On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:34:28PM -0700, David E. Fox wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:52:00 -0700
Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
XFCE calls it the Mini Command Line. KDE calls it something else
which
I am most likely misremembering as Launch Bar. It is not the panel at the
On Jun 15 2005, David E. Fox wrote:
Still, the load time doesn't bother me all that much, even though Im
running a relatively underpowered machine by today's standards (Athlon
1000 mhz). I do have quite a bit of RAM here (768 megs), though.
Underpowered machine? If that is underpowered, then,
Anthony Campbell:
On 14 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
I think it was already there when I started using IceWM (~4 years ago)!
Unfortunately, it lacks Tab-completion and history. What I like is that
when you finish the command with Ctrl-Enter the command is started
inside a terminal.
On 15 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
Anthony Campbell:
On 14 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
I think it was already there when I started using IceWM (~4 years ago)!
Unfortunately, it lacks Tab-completion and history. What I like is that
when you finish the command with Ctrl-Enter
Anthony Campbell:
On 15 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
Yes and no. With Win-Space I meant my keyboard shortcut: Windows key +
Space bar. You could also do Ctrl-Alt-Space.
Thanks for this clarification. My Windows keys don't seem to do this
ModSuperIsCtrlAlT=1 # 0/1
J.
--
I am getting
On 15 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
Anthony Campbell:
On 15 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
Yes and no. With Win-Space I meant my keyboard shortcut: Windows key +
Space bar. You could also do Ctrl-Alt-Space.
Thanks for this clarification. My Windows keys don't seem to do this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
They do indeed - because they are desktop environments, not WMs. E.g. in
GNOME's case, you've got a file manager, panel (launching
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:54:46 +0100 (BST)
Thomas Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Lee Braiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's debatable, actually. It could be argued that, since desktop
environments *do* share libraries etc, they reduce redundancy and
therefore
memory and load times.
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:52:00 -0700
Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
XFCE calls it the Mini Command Line. KDE calls it something else which
I am most likely misremembering as Launch Bar. It is not the panel at the
Alt-F2, or run command. Actually, I am not certain that it has
Cam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
WindowMaker is the best... it doesn't seem to be under development
anymore though... am i wrong?
Last CVS snapshot is dated 2005-04-09
--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:17:09PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
satisfies my requirements well. I wouldn't have put so much time
into fixing up the packages for Debian if I didn't think it was
useful.
That's nice that you spend time on it -- and if
Simon Huggins wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:09:00PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the
components as you like once you
Jochen Schulz wrote:
A window manager is a program that just manages windows. It gives
applications an area on the screen where they can be displayed and most
often the WM draws a border around it, gives it a nice title and enables
the user to do things with these windows - put one on the
for window manager recommendations
Jochen Schulz wrote:
A window manager is a program that just manages windows. It gives
applications an area on the screen where they can be displayed and most
often the WM draws a border around it, gives it a nice title and enables
the user to do things
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 09:42:02PM -0700, David E. Fox wrote:
The load time - at least to me - is a rather specious argument. Most
people, I would think, would keep the WM up and running as long as the
box is (personally, this box has been up for nearly four months, and I
could count on the
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:25:08AM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
But neither XFCE nor KDE are window managers. They are desktop
environments. This is a common misconception among people discussing
graphical environments for X.
Both incorporate the functionality of WMs into them. Personoal
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never quite understood the
logic
behind requiring command line tools and text files to configure a
graphical
environment.
No? See this:
http://edulinux.homeunix.org/fvwm/user_enumerate.html
Also calling XFCE a desktop environment is
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:35:23PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
A Desktop Environment provides a full framework of integrated
applications (such as a file manager, office applications, etc.) that
all share the same theme. Often common options applied to one program,
will affect the other
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:56:46PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
I need to compile up 4.2.2 packages for sarge and bung them on the
alioth page at some point.
Mmmm, upgrades. I really should see if there's something later than 4.0.6
out. :D
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:00:18PM -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
Having been a loyal IceWM user since Potato was new I recently switched
to Xfce4 to see what it could do for me. Well, IceWM has /never/
crashed on me in all that time. Last week Xfce4 crashed on me five
times. Other than that,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 10:09:31PM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
I reckon ;) Having started with KDE and switched to xfce, it seems an
excellent compromise. I tried a few WM's and icewm came close to what I
was looking for but it was just a bit too light on frills and whistles.
Whereas xfce
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oddly enough when you said share a common theme my first
reaction is
that's a WM as a WM controls the widgets on the application which
is part of
the theme.
No, I meant it from an aesthetical point of view only. Umm, where did
you get the idea
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:58:29PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
No? See this:
http://edulinux.homeunix.org/fvwm/user_enumerate.html
Doesn't change my opinion. I believe it was either Larry or Guido (one of
those P language makers) who once said that what makes a language suited for a
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:49:27AM -0700, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
I liked that setup so much that when I moved on I kept the home dock
(bought it with my own funds) and purchased an identical laptop off of eBay.
It has served me well for 3 years though nowadays I run XFCE4 instead of KDE.
If
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:08:25PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
No, I meant it from an aesthetical point of view only. Umm, where did
you get the idea that a WM controls the widgets on an application?
That's not true.
The fact that when you shut down the WM without shutting down X the
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Want to do the same with a pure WM. Step 1: open a CLI. Step
2: enter
the command name. Step 3: close the CLI. Step 4: realize I forgot
! at the
end of the command. Step 5: reopen CLI. Step 6: type in the command
name and
!. Step 7:
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that when you shut down the WM without shutting down X
the window
border along with the close/minimize/maximize buttons (aka, the
widgets)
disappear? :P
Those are window decorations that the WM defined, so of course they'd
disappear
On (14/06/05 12:58), Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never quite understood the
logic
behind requiring command line tools and text files to configure a
graphical
environment.
No? See this:
http://edulinux.homeunix.org/fvwm/user_enumerate.html
On (14/06/05 13:08), Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oddly enough when you said share a common theme my first
reaction is
that's a WM as a WM controls the widgets on the application which
is part of
the theme.
No, I meant it from an aesthetical point
On 14 Jun 2005, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
[snip]
Actually I've found WMs lacking at managing windows. I consider starting
a window with the desired application part of good management. Configuring
that portion for most WMs is a PITA. The other portions they are equal to the
DEs like
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:38:35PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
Sure -- but at least doing it that way means you yourself have defined
how it is to operate, rather than relying on the existing operability
of what's available.
And you have done any less? Unless you coded the WM you are only
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:41:32PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, no, it doesn't. XFFM is a separate application. XFFM can be
I meant that in terms of it is still used and recognised by XFCE.
But Natilus and Konqueror were recognized so
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Such as? You're implying that there's something magical going on
without
giving specifics upon which to discuss.
No, I'm merely stating that with most WMs, the emphasis is on yourself
to define how things are to operate -- and that you yourself
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhm, isn't that what I went into in my other message? Part of
managing a
window is being able to easily and readily configure opening/closing
windows
(and the applications in thos windows). Most fail spectacularly on
that
point.
Ah, so
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:04:26PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
But like all good WMs, they can be changed -- as to how
this happens, depends on the WM, and to an extent, depends upon how far
one is prepared to dig to do it.
Then name one WM where I can press a button to add a menu item
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:48:29PM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote:
It's certainly pretty easy in Icewm. You just add a suitable line in the
menu file and it then appears in the menu list when you press Ctrl-Esc.
How are the lines added? My previous example, only minorly exagerrated,
was
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then name one WM where I can press a button to add a menu item
without
having to resort to the intervening process of a CLI window, text
editor and
manual entry/formatting and I might be interested in it. Without
that,
however, which is all
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See, Thomas pointed to a web page where a WM's text file
configuration was
defended because it was too complex to represent graphically. Yet in
the
above we have 5 items.
It's not that it's too complex -- it's just that *trying* to do so --
to
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:00:03PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Such as? You're implying that there's something magical going on
without giving specifics upon which to discuss.
No, I'm merely stating that with most WMs, the emphasis is on
Steve C. Lamb:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 10:09:31PM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
I reckon ;) Having started with KDE and switched to xfce, it seems an
excellent compromise. I tried a few WM's and icewm came close to what I
was looking for but it was just a bit too light on frills and
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:16:23PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
But I personally don't see how it is lacking if you have to use a
text editor to change a menu entry -- I see it as just another means to
achieve the same goal. Just because that means might not be how you
wanted, that is not
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:21:08PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See, Thomas pointed to a web page where a WM's text file configuration
was defended because it was too complex to represent graphically. Yet
in the above we have 5 items.
It's
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. It's spot on. Forcing people to learn loads up front to
No, I've said, it's just another means to configure something. If
something is predominately a text-based configuration, then that can be
just as intuitive as a graphical one, IMO.
Steve C. Lamb:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:48:29PM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote:
It's certainly pretty easy in Icewm. You just add a suitable line in the
menu file and it then appears in the menu list when you press Ctrl-Esc.
How are the lines added?
With the right tool to do the
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pardon me if I don't believe you when you say that the miriad of
*graphical style options* can't be represented *graphically*. If
they
couldn't then they wouldn't exist, would they?
This one of those things you'd realise, if you used the WM in
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The default configuration for shell access is munged and doesn't
work.
You're using a thin-client with only the X session to work with. How
do you
edit the text file when you can't get to it? That's not lacking?
The
functionality does not
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:38:38PM +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a launch bar? Is it Xfce's thing
at the bottom of the desktop that shows menus and the like? What's so
special about it?
XFCE calls it the Mini Command Line. KDE calls it something else
Steve C. Lamb:
KDE/XFCE: I want to start an application which I've just installed. I
know the command name for it. Both have a launch bar. I enter the name, it
starts up.
Damn. That was easy! So easy in fact that 80% of the time I don't
configure a launch button for any
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:47:19PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. It's spot on. Forcing people to learn loads up front to
No, I've said, it's just another means to configure something. If
something is predominately a text-based
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not true. To configure with a text file I have to know far more
than I
need to know with internal configuration.
a: Where the configuration is located.
True.
b: The format in which the configuration is expected.
Which, if you're lucky is
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:01:33PM +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote:
Me neither. I have under twenty keyboard shortcuts (all
Win+single-character and most of them mnemonics) for the apps that I use
most often.
Ye gads. Never understood that fetish as surely one will eventually step
on some
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:49:18PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
This one of those things you'd realise, if you used the WM in question.
Trying to explain it otherwise, is tricky.
Again pardon me if I don't believe you when you say that something which
you cannot explain to me through text is
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:50:58PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking to. If you can't get to
it, none of the options would work -- simple. That's not something
neither you or a WM could do anything about.
Incorrect. If the WM allowed the person to
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incorrect. If the WM allowed the person to modify it's own
configuration
that is exactly something the WM could address.
Well, the WM would save that data somewhere. If it can't reach it, at
best, one would hope the WM fell back to some
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:13:54PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
b: The format in which the configuration is expected.
Which, if you're lucky is in some sort of human-readable form.
That's not the only consideration. Take for example where one
Steve C. Lamb:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:01:33PM +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote:
Me neither. I have under twenty keyboard shortcuts (all
Win+single-character and most of them mnemonics) for the apps that I use
most often.
Ye gads. Never understood that fetish as surely one will
--- Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again pardon me if I don't believe you when you say that
something which
you cannot explain to me through text is best configured through
text. That
implies that it is explained and understood in text.
OK. I'll try. In FVWM, windows can have
Bill Wohler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
I used twm/awm back in the eighties. I've been using enlightenment for
years now though. I tried wmaker and sawfish but they lacked features
from
On 14 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
Well, to start gui programs I do not have a keyboard shortcut for, I
just hit Win-Space and IceWM gives me a little command line. It couldn't
be much easier.
That's new. :D
I think it was already there when I started using IceWM (~4 years
Thank you all for so much feedback. I will be looking at a few
different WM's and will make my choice eventually. I think xwinman.org
is a great starting point, thank you for the tip.
I'm glad that there are still many users of 'traditional' window
managers out there :)
Herminio
--
To
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 06:25:08 -0300
Rogério Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 12 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:07:34 +0100
Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jochen Schulz wrote:
A window manager is a program that just manages windows. It gives
applications an area on the screen where they can be displayed and most
often the WM draws a border around it, gives it a nice
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:59:47AM -0700, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:56:46PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
I need to compile up 4.2.2 packages for sarge and bung them on the
alioth page at some point.
Mmmm, upgrades. I really should see if there's something later than
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:38:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
years ago now.
On Jun 12 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it wasn't
practical on my laptop w/only 192Mb of RAM.
But neither XFCE nor KDE are
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
My favorite has always been icewm.
Very fast, and simple, but very configurable.
Agreed. I use it, too. What I like most about IceWM is, erm, it's
window
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:25:08AM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
On Jun 12 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it wasn't
practical
On 13 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
[snip]
I really tried using other window managers in the last approx. 4 years,
but I always returned to IceWM. Currently I am trying to use it in
conjunction with Gnome, but Gnome makes the login process so slow that I
will probably ditch it again.
Rogério Brito wrote:
On Jun 12 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it wasn't
practical on my laptop w/only 192Mb of RAM.
But
--- Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Educate me: what's the difference?
A Desktop Environment provides a full framework of integrated
applications (such as a file manager, office applications, etc.) that
all share the same theme. Often common options applied to one program,
will affect the
On Monday 13 Jun 2005 17:35, Thomas Adam wrote:
So in that way, WMs are much faster, and most WMs are damn good at
managing the windows mapped to them.
That's debatable, actually. It could be argued that, since desktop
environments *do* share libraries etc, they reduce redundancy and
Adam Funk:
Rogério Brito wrote:
But neither XFCE nor KDE are window managers. They are desktop
environments. This is a common misconception among people discussing
graphical environments for X.
Educate me: what's the difference?
A window manager is a program that just manages
Hi,
Ditto on WMaker. The big thing that drew me to it was the fond memories
I had of using NeXTStep on some NeXT machines in high school. It truly
was a joy to use. I must say that WMaker does an outstanding job of
replicating the interface.
WindowMaker is the best... it doesn't seem to
--- Lee Braiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's debatable, actually. It could be argued that, since desktop
environments *do* share libraries etc, they reduce redundancy and
therefore
memory and load times. One could even argue that, since the code in
Heh. When was the last time you
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:35:23PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Educate me: what's the difference?
A Window Manager, on the other hand, does just that -- it manages
windows. It doesn't dictate a file manager -- if you want one, you
can use one. There's
Anthony Campbell:
On 13 Jun 2005, Jochen Schulz wrote:
I really tried using other window managers in the last approx. 4 years,
but I always returned to IceWM. Currently I am trying to use it in
conjunction with Gnome, but Gnome makes the login process so slow that I
will probably ditch
--- Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the
components
as you like once you have the basic libraries installed? ;)
In that sense, then perhaps. But XFCE4's only
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:56:46 +0100
Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the
components as you like once you have the basic libraries installed? ;)
Having been a
On (13/06/05 17:56), Simon Huggins wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:35:23PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Educate me: what's the difference?
A Window Manager, on the other hand, does just that -- it manages
windows. It doesn't dictate a file manager
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:00:18PM -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
Do you have a real name? I always like to know who I'm talking to.
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:56:46 +0100
Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
these concepts
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:09:00PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does that mean that xfce4 is a good compromise then between both of
these concepts given you can install as many or as few of the
components as you like once you have the basic libraries
--- Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
satisfies my requirements well. I wouldn't have put so much time
into
fixing up the packages for Debian if I didn't think it was useful.
That's nice that you spend time on it -- and if it suits you, then all
well and good. When I used it, it seemed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
years ago now. I'm guessing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least
Cam wrote:
Hi,
Ditto on WMaker. The big thing that drew me to it was the fond memories
I had of using NeXTStep on some NeXT machines in high school. It truly
was a joy to use. I must say that WMaker does an outstanding job of
replicating the interface.
WindowMaker is the best... it
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
And just as good if you do maximize windows -- like me. I usually
have one to four maximized windows on each of 10 desktops.
What I like most about WindowMaker is its configurability. Recent
versions of KDE have, perhaps, caught up with it.
That may
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:49:45 +0100
Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:00:18PM -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
...
Last week Xfce4 crashed on
me five times. Other than that, yes, it's a good compromise*. I've
gone back to the tried and true IceWM.
How did
Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least equally noteworthy
WM's around.
Try:
1. w9wm (it is cool)
2. fluxbox
3. ion
I am sure there are others..
-ishwar
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
Thanks for your attention,
Herminio Gonzalez
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Monday 13 June 2005 00:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
years ago now. I'm
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:39:48AM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
Well -- I like wmaker, so that'd be my recommendation. Quite lightweight, a
part of the GNU project, and awesome if you never maximize windows -- like
me. :)
Screenshots at http://www.windowmaker.org/gallery.html.
Ditto
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:38:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
openbox
--- Jeronimo Pellegrini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:38:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
A personal recommendation of your
On Jun 12 2005, Ishwar Rattan wrote:
2. fluxbox
I also recommend fluxbox, especially when used with the Minimal style. It
is quite functional and lightweight.
I measured its memory consumption and that of openbox (which was claimed to
be faster and lighter) and I could not find any difference
On 2005-06-13, Anders Breindahl wrote:
On Monday 13 June 2005 00:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was almost 10
years ago now. I'm guessing the are other, at least
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
I used twm/awm back in the eighties. I've been using enlightenment for
years now though. I tried wmaker and sawfish but they lacked features
from enlightenment that I discovered I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A personal recommendation of your favourite window manager would be
much appreciated.
I'd say give XFCE4 a try. While I generally use KDE it wasn't practical
on my laptop w/only 192Mb of RAM. I tried different WMs and found most to be
either too bare bones, ugly
On 12 Jun 2005 15:38:04 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not so keen on KDE/GNOME because as I understand they are somewhat
CPU-intensive and take longer to load than the traditional WMs.
They do take up more resources than lightweight window managers, but if
your box has the capability of
on Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:38:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Have just finished installing sarge (am a first-time debian user, very
impressed), and now am chosing a window manager. I have fond memories
of using a little-known WM called VTWM on SunOS, but that was
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
