On Monday 01 March 2010 21:17:23 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Monday 01 March 2010 22:28:42 Mick wrote: > > > My pet peeve is Desktop. I have two monitors at work and use two X > > > screens. KDE wants to create a Desktop and a Desktop-1 directory. I > > > want it to just > > > > > > use the same set of files for both - background, icons, plasma widgets > > > must be the same on both monitors, but actual app windows running > > > there independent. This seems perfectly reasonable to me - e17 does it > > > out the box - but thus far I have not found the magic voodoo spell that > > > makes it happen. > > > > How does e17 compare in terms of resources to other WMs/DEs like *box, > > LXDE, xface, these days? I had a look at it when it was all the rage > > back when, but it looked too Gnomey to me at the time and I couldn't find > > a reason for preferring it over say fluxbox. > > As of right now, I really couldn't say. About 6 months ago the e17 devs > started ramping up for a release that was supposed to happen round about > last xmas. Then Samsung and a French manufacturer of set-top boxes got in > on the action, as a result the code changes faster than Paris Hilton > changes her knickers. It stopped reliably building from one hour to the > next ... :-) > > So I switched to KDE to get some stability and haven't tried again since. > > e17 has to be evaluated on it's own merits, like all other software. it's > not "like" anything ... except perhaps e17 itself. It's claims to fame are > twofold: > > 1. Themeability. If you have every written a KDE or Gnome theme engine you > will know what a serious ball-ache it is. Code mixed in with specs mixed in > with image files.... e17 does it a different way with .edj files. You write > an .edc spec file in a declarative style (as in you say *what* you want, > not *how* it is done - that's the engine's job to figure that out) and > supply your images to be used on the widgets. Then run it through a > mini-compiler to produce an .edj, tell the wm to use it and voila! theme > applied. It's not just a simple "replace all those .pngs with these .pngs" > to get a different set of colours - you change the entire look and feel of > the desktop and the engine just knows what to do with it. > > 2. Configurability. Everything that can possibly be changeable is so, > including stuff that really shouldn't be :-) It makes KDE look minimalist. > Fortunately, a lot of the advanced stuff can be hidden in the config dialog > which improves things. > > Resources - it's hard to write a wm these days that isn't a resource hog in > some ways. If you want transparency and composition, be prepared to sell > some cpu to get it. Having said that, e17 runs blindingly fast on ARM > mobile devices when configured appropriately. It's nowhere near as > minimalist as *box, those wm's are in a class where if they suit your > needs, then nothing else will come close, especially not e17 which is > designed to showcase graphic effects to a large degree. *box is the polar > opposite of that
Thanks Alan, your insight in this is much appreciated. I've been trying different things and keep coming back to fluxbox. Having spent time some years ago to set it up just-as-I-want-it in terms of the menu with all my apps, as well as the windows behaviour and decoration, I find that I am trying to change other WMs to behave like fluxbox! Ha! I am a creature of (minimalist) habit I guess. I'll probably have another pop at e17 and see what gives. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
