims to be a complete desktop solution one day. It's source-code compatible with Apple's Cocoa frameworks used on Mac OS X.

    As I mentioned in a post above, there's an Objective-C WM being written for GNUstep called InterfaceWM that is just getting started.

    [reply] [top]


[»] Huh... WMs history/features article?
by MSilveira - Nov 30th 2002 08:39:55

What is this article all about?
I already know the history/features os most WMs... Where's the GNOME/KDE stuff?
BTW... GNOME relies on other WMs to have its window look. Though GNOME and KDE are not "WMs" and doesn't fit into this article... I guess.

These are my thoughys...

MS

--
Helloooo Worrrrld! :D

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Huh... WMs history/features article?
    by Mr_Tinkertrain - Nov 30th 2002 14:33:16


    > What is this article all about?
    > I already know the history/features os
    > most WMs... Where's the GNOME/KDE
    > stuff?
    > BTW... GNOME relies on other WMs to have
    > its window look. Though GNOME and KDE
    > are not "WMs" and doesn't fit
    > into this article... I guess.
    >
    > These are my thoughys...
    >
    > MS


    GNOME/KDE are more framewokrs than WMs... Enlightenment, my personal favorite, is a true window manager. The advantage is that it is ONLY a WM, with enough functionality for me to like it, lightweight and eyecandyfull at the same time...

    sorry about my english

    --
    by Mr_Tinkertrain [Up The IRONS!!!]

    [reply] [top]


      [»] Re: Huh... WMs history/features article?
      by Silvaran - Nov 30th 2002 17:58:21


      > GNOME/KDE are more framewokrs than
      > WMs... Enlightenment, my personal
      > favorite, is a true window manager. The
      > advantage is that it is ONLY a WM, with
      > enough functionality for me to like it,
      > lightweight and eyecandyfull at the same
      > time...

      Weird... I used to like Enlightenment too, but since the last update was October 2000, it's become vaporware IMHO. The news page is updated very rarely, Rasterman seems to have some qualms about the state of Linux desktop, but has failed to release his own solution himself. I've tried CVS, but I don't see anything magical about the code that comes out of there. It's difficult to build (oops, but that must be my fault, since they claim a failed build is a result of my setup, not theirs). I used to like it, I'd just like to see some progress outside of CVS, and some proof to back up his claims.

      [reply] [top]


        [»] Re: Huh... WMs history/features article?
        by yodabjorn - Dec 2nd 2002 12:26:52

        % Weird... I used to like Enlightenment
        > too, but since the last update was
        > October 2000, it's become vaporware
        > IMHO.
        Um maybe look at the e17 CVS. The latest instalment a an enlightenment re-architecting the 3rd or 4th so far if my memory servers me right. Anyhow they are setting out to achive much and bring may thing to the plate with e17. Chech out the overview here

        >The news page is updated very
        > rarely, Rasterman seems to have some
        > qualms about the state of Linux desktop,
        > but has failed to release his own
        > solution himself.
        Um so all the previous work on IMlib and Enligtenment. doesnt show that this guy is putting his ideas to work in code trying to come up with a "solution" ?

        >I've tried CVS, but I
        > don't see anything magical about the
        > code that comes out of there. It's
        > difficult to build (oops, but that must
        > be my fault, since they claim a failed
        > build is a result of my setup, not
        > theirs).
        yes cvs can be pain to compile everything. but thats generally the way any projects cvs tree goes befor a first RC release.

        > I used to like it, I'd just
        > like to see some progress outside of
        > CVS,
        how can you se progress outside cvs ?? cvs is where all the new code for the new release goes. you woudl rather see them fiddle with e16 then to rebuild e17 withthe new IDeas and architechture ? Create bloat on a foundation the developers aren't happy with?

        >and some proof to back up his
        > claims.

        jeeze and i dont even run the window manager, but i think what the enlightenment team has done for the linux desktop is not altogether quantified by the sum of the code, but by the idealisim they potrayed to the other WM's a fully flexable and user configurable WM from the way that a button click on a mouse was interpreted to the way a button on a titlebar reacted. This has shapped many of the modern window managers, and for that you should see that not only raster, but the enlightenment folks have definatly bought a "solution" to what they thought was a "problem".

        Anyhow if you want more features in e16, go hack it up yourself. This is OSS afterall no one really asked you or I our opinions about any of this. ;)

        yes my spelling/typing is that bad..

        --
        -- Don't blame me, I take no responsibilty for your actions.

        [reply] [top]


          [»] Re: Huh... WMs history/features article?
          by dondy - Dec 22nd 2002 06:02:06


          > % Weird... I used to like Enlightenment

          > % too, but since the last update was

          > % October 2000, it's become vaporware

          > % IMHO.

          >

          > Um maybe look at the e17 CVS. The latest
          > instalment a an enlightenment
          > re-architecting the 3rd or 4th so far if
          > my memory servers me right. Anyhow they
          > are setting out to achive much and bring
          > may thing to the plate with e17. Chech
          > out the overview here

          >

          > %The news page is updated very

          > % rarely, Rasterman seems to have some

          > % qualms about the state of Linux
          > desktop,

          > % but has failed to release his own

          > % solution himself.

          >

          > Um so all the previous work on IMlib and
          > Enligtenment. doesnt show that this guy
          > is putting his ideas to work in code
          > trying to come up with a "solution" ?

          >

          >

          > %I've tried CVS, but I

          > % don't see anything magical about the

          > % code that comes out of there. It's

          > % difficult to build (oops, but that
          > must

          > % be my fault, since they claim a
          > failed

          > % build is a result of my setup, not

          > % theirs).

          >

          > yes cvs can be pain to compile
          > everything. but thats generally the way
          > any projects cvs tree goes befor a first
          > RC release.

          >

          >

          > % I used to like it, I'd just

          > % like to see some progress outside of

          > % CVS,

          >

          > how can you se progress outside cvs ??

          > cvs is where all the new code for the
          > new release goes. you woudl rather see
          > them fiddle with e16 then to rebuild e17
          > withthe new IDeas and architechture ?
          > Create bloat on a foundation the
          > developers aren't happy with?

          >

          > %and some proof to back up his

          > % claims.

          >

          >

          >

          > jeeze and i dont even run the window
          > manager, but i think what the
          > enlightenment team has done for the
          > linux desktop is not altogether
          > quantified by the sum of the code, but
          > by the idealisim they potrayed to the
          > other WM's a fully flexable and user
          > configurable WM from the way that a
          > button click on a mouse was interpreted
          > to the way a button on a titlebar
          > reacted. This has shapped many of the
          > modern window managers, and for that you
          > should see that not only raster, but the
          > enlightenment folks have definatly
          > bought a "solution" to what they thought
          > was a "problem".

          >

          > Anyhow if you want more features in e16,
          > go hack it up yourself. This is OSS
          > afterall no one really asked you or I
          > our opinions about any of this. ;)

          >

          >

          > yes my spelling/typing is that bad..
          all blah blah, fvwm is what enlightement is made from. fvwm was the "mega-configurable-window-manager". and you're either ignorant or didn't know that.

          --
          you can't kill what doesn't die...

          [reply] [top]


            [»] Re: Huh... WMs history/features article?
            by Avi Y - Dec 24th 2002 01:19:31

            the right way to get a large number of testers/users and feedback for e17, is to do frequent releases (even once in 3-4 months in frequent enough), of sources which can be compiled and installed. right now compile/install from CVS seems to be only suitable for "proffesionals". a statement like "if CVS doesn't compile it's your problem, and we are not doing any releases in the near future" is driving potential users, to seek for other options...

            --
            avi Y

            [reply] [top]


              [»] Re: Huh... WMs history/features article?
              by Avi Y - Dec 24th 2002 01:22:29

              and by the way e16 is indeed out-of-date-ware. it's heavy,slow maybe lot's of eye-candys but little added functionality comparable to more modern WM.

              --
              avi Y

              [reply] [top]


        [»] Re: enlightenment
        by Azundris - Dec 4th 2002 09:50:06


        > Weird... I used to like Enlightenment
        > too, but since the last update was
        > October 2000, it's become vaporware
        > IMHO.
        Non sequitur. Just because e17 has not been
        released yet, e16 is not vaporware. It's not
        even abandonware. As for e17, e16 is so cool
        that I have a hard time thinking of something
        that e17 could do better, from a user's perspective.
        (From a design and development perspective, e17
        is interesting however.) Even if e17 never gets there,
        e16 is still one of the coolest WMs around -- many
        of its competitors sport a lot of interesting features
        these days, but e16 still seems to have the largest
        number of cool themes. Without themes, fancypants
        WMs are nothing, so three cheers to the artists out
        there.


        > I've tried CVS, but I don't see anything
        > magical about the code that comes out
        > of there.
        evas is pretty cool if you use it right.


        > It's difficult to build (oops, but that must
        > be my fault, since they claim a failed
        > build is a result of my setup, not
        > theirs).
        enlightenment 17 can and could be built,
        even if some of the tools and libs cannot
        always be built. The resulting binaries will
        be of varying stability, depending on what
        is being worked on at that time.

        The rub is that "can be built" sometimes
        includes using a trick here and there.
        If you have the "skills of a developer",
        it will be obvious what these tricks are,
        and working the magic won't take more
        than a couple of minutes. If you aren't,
        then what you could get out of CVS
        is not for you yet. Please excuse us for
        wanting to build something to install
        before building the installer. : )


        > I used to like it, I'd just like to see some progress
        > outside of CVS
        Once released, people will expect support for it.
        e17 is a moving target for now, so it would be difficult
        to provide support for it, especially with a very small
        team.


        > and some proof to back up his claims.
        Claims? What claims?

        [reply] [top]


        [»] Re: Huh... WMs history/features article?
        by pixelmoose - Dec 6th 2002 19:54:16


        > Weird... I used to like Enlightenment
        > too, but since the last update was
        > October 2000, it's become vaporware
        > IMHO.

        That'll be why I spend approx 3-4 weeks developing new themes for it. And it's not just me, new theme developers are springing up and sticking with e for sheer functionality (even now!)


        > The news page is updated very
        > rarely, Rasterman seems to have some
        > qualms about the state of Linux desktop,
        > but has failed to release his own
        > solution himself.

        All you need to quell this opinion is to see the evas demos! trust me on this. Animated objects and fonts rendered on the fly, all antialiased. It's not some cheap trick either.


        > I've tried CVS, but I
        > don't see anything magical about the
        > code that comes out of there. It's
        > difficult to build (oops, but that must
        > be my fault, since they claim a failed
        > build is a result of my setup, not
        > theirs).

        I can't understand how people would feel like this about cvs material, cvs is unstable, I think that's the whole point. It's so those that know how, will build stuff and help make it go, whereas mere mortals such as myself will just have to wait ;)


        > I used to like it, I'd just
        > like to see some progress outside of
        > CVS, and some proof to back up his
        > claims.

        ????

        [reply] [top]


      [»] Re: Huh... WMs history/features article?
      by Agent - May 8th 2004 01:41:23


      >
      > % What is this article all about?
      > % I already know the history/features
      > os
      > % most WMs... Where's the GNOME/KDE
      > % stuff?
      > % BTW... GNOME relies on other WMs to
      > have
      > % its window look. Though GNOME and KDE
      > % are not "WMs" and doesn't
      > fit
      > % into this article... I guess.
      > %
      > % These are my thoughys...
      > %
      > % MS
      >
      >
      >
      > GNOME/KDE are more framewokrs than
      > WMs... Enlightenment, my personal
      > favorite, is a true window manager. The
      > advantage is that it is ONLY a WM, with
      > enough functionality for me to like it,
      > lightweight and eyecandyfull at the same
      > time...
      >
      > sorry about my english
      Go Kwin all the way for me :D hehe

      --
      Real Estate - Rentals

      [reply] [top]


[»] Weak review...
by fLithm - Nov 30th 2002 07:11:37

This is a discussion of X window managers, not how they relate to current desktop systems such as KDE, and GNOME. I personally use Enlightenment, because not only am I an eye candy junky, but I dig functionality too. I like quick access to virtual desktops via keyboard, and the ability to perform massive customizations. I like the availability of many themes, and a strong loyal community style user base.

However, I think Ion (http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/) is a particularly interesting WM, with it not using windows at all, rather it splits up the screen space into many frames.

I wish the author had touched on all of the pro's, and con's of most of the major WM's, and then talked about some of the more unique one's out there.

To me, this seems like an article that got started but never finished.

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Weak review...
    by beza1e1 - Sep 11th 2003 10:24:23

    Yes the article lacks Ion Ion has everything i want from a window manager and it is simply the One, which gets out of my way best.

    [reply] [top]


[»] Window manager on its own
by JeroenV - Nov 30th 2002 04:46:43

While Gnome and KDE can be quite usefull, I would like to stress that (if configured properly), a window manager used on its own can be very ergonomical.
Especially if it features (E)(A)pplets or a dock/slit and desktop menus, one can do very well without bloated desktop environments. Try it!

--
Cheers, Jeroen http://home.student.utwente.nl/j.m.versteeg

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Window manager on its own
    by Mohammed Sameer - Nov 30th 2002 08:21:26


    > While Gnome and KDE can be quite
    > usefull, I would like to stress that (if
    > configured properly), a window manager
    > used on its own can be very
    > ergonomical.
    > Especially if it features (E)(A)pplets
    > or a dock/slit and desktop menus, one
    > can do very well without bloated desktop
    > environments. Try it!
    Yes that's true.
    For long time i was using wmaker only and the dock was the master here
    switched to gnome after the release of gnome2
    NOW what am i using ?
    sawfish as the main component and a fbpanel "hacked to keep only the launchbar" and another fspanel only
    also docking wmaker "sawlets ;)"

    [reply] [top]


      [»] Re: Window manager on its own
      by yodabjorn - Dec 2nd 2002 12:28:50


      >
      > % While Gnome and KDE can be quite
      > % usefull, I would like to stress that
      > (if
      > % configured properly), a window
      > manager
      > % used on its own can be very
      > % ergonomical.
      > % Especially if it features
      > (E)(A)pplets
      > % or a dock/slit and desktop menus, one
      > % can do very well without bloated
      > desktop
      > % environments. Try it!
      >
      > Yes that's true.
      > For long time i was using wmaker only
      > and the dock was the master here
      > switched to gnome after the release of
      > gnome2
      > NOW what am i using ?
      > sawfish as the main component and a
      > fbpanel "hacked to keep only the
      > launchbar" and another fspanel only
      > also docking wmaker "sawlets ;)"


      why not just use windowmaker ? sounds like you just reduced sawfish to what you had with WM in the first place.

      --
      -- Don't blame me, I take no responsibilty for your actions.

      [reply] [top]


        [»] Re: Window manager on its own
        by Mohammed Sameer - Dec 2nd 2002 14:17:54

        % why not just use windowmaker ? sounds
        > like you just reduced sawfish to what
        > you had with WM in the first place. Yes, you can say that, but if you have a look you'll say it's more like gnome2 but more lightweight
        Actually i've discovered that nothing is as flexible as sawfish "the sawlets for example are not actually docked @ the top-right, it's about 45 pixels below the top of the screen!!!!!!!!!! just not to cover the buttons on the titlebar" and the windows are maximized below them. Great!

        [reply] [top]


[»] What about kwin and blackbox?
by Norman Rogers - Nov 30th 2002 03:59:50

Kwin is the very flexible window manager that
comes with KDE. You can customise it to your
hearts content. It even supports ICEwm themes.

Blackbox is a very slick window manager great
for small systems (perfect for boxes with 64 mbs
of ram or less). I love it. but now I have a
newer faster system I can enjoy KDE at its full
speed!

[reply] [top]


[»] Fluxbox
by Nils O. Selċsdal - Nov 30th 2002 03:07:32

Aww.. no fluxbox ? Its window tabbing feature is a blessing!

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Fluxbox
    by Mina Naguib - Nov 30th 2002 08:17:39

    I agree. No mention of fluxbox/blackbox made this review look fairly uncomprehensive.


    > Aww.. no fluxbox ?
    > Its window tabbing feature is a
    > blessing!
    >

    [reply] [top]


      [»] Re: Fluxbox
      by freetz - Nov 30th 2002 09:02:10


      > I agree. No mention of fluxbox/blackbox
      > made this review look fairly
      > uncomprehensive. Don't forget about openbox :) Justice for all ;)

      [reply] [top]


        [»] Re: Fluxbox
        by freetz - Nov 30th 2002 09:03:18

        ehhh html formatting ;>

        [reply] [top]


          [»] Re: Fluxbox
          by wouter - Dec 1st 2002 00:07:31


          > ehhh html formatting ;>
          >

          Yes... and you broke it bigtime... :)

          [reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Fluxbox
    by Rando Christensen - Nov 30th 2002 10:16:12


    > Aww.. no fluxbox ?
    > Its window tabbing feature is a
    > blessing!
    >
    If you like Fluxbox, You should take a look at Pekwm. It's got a window grouping feature similar to fluxbox tabs, A lightweight pixmap theme engine (which ends up meaning that the themes look good, and still end up rendering faster than Fluxbox), and generally a bit faster. (Yes, it still has dockapp support, It's called the 'harbour' under pekwm.)

    [reply] [top]


      [»] Re: Fluxbox
      by Rando Christensen - Nov 30th 2002 10:38:48

      One more feature I forgot to mention (and perhaps one of the most popular pekwm features) is the AutoProps... This is a very robust feature that allows you to specify all sorts of properties for a window to have on launch (Being grouped with other windows, size, position, which desktop, whether it has a border/titlebar, sticky, etc).

      [reply] [top]


        [»] Re: Fluxbox
        by Elliot Kendall - Nov 30th 2002 19:41:13


        > One more feature I forgot to mention
        > (and perhaps one of the most popular
        > pekwm features) is the AutoProps... This
        > is a very robust feature that allows you
        > to specify all sorts of properties for a
        > window to have on launch (Being grouped
        > with other windows, size, position,
        > which desktop, whether it has a
        > border/titlebar, sticky, etc).

        AfterStep has had support for that sort of thing for ages. Just make appropriate entries in the autoexec and database files and all your favorite apps are started when AfterStep starts, exactly where you want them, and with any of various flags set. Despite popular opinion, AfterStep really is more than just "that window manager people used to use before Window Maker."

        [reply] [top]


        [»] Re: Fluxbox
        by Avi Y - Dec 1st 2002 06:24:13

        I have tried both fluxbox and pekwm. fluxbox is based on blackbox, and pekwm on aewm++. therefore the WM "itself" has better functionality in fluxbox. In the "Added" functionality, fluxbox is still better in navigation between workspaces/windows, and has the advantage of compatibility to all blackbox styles... pekwm - has only "icon" menu no "workspace" menu available. and the new "hpanel" gives only partial solution to workspace navigation (it is still not convenient to find a window in another workspace). But, pekwm is much better than fluxbox in windows grouping and auto-properties. The automatic grouping of windows works better on pekwm. But, blackbox/fluxbox slit is still much better than the harbor. So, fluxbox is more usable right now, but pekwm has a bright future - if it has frequent releases...

        --
        avi Y

        [reply] [top]




© Copyright 2007 SourceForge, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
About freshmeat.net •  Privacy Statement •  Terms of Use •  Trademark Guidelines •  Advertise •  Contact Us • 
ThinkGeek •  Slashdot  •  ITMJ •  Linux.com •  NewsForge  •  SourceForge.net  •  Surveys •  Jobs •  PriceGrabber