Re: Window managers-which one?
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:52:12 -0800 Seeker5528 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Currently I am mixing and matching stuff, starting what I want to run from a .xsession file in my home directory. My .xsession file looks like this: # Begin .xsession gnome-settings-daemon gnome-panel #skippy docker -iconsize 64 wmifs -i eth0 wmwave wmifs -i eth2 wmmon wmnetselect -e /usr/bin/firefox -t fbpager -w wallpaper-tray kmix kmixctrl --restore exec fluxbox #End .xsession [...] Now that's what I call eclectic. :-) -- Liam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
On (31/10/06 13:19), Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote: On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +, Clive Menzies wrote: Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. I went pretty much the same way, but then one day I thought fluxbox was kind of slow to draw menus etc... And I found openbox! It's fast, looks just like fluxbox, except that it doesn't have the extra fluff. :-) You may want to give it a try. Well another convert :) openbox is almost as functional but without the extra 'fluff' as you say. It also seems more predictable in terms of behaviour. fluxbox used to do some strange things when trying to 'stick' gkrellm to every workspace. Thanks Clive -- www.clivemenzies.co.uk ... ...strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
* Clive Menzies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I went pretty much the same way, but then one day I thought fluxbox was kind of slow to draw menus etc... And I found openbox! It's fast, looks just like fluxbox, except that it doesn't have the extra fluff. :-) You may want to give it a try. Well another convert :) openbox is almost as functional but without the extra 'fluff' as you say. It also seems more predictable in terms of behaviour. fluxbox used to do some strange things when trying to 'stick' gkrellm to every workspace. I like Openbox a lot, though I wish it had desktop warping, but since using Debian Etch I cannot get it to work right. Any panel I use, so far I have tried fbpanel and pypanel, seems to swallow any windows permanently. If I minimize a window I cannot click on the button and restore it. I tried compiling the apps myself but nothing seemed to change. Oddly, it is being able to use things like pypanel which is what I prefer about Openbox. Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:51:12 + B. Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is which wm to use, as Gnome install metacity by default and I don't have experience with anything else. There's a lot of information on Google Groups and in the Debian archives, however I have a more specific question (bearing in mind this will be used as desktop and ratpoison is not an option). Personally I prefer fluxbox, whether I am using it stand alone, with KDE or with Gnome. Currently I am mixing and matching stuff, starting what I want to run from a .xsession file in my home directory. My .xsession file looks like this: # Begin .xsession gnome-settings-daemon gnome-panel #skippy docker -iconsize 64 wmifs -i eth0 wmwave wmifs -i eth2 wmmon wmnetselect -e /usr/bin/firefox -t fbpager -w wallpaper-tray kmix kmixctrl --restore exec fluxbox #End .xsession Since I am using Gnome panel, visibility of the fluxbox panel is set to false, and using kmix this way you have to edit ~/.kde/share/config/kmixrc setting Visible=false or kmix has this annoying habit of popping up every time you log in instead of waiting until you click it's tray icon. Later, Seeker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
Ron Johnson wrote: Get off my lawn, you young whippersnappers! Oh, stop being such a grumpy old man. :-p *Window* manager != *display* manager. Yeah I know, but both have to be... SHINY!!! :-D Best regards, -- George Borisov DXSolutions Ltd signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Window managers-which one?
On 31 Oct 2006, Douglas Tutty wrote: I use icewm. It does everything I want without the struggle of adding features to a less featurful wm and is low on resource usage. It must be fast because it doesn't get in the way on the 486. Doug. Another vote for icewm. I've tried numerous others but always come back to icewm in the end. Anthony -- Anthony Campbell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft-free zone - Using Linux Gnu-Debian http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, on-line books and sceptical articles) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/01/06 03:18, George Borisov wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: Get off my lawn, you young whippersnappers! Oh, stop being such a grumpy old man. :-p *Window* manager != *display* manager. Yeah I know, but both have to be... SHINY!!! :-D Bah humbug!!! - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is common sense really valid? For example, it is common sense to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that common sense is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFSKQHS9HxQb37XmcRArEIAKDvMKnjXbDcDOGEXkuirkNMErfBNACfVeiA 5d8psPS8YQ+P1k+8CLRM4Vk= =8OAW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
Ron Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/01/06 03:18, George Borisov wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: Get off my lawn, you young whippersnappers! Oh, stop being such a grumpy old man. :-p *Window* manager != *display* manager. Yeah I know, but both have to be... SHINY!!! :-D Bah humbug!!! In a multi-seat Debian system where there are several videocards/xservers/monitors/keyboards/mice, all of which is now possible in Etch/Sid with just xorg.conf gdm is a must. It shows the logon screen on each monitor and the user just logs on. The startx alternative would be excruciatingly difficult: first going over to the monitor with VT's, logging on as user, giving the right startx command, walking over to the monitor you have chosen, and you leave your vt dangling. H -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
B. Hoffmann wrote: Hi all ! I' ve been installing purely a base sytem this time as opposed to before always going with the default install with Gnome. Then proceeded to install xfce and synaptic and that's it so far. Don't want any unnecessary fluff this time. My question is which wm to use, as Gnome install metacity by default and I don't have experience with anything else. There's a lot of information on Google Groups and in the Debian archives, however I have a more specific question (bearing in mind this will be used as desktop and ratpoison is not an option). 1. How does sawfish compare in functionality and is it a good option with xfce? 2. Anybody have experience with qvwm? 3. Intending to use Crystal-fvwm later on, will any of these play nice with fvwm too? Must confess I'm still a bit confused as to what exactly a WM does as some seem to have themes available for them which I thought was down to the DE. Also for example icewm and fvwm seem to be both window managers and DE's? I use fvwm exclusively. PRO: very versatile. CON: 1. I am now wedded to .fvwm2rc 2. I have no idea of the total capability of fvwm. H -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
B. Hoffmann wrote: BTW, Xfce seems to manage windows currently but it's not terribly smooth, it's giving a sort of rolling effect when redrawing, that's why the quest for something better. Yes, I had the same feeling with both Xfce and icewm. That's the reason I stuck with gnome. It works, after all The only issue is file browser in my version of Gnome which is disgusting and xedit which works slw, but I'm used on it. -- Mladen Adamovic http://www.online-utility.org http://www.cheapvps.info http://www.vpsreview.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:55:40 -0800 Marc Shapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Douglas Tutty wrote: On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +, Clive Menzies wrote: On (31/10/06 14:51), B. Hoffmann wrote: I' ve been installing purely a base sytem this time as opposed to before always going with the default install with Gnome. Also for example icewm and fvwm seem to be both window managers and DE's? Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. I like basic functionality, configurability, without bloat; I have been running a 486 for years... I use icewm. It does everything I want without the struggle of adding features to a less featurful wm and is low on resource usage. It must be fast because it doesn't get in the way on the 486. I have been using fvwm since I started with linux and Debian about 8 years ago. That was on a 486/33MHz with 12MB of memory. I installed Debian on a 128MB removable disk. I have used KDE on a few occaisions, but I generally prefer a clear, uncluttered screen. I also don't care for all of the extra processes that get started by KDE apps, even when you are not running KDE. One of the main reasons I don't run any kde apps. There are a few nice ones but if you start one up you then need to kill off 7 others manually when you close it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
Anthony Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31 Oct 2006, Douglas Tutty wrote: I use icewm. It does everything I want without the struggle of adding features to a less featurful wm and is low on resource usage. It must be fast because it doesn't get in the way on the 486. Doug. Another vote for icewm. I've tried numerous others but always come back to icewm in the end. For someone like me who grew-up with Windows, icewm was a good choice. I didn't want all the bloat in KDE or Gnome and, after some tweaking, icewm has gotten pretty close to my (good or bad) habits from Windows. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
Micha Feigin wrote: On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:55:40 -0800 Marc Shapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Douglas Tutty wrote: On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +, Clive Menzies wrote: On (31/10/06 14:51), B. Hoffmann wrote: I' ve been installing purely a base sytem this time as opposed to before always going with the default install with Gnome. Also for example icewm and fvwm seem to be both window managers and DE's? Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. I like basic functionality, configurability, without bloat; I have been running a 486 for years... I use icewm. It does everything I want without the struggle of adding features to a less featurful wm and is low on resource usage. It must be fast because it doesn't get in the way on the 486. I have been using fvwm since I started with linux and Debian about 8 years ago. That was on a 486/33MHz with 12MB of memory. I installed Debian on a 128MB removable disk. I have used KDE on a few occaisions, but I generally prefer a clear, uncluttered screen. I also don't care for all of the extra processes that get started by KDE apps, even when you are not running KDE. One of the main reasons I don't run any kde apps. There are a few nice ones but if you start one up you then need to kill off 7 others manually when you close it. Precisely! The last two that I actually used were kcalc and kate. They have been replaced by galculator and SciTE and I am quite happy about it. Nothing left to start up artsd and interfere with my sound, or to startup a million kdeinit processes. Removing libartsc0 did a marvellous job of eliminating kde and its apps from my box. -- Marc Shapiro No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here. Boom. Sooner or later ... boom! - Susan Ivanova: B5 - Grail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
On 11/1/06, Marc Shapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Precisely! The last two that I actually used were kcalc and kate. They have been replaced by galculator and SciTE and I am quite happy about it. Nothing left to start up artsd and interfere with my sound, or to startup a million kdeinit processes. Removing libartsc0 did a marvellous job of eliminating kde and its apps from my box. It seems to me like the KDE processes used to not go away, but now they do. For example, I closed Amarok (only kde app I had running) less that a minute ago and all the kde processes are now gone (without killing them manually). As for arts, yeah, it sucks (waiting for kde 4 and phonon...). My solution was to disable the sound system in the kde control center, and then remove the arts package. I left the libarts packages, because some programs depend on them, but without artsd, libarts can't hurt anything. Of course, if you can manage without any kde apps, that's great, but I need my Amarok, and occasionally kword, kivio, krita, ksnapshot and konq. Cheers, Kelly -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 10:53 am, Andrei Popescu wrote: For someone like me who grew-up with Windows, icewm was a good choice. I didn't want all the bloat in KDE or Gnome and, after some tweaking, icewm has gotten pretty close to my (good or bad) habits from Windows. I use KDE or wmaker. -- Paganism is populated almost entirely by white middle class academia ... A whopping 75 percent of them participate in grindingly boring interpretations of deviant sexuality. - alliekatt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
On (31/10/06 14:51), B. Hoffmann wrote: I' ve been installing purely a base sytem this time as opposed to before always going with the default install with Gnome. Then proceeded to install xfce and synaptic and that's it so far. Don't want any unnecessary fluff this time. My question is which wm to use, as Gnome install metacity by default and I don't have experience with anything else. There's a lot of information on Google Groups and in the Debian archives, however I have a more specific question (bearing in mind this will be used as desktop and ratpoison is not an option). 1. How does sawfish compare in functionality and is it a good option with xfce? 2. Anybody have experience with qvwm? 3. Intending to use Crystal-fvwm later on, will any of these play nice with fvwm too? Must confess I'm still a bit confused as to what exactly a WM does as some seem to have themes available for them which I thought was down to the DE. Also for example icewm and fvwm seem to be both window managers and DE's? Apologies for bringing this up again! Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. Regards Clive -- www.clivemenzies.co.uk ... ...strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
B. Hoffmann wrote: I' ve been installing purely a base sytem this time as opposed to before always going with the default install with Gnome. Then proceeded to install xfce and synaptic and that's it so far. Don't want any unnecessary fluff this time. Not sure why you need Gnome in the first place. If you are happy with Xfce (do you mean Xfce4?) then you can just do (after installing the base system and Xserver): aptitude install xfce4 If you want even less bloat then you can install Xfce4 components individually (takes a bit more effort). You will also need a display manager (unless you like the whole startx thing). xdm - small and simple and can look nice with a bit of effort wdm - small and simple but ugly :-( gdm - pretty and simple but not small and depends on lots of Gnome libraries kdm - probably pretty as well (don't use it) but depends on pretty much the entire of KDE. I personally use gdm, but I used wdm before (before getting too depressed about how ugly it is.) Best regards, -- George Borisov DXSolutions Ltd signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Window managers-which one?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/31/06 09:24, George Borisov wrote: B. Hoffmann wrote: [snip] You will also need a display manager (unless you like the whole startx thing). Grouchy Geek says, Since you can start X with startx, by definition, you do *not need* a display manager. xdm - small and simple and can look nice with a bit of effort wdm - small and simple but ugly :-( gdm - pretty and simple but not small and depends on lots of Gnome libraries kdm - probably pretty as well (don't use it) but depends on pretty much the entire of KDE. I personally use gdm, but I used wdm before (before getting too depressed about how ugly it is.) Why waste RAM on something you have *no* need for and doesn't *do* anything that the console does just as well? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is common sense really valid? For example, it is common sense to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that common sense is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFR31fS9HxQb37XmcRArEjAJ41Ieym0ZX9YT585gGzfSU6o0MTKwCgwyib rd2zm3H1Lhw1zutg+N65tUc= =vD8w -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
B. Hoffmann: Must confess I'm still a bit confused as to what exactly a WM does as some seem to have themes available for them which I thought was down to the DE. Yes and No. A WM is supposed to, well, manage windows (or give the user the chance to do it). Typically this includes: * place windows somewhere on the desktop (may be interactive) * decorate windows with titlebars, borders, action buttons (minimize, maximize, close etc.). Of course the window decoration (not the content!) may be themed. * draw a taskbar somewhere on the desktop * some sort of desktop decoration (background image, icons etc.) While everything except the first job is purely optional, most WMs do other things, too. They provide virtual desktops, have some kinde of start menu, show time date etc. Desktop environments do all this, too, but they try to integrate the work of several programs. Sometimes this is done in a way that makes every single program more useful if it is running together with the other ones. Gnome, for example, has (at least) three important programs running, which interact with the user: * Metacity, the WM (Very, very basic. Draws window borders and positions windows in a widely accepted, but IMO braindead manner.) * gnome-panel, draws the bars at the top and bottom of the default desktop and uses other programs (applets) to show something useful (menu, taskbar, date time, systray, $younameit). * nautilus, the file manager, which is also responsible for drawing desktop icons. (A design decision apparently adopted from Windows, but Maybe Apple does this, too. Either way, I don't understand it.) What's so nice about this is that things like Drag'n'Drop from the (nautilus-managed) desktop to a gnome-panel work. And you can alter the look and feel in one central place for all (DE-aware) applications. Also for example icewm and fvwm seem to be both window managers and DE's? While I am not completely sure about fvwm, as I have never used it, IceWM is definitely not a DE but a WM. It does have far more features than a WM strictly needs (themes, start menu, battery, CPU network monitor, clock, intelligent window placement, tons of configuration options) but it does not interact with other programs in any special way. It is pretty self-contained. And it doesn't care if you start another program to manage the desktop (icons, background image) or use a different program to display a taskbar. By the way, you can use IceWM when running Gnome (replacing Metacity). If you are searching for a lightweight WM and are not afraid to tweak text files (only key=value kind of syntax), I can only recommend giving IceWM a try. I use it since my first days with Linux and still love it. It's just not as shiny as a Gnome or Xfce4 desktop (but close). J. -- Fashion is more important to me than war, famine, disease or art. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Window managers-which one?
On 10/31/06, Jeronimo Pellegrini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +, Clive Menzies wrote: Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. I went pretty much the same way, but then one day I thought fluxbox was kind of slow to draw menus etc... And I found openbox! It's fast, looks just like fluxbox, except that it doesn't have the extra fluff. :-) You may want to give it a try. I was a long time fluxbox user, but I didn't really like the task bar. I'd rather use something like WindowMaker, which manages windows more like a Mac. I used WindowMaker for a while, but it didn't work well with all programs. I finally found Enlightenment (pun intended). It's very stable and has just enough fluff, in the form of user feedback, so that it has a more solid feel than Fluxbox. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +, Clive Menzies wrote: Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. I went pretty much the same way, but then one day I thought fluxbox was kind of slow to draw menus etc... And I found openbox! It's fast, looks just like fluxbox, except that it doesn't have the extra fluff. :-) You may want to give it a try. J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
Jeronimo Pellegrini escribe: I went pretty much the same way, but then one day I thought fluxbox was kind of slow to draw menus etc... And I found openbox! It's fast, looks just like fluxbox, except that it doesn't have the extra fluff. :-) You may want to give it a try. Count another vote for openbox, it's damn light and damn beautiful and turns a 486 into a ready for internet box. Cordially, Ismael -- Ismael Valladolid Torres Il est vain de pleurer sur l'esprit, il suffit de travailler pour lui. Albert Camus http://digitrazos.info/ http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/OpenPGP key ID: 0xDE721AF4 http://www.hispasonic.com/foro73.html Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpUxn9eKqfdn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Window managers-which one?
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:57:44AM -0800, Jason Dunsmore wrote: On 10/31/06, Jeronimo Pellegrini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +, Clive Menzies wrote: Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. I went pretty much the same way, but then one day I thought fluxbox was kind of slow to draw menus etc... And I found openbox! It's fast, looks just like fluxbox, except that it doesn't have the extra fluff. :-) You may want to give it a try. I was a long time fluxbox user, but I didn't really like the task bar. Yes! Neither did I. And my openbox doesn't show one (it's optional). :-) I'd rather use something like WindowMaker, which manages windows more like a Mac. I used WindowMaker for a while, but it didn't work well with all programs. I finally found Enlightenment (pun intended). It's very stable and has just enough fluff, in the form of user feedback, so that it has a more solid feel than Fluxbox. I've found Enlightenment too bloated... But that's a matter of taste, so... :-) J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
Ron Johnson wrote: I personally use gdm, but I used wdm before (before getting too depressed about how ugly it is.) Why waste RAM on something you have *no* need for and doesn't *do* anything that the console does just as well? Because I like shiny. Shiny == good. Anyway, I have the RAM to spare, so... SHINY!!! If it makes you feel better, the main reason I use a window manager is so that I can have lots of consoles open at the same time (what else would you use this GUI thing for?) ;-) Best regards, -- George Borisov DXSolutions Ltd signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Window managers-which one?
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +, Clive Menzies wrote: On (31/10/06 14:51), B. Hoffmann wrote: I' ve been installing purely a base sytem this time as opposed to before always going with the default install with Gnome. Also for example icewm and fvwm seem to be both window managers and DE's? Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. I like basic functionality, configurability, without bloat; I have been running a 486 for years... I use icewm. It does everything I want without the struggle of adding features to a less featurful wm and is low on resource usage. It must be fast because it doesn't get in the way on the 486. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
On (31/10/06 13:19), Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote: On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +, Clive Menzies wrote: Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. I went pretty much the same way, but then one day I thought fluxbox was kind of slow to draw menus etc... And I found openbox! It's fast, looks just like fluxbox, except that it doesn't have the extra fluff. :-) You may want to give it a try. Not one I've tried... so yes I'll give it a whirl :) Regards Clive -- www.clivemenzies.co.uk ... ...strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/31/06 11:39, George Borisov wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: I personally use gdm, but I used wdm before (before getting too depressed about how ugly it is.) Why waste RAM on something you have *no* need for and doesn't *do* anything that the console does just as well? Because I like shiny. Shiny == good. Anyway, I have the RAM to spare, so... SHINY!!! Get off my lawn, you young whippersnappers! If it makes you feel better, the main reason I use a window manager is so that I can have lots of consoles open at the same time (what else would you use this GUI thing for?) ;-) You will also need a display manager *Window* manager != *display* manager. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is common sense really valid? For example, it is common sense to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that common sense is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFR6UnS9HxQb37XmcRAsdHAJ9DP2FZFY3qFC1Z6gT/uCyW8NzEWQCgzjFD khu9j7xjO4LY/8UvpsgkF+Q= =huLZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
Douglas Tutty wrote: On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +, Clive Menzies wrote: On (31/10/06 14:51), B. Hoffmann wrote: I' ve been installing purely a base sytem this time as opposed to before always going with the default install with Gnome. Also for example icewm and fvwm seem to be both window managers and DE's? Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty functional. I like basic functionality, configurability, without bloat; I have been running a 486 for years... I use icewm. It does everything I want without the struggle of adding features to a less featurful wm and is low on resource usage. It must be fast because it doesn't get in the way on the 486. I have been using fvwm since I started with linux and Debian about 8 years ago. That was on a 486/33MHz with 12MB of memory. I installed Debian on a 128MB removable disk. I have used KDE on a few occaisions, but I generally prefer a clear, uncluttered screen. I also don't care for all of the extra processes that get started by KDE apps, even when you are not running KDE. -- Marc Shapiro No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here. Boom. Sooner or later ... boom! - Susan Ivanova: B5 - Grail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Window managers-which one?
Thank you for all the replies and good explanations, and a bit of a laugh. Jochen Schulz wrote: Yes and No. A WM is supposed to, well, manage windows (or give the user the chance to do it). Typically this includes: * place windows somewhere on the desktop (may be interactive) * decorate windows with titlebars, borders, action buttons (minimize, maximize, close etc.). Of course the window decoration (not the content!) may be themed. Jochen: Does this mean that the Themes in Gnome for window frames (Crux etc.) are really metacity themes and were not available if metacity was not installed? George Borisov wrote: Not sure why you need Gnome in the first place. If you are happy with Xfce (do you mean Xfce4?) then you can just do (after installing the base system and Xserver): Yes I mean Xfce4. Xfce for me is now just a faster better Gnome. It's getting amazingly full featured and with Zenwalk and Vector standard and some other distros showcasing it it really shines. I liked Gnome and most of its apps a lot but lately found it rather slow. The journey just started, probably will end up with only something like blackbox like you guys one day. If you want even less bloat then you can install Xfce4 components individually (takes a bit more effort). Nice to end up with only what you want and nothing more. Got fluxbox on a small DSL partition but for now it's Xfce on the main desktop. Plus - how do you get icons to display on your fluxbox work space? What about Sawfish? -- Kind Regards, B. Hoffmann
Re: Window managers-which one?
Plus - how do you get icons to display on your fluxbox work space? Install the program idesk. In your startup file, at /home/user/.fluxbox/startup, add idesk (without quotes). Start fluxbox and you'll see a home icon. If my memory serves me correctly, I think it's pretty easy to create other icons. Files managing the icons are in the /home/user/.idesktop directory. Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
