"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What I've seen is something different: application writers have > become so lazy that they don't bother any more to check if their > application works on all Windows managers.
Yes, I've seen this as well. > For example, for over a year OpenOffice's menus didn't work well in > ctwm - not because ctwm doesn't keep up with modern practices, but > because OpenOffice didn't care that their menus can't work in any > window manager with the traditional "focus follows mouse" setting. Yes, I had to beat them firmly to get that fixed. BTW, they still don't work if you also use RaiseDelay. > But even with those applications, I hardly ever saw any significant > problem. My recent decision was funded on these two, long standing problems: 1. Focus follows mouse in combination with RaiseDelay is buggy. This has been known for a long time, but it seems to hard to fix. This causes application menus and popups of many apps to malfunction (they disappear behind the main window, making access impossible). 2. It is not possible to use Ctwm in a Gnome session. At least, not without many conflicts in settings and a long (3 minute!) delay upon startup. It seems the Gnome session manager is waiting for some signal from Ctwm that it doesn't get. > Moreover, originally X-Windows had a beautiful design separating the > functionality to separate programs. A window manager is just a normal X > program that provides several services (for decorating windows, moving them, > etc.) as specified in the ICCCM. You could have other programs that do other > things - e.g., one program be panel, another be a print manager, a third > being a session manager, and so on. If Gnome and KDE decided they want all > these things (or some of them) to be bundled into one program, why do we > have to follow suite? Can't we have a "session manager" separate from the > "window manager", for example? Gnome has a separate session manager, window manager, panel manager and desktop manager. To use a different component it needs to be ICCCM compliant. Unfortunately, Ctwm is not. Once again I want to emphasize that I do not blame anyone for this. It's just the way it is grown. -- Johan
