On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> >
> > I now remember why I don't like it. It's too much
> > like Windows. You activate your menu(s) by clicking
> > the little icon at the lower left.
>
> Yes, you can get your menu that way in icewm.
Strange. I couldn't at first, but after I shot
that e-mail off, I could. Maybe I hadn't got the
hang of the timing yet.
> > Another thing I don't like about icewm is that
> > it's not very configurable... even the author says
> > that, "Extreme configurability similar to fvwm and many
> > other window managers is NOT the goal."
>
> What are you wanting to configure?
> icewm has several different themes (built in):
> motif, win95, warp3, warp4, gtk2, etc.
I know.... and they all have that stupid
Windows-looking taskbar at the bottom, taking up
real-estate and serving no useful function.
I don't like any window manager or DE that thinks
I need a taskbar.
> It's also pretty simple to alter the menu-bar
> and the task-bar. However, if you are hoping
> to turn the desktop into a triangle and run
> penguins around the border, icewm is not for you.
I want NO task bar, and what's a menu-bar?
I also don't like it that things happen when
I unclick. I like it when events happen onclick.
The icewm unclick events are also strangely
timed. I can click on the screen a dozen times
and get menus maybe half of that... so I also
don't like that I have to click/unclick in a
certain number of milliseconds, or the event doesn't
happen. Just for the heck of it, left click on the
screen, hold for 700 or 800 milliseconds, and then
release. Anything happen? It doesn't for me.
Oh, yeah... no pager. I like to be able to
bump up against the side of the desktop and slide
into another... or go to the pager and click on
whichever desktop I want to go to. It's nice to
have 8 desktops too (or 9, or 18, or however many
I want to configure).
[1][2][3][4] just doesn't cut it for say, taking a
screenshot of one desktop, and then quickly jumping
to an adjacent one for the screenshot to appear.
But more than anything else, is simply that I've
been using fvwm2 for 4 years. I'm familiar with just
about everything it can do, and doing those things
is automatic. I don't have to stop and think
"occupy all" means "stick/unstick"
> I think icewm's cutest feature is that tiny little window
> in the lower right corner (next to the time/date) that
> shows CPU load.
In my icewm, it's just a black box. My machine mostly
runs just above 100% so the CPU indicator in icewm is
useless.
In fvwm2, as soon as you hit 100%, the scale
changes so 100% becomes a line across the middle
of the box. Then if you hit 200%, the scale
changes once again. (Now that I go back and look at
http://wizard.dyndns.org/scr_fvwm2_010905.png ,
I see I was at 200% at that time. My xfont server
died shortly after that, leaving me X-less until I
figured out why startx wouldn't work. Of course, I
have to blame it on running icewm at the same time as
fvwm2. After all, fvwm2 HAD been running continously
for 30 days. Then I start up icewm in addition, and
poof! X dies. Hmmm....
$ uptime
12:27am up 30 days, 16:28, 13 users, load average: 1.09, 1.04, 1.01
> I was really surprise when I first
> dialed my ISP from icewm -- another tiny window
> opened up (next to the CPU one) to show ppp traffic.
> How handy is that? No wondering when ppp connects.
> Just watch for the wee window. No wondering why your
> mail is taking so long to download. Just watch the
> traffic (or lack of it).
I guess it depends on how visual you are. I used
one of those gui doo-dads for a short while (see
http://wizard.dyndns.org/screenshot-m.png) where you
click on the little gage to connect or disconnect.
Now, with cable and being online 24x7, that all
becomes a faint memory.
> I can't believe that I've
> got these features on such a slim wm.
Well, as I said before, each to his own. I'm stuck
with fvwm2 by the immense inertia of a long and pleasant
familiarity. Any other wm will have to be absolutely
stunning in order to seriously tempt me. ;-)
... and just so you know that was tongue in cheek,
I don't really blame icewm for crashing my X-server.
The fact that it stayed up for 30 days is pretty
amazing. A couple years ago, X would crash according
to Murphy's law somewhere in the neighborhood of
7 to 10 days. I got to the point where I was trying
to remember to kill it every Sunday so it wouldn't
die in the middle of something important.
- Steve
