Re: Default window manager
On 27. 11. 21 22:34, jwinnie@tilde.institute wrote: Hello OpenBSD users and devs, I am wondering if there are plans to change the default window manager in OpenBSD. Currently, the default WM is fvwm, with cwm and openbox available as alternatives. However, none of these are particularly user-friendly, simple, or modern, and I think it might be advisable to use a better default here. Some things which might be wanted: * Using xcb instead of xlib, since xcb is faster and supposedly better * Dynamic virtual desktops * Tiling (dynamic or manual) * Decent window decorations * Can be controlled with both the pointer and the keyboard * Simple, minimal configuration that fits with the rest of OpenBSD What do you think? ~jwinnie My poorly-educated opinion is that the defaults work fine. My use case for a desktop environment on OpenBSD is little more than terminals and the occasional Firefox window. For this usage, fvwm is more than enough and I was finding myself using dwm most of the time because it was even lighter (plus I was used to the keybinds). I think that the default package set should cover the lowest common denominator in graphics capability. I've been using X on a pretty wide set of machines, most of which were either low-power Intel Atom boards, C2D ThinkPads, virtual machines, or servers without a dedicated GPU, so I was happy that the defaults would be always snappy on the hardware at hand. I'm positive I couldn't say that for any of the "modern" user friendlier (i. e. visually appealing) offerings. -- Kristjan Komloši
Re: Default window manager
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 04:36:58AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > jwinnie@tilde.institute said on Sat, 27 Nov 2021 16:34:48 -0500 > > >Hello OpenBSD users and devs, > > > >I am wondering if there are plans to change the > >default window manager in OpenBSD. > > > >Currently, the default WM is fvwm, > > The only thing wrong with fvwm is it ships with such tiny fonts I can't > read enough to change the font size. But only people with bad vision > have this problem. And if I really wanted fvwm, I'd just have a person > with good vision change the font, then I'd do the rest. > For those with vision problems for tiny fonts, like me, Ctrl Right-Click brings up font sizes. After changing to a bigger font, I open a new xterm and all is fine. First step I do on a new install. Best to open a new xterm rather than the first one, which overflows with the bigger font. Ctrl plus Right-Click or middle-click or left-click of the mouse offers a lot of handy features before making permanent configuration changes. Hopefully useful for those that didn't know about this. I happen to like fvwm quite a bit after configuration to my needs. I install the fvwm2 version from ports, but base version works great. fvwm3 is also available now, so it is an actively developed software. Not sure when/if that will get ported in. -- Chris Bennett
Re: Default window manager
I use the default fvwm, I just make the fonts bigger. If you want to see the default fvwm in action only made prettier and more functional, check this out. Everything they did comes in the base install: https://github.com/bfmartin/fvwm-config-on-openbsd On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 6:13 AM Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2021-11-27, jwinnie@tilde.institute wrote: > > Hello OpenBSD users and devs, > > > > I am wondering if there are plans to change the > > default window manager in OpenBSD. > > > > Currently, the default WM is fvwm, with cwm and > > openbox available as alternatives. However, none > > of these are particularly user-friendly, simple, > > or modern, and I think it might be advisable to > > use a better default here. > > There are dozens of alternatives, ranging from lightweight WMs like i3, > evilwm, > ratpoison, icewm to larger desktop environments like xfce, lxqt, GNOME. > > fvwm works, the version in xbase has an acceptable license, and > importantly it doesn't require constant fiddling. It's not particularly > clever but anyone who has used a windowing environment is likely to be > able to pick it up, open a terminal, and do something useful without > reading a manual (the same isn't true for many other WMs). > > > * Using xcb instead of xlib, since xcb is faster > > and supposedly better > > No speed problems seen with fvwm on Zaurus sl-c3100 last time I used it. > I don't think this really matters. > > > * Dynamic virtual desktops > > fvwm has virtual desktops, it doesn't really matter if they're dynamic. > > > * Tiling (dynamic or manual) > > This is a divisive feature! And it really doesn't work well with some > software. > > > * Decent window decorations > > Divisive too, some do not like decorations. > > > * Can be controlled with both the pointer and the > > keyboard > > * Simple, minimal configuration that fits with the > > rest of OpenBSD > > fvwmrc is _fairly_ simple. Pity it doesn't generate menus from .desktop > files as I think that would be really useful for new users but I'm not > seeing anything that gives a strong reason to replace it with something > else. > > > What do you think? > > I think the only consensus to be found on this is "something that people > don't hate too much but mostly wouldn't use themselves other than to open > a terminal and install their preferred WM". And fvwm already fits that, > so there doesn't seem a big need to replace it. > > -- > Please keep replies on the mailing list. > >
Re: Default window manager
On 2021-11-27, jwinnie@tilde.institute wrote: > Hello OpenBSD users and devs, > > I am wondering if there are plans to change the > default window manager in OpenBSD. > > Currently, the default WM is fvwm, with cwm and > openbox available as alternatives. However, none > of these are particularly user-friendly, simple, > or modern, and I think it might be advisable to > use a better default here. There are dozens of alternatives, ranging from lightweight WMs like i3, evilwm, ratpoison, icewm to larger desktop environments like xfce, lxqt, GNOME. fvwm works, the version in xbase has an acceptable license, and importantly it doesn't require constant fiddling. It's not particularly clever but anyone who has used a windowing environment is likely to be able to pick it up, open a terminal, and do something useful without reading a manual (the same isn't true for many other WMs). > * Using xcb instead of xlib, since xcb is faster > and supposedly better No speed problems seen with fvwm on Zaurus sl-c3100 last time I used it. I don't think this really matters. > * Dynamic virtual desktops fvwm has virtual desktops, it doesn't really matter if they're dynamic. > * Tiling (dynamic or manual) This is a divisive feature! And it really doesn't work well with some software. > * Decent window decorations Divisive too, some do not like decorations. > * Can be controlled with both the pointer and the > keyboard > * Simple, minimal configuration that fits with the > rest of OpenBSD fvwmrc is _fairly_ simple. Pity it doesn't generate menus from .desktop files as I think that would be really useful for new users but I'm not seeing anything that gives a strong reason to replace it with something else. > What do you think? I think the only consensus to be found on this is "something that people don't hate too much but mostly wouldn't use themselves other than to open a terminal and install their preferred WM". And fvwm already fits that, so there doesn't seem a big need to replace it. -- Please keep replies on the mailing list.
Re: Default window manager
jwinnie@tilde.institute said on Sat, 27 Nov 2021 16:34:48 -0500 >Hello OpenBSD users and devs, > >I am wondering if there are plans to change the >default window manager in OpenBSD. > >Currently, the default WM is fvwm, The only thing wrong with fvwm is it ships with such tiny fonts I can't read enough to change the font size. But only people with bad vision have this problem. And if I really wanted fvwm, I'd just have a person with good vision change the font, then I'd do the rest. > with cwm and >openbox available as alternatives. However, none >of these are particularly user-friendly, simple, >or modern, Modern doesn't matter except to Apple customers. fvwm and Openbox are as simple as it gets. With fvwm and Openbox, you can add dmenu from suckless tools (or compile it if there's no package, it's a trivial compile), link it to a hotkey, and you can run all your programs from your keyboard. http://troubleshooters.com/linux/ctwm/dmenu.htm http://www.troubleshooters.com/linux/dmenu/bestpractices.htm If you want to make a menu that runs whole commands with arguments, including prompted argument substitution, check out UMENU2: http://www.troubleshooters.com/projects/umenu2/ UMENU2 is like a keyboard-only start button menu, except installing a program doesn't automatically put it in UMENU2. I've been using Openbox with dmenu and UMENU2 for about 6 years now. It's simple, fast, resource-friendly, and user friendly. > and I think it might be advisable to >use a better default here. > >Some things which might be wanted: > >* Using xcb instead of xlib, since xcb is faster > and supposedly better >* Dynamic virtual desktops >* Tiling (dynamic or manual) >* Decent window decorations >* Can be controlled with both the pointer and the > keyboard >* Simple, minimal configuration that fits with the > rest of OpenBSD >What do you think? I'd leave well enough alone. SteveT Steve Litt Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques
Re: Default window manager
Hi, jwinnie@tilde.institute wrote on Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 04:34:48PM -0500: > I am wondering if there are plans to change the > default window manager in OpenBSD. No, i don't think there is any interest. Experience taught us that importing additional code into the base sytem is a bad idea unless at least one developer is actively working on it and unless there is a real need. Apart from a very small group sporadically working on cwm(1), i'm not aware of any OpenBSD developer working on a window manager, so your suggestion fails the first test. Even though it is low-quality code, the dafault fvwm(1) just works. Besides, you can trivially install whatever window manager you like using packages. So your suggestion fails the second test, too. Yours, Ingo
Re: Default window manager
Feel free to send patches. BUT your definition of "user friendly" may not be someone else's. On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 5:37 PM wrote: > Hello OpenBSD users and devs, > > I am wondering if there are plans to change the > default window manager in OpenBSD. > > Currently, the default WM is fvwm, with cwm and > openbox available as alternatives. However, none > of these are particularly user-friendly, simple, > or modern, and I think it might be advisable to > use a better default here. > > Some things which might be wanted: > > * Using xcb instead of xlib, since xcb is faster > and supposedly better > * Dynamic virtual desktops > * Tiling (dynamic or manual) > * Decent window decorations > * Can be controlled with both the pointer and the > keyboard > * Simple, minimal configuration that fits with the > rest of OpenBSD > > What do you think? > > ~jwinnie > >
Default window manager
Hello OpenBSD users and devs, I am wondering if there are plans to change the default window manager in OpenBSD. Currently, the default WM is fvwm, with cwm and openbox available as alternatives. However, none of these are particularly user-friendly, simple, or modern, and I think it might be advisable to use a better default here. Some things which might be wanted: * Using xcb instead of xlib, since xcb is faster and supposedly better * Dynamic virtual desktops * Tiling (dynamic or manual) * Decent window decorations * Can be controlled with both the pointer and the keyboard * Simple, minimal configuration that fits with the rest of OpenBSD What do you think? ~jwinnie
Re: Window Manager performance impact on applications
Hi Mihai, What do you mean by slow moving? Are window operations like moving the window, maximizing, iconify slow or is Firefox slow performing? If it's Firefox, I have not had any issues on 6.8 but perhaps check the pkg-readme file if you haven't already for Cwm and Firefox. I don't know any security reason not to run fvwm 2 although it's older than others. Maybe worth confirming if this just an issue with the last snapshot and providing more details. Different window managers can certainly provide better general performance especially with low memory or older hardware but I'm not aware of any technical reasons why Firefox should be significantly faster with one rather than another. You'd still be using gtk either way I imagine. Regards Ed Gray On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, 3:48 pm Mihai Popescu, wrote: > Hello, > > Technically speaking, is it possible for a window manager to have a > performance impact on running applications in the GUI area? > > Real case: i had to run firefox very fast on a fresh snapshot install, so i > used the default fvwm instead of cwm. The graphical response is instant, > much much better than cwm. I tried twm, firefox was slow moving too. The > configuration for firefox is the same on all WM. > Is it possible, or is it my imagination? > > If that's the case, is it advisable to run fvwm from base? Is it too old > and should be avoided? > > Thank you/ >
Window Manager performance impact on applications
Hello, Technically speaking, is it possible for a window manager to have a performance impact on running applications in the GUI area? Real case: i had to run firefox very fast on a fresh snapshot install, so i used the default fvwm instead of cwm. The graphical response is instant, much much better than cwm. I tried twm, firefox was slow moving too. The configuration for firefox is the same on all WM. Is it possible, or is it my imagination? If that's the case, is it advisable to run fvwm from base? Is it too old and should be avoided? Thank you/
Re: How to make the cwm window manager reread new config
On Sun 2018.09.16 at 17:10 +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2018-09-16, ?? wrote: > > Thank you very much, it works. > > I always thought this would restart my whole session and I would loose > > all my open windows. > > It does actually restart the window manager, but information relating to > the session (group etc) is stored "attached" to the clients in "atoms" > so that it can be picked up by the new cwm instance, you shouldn't > notice any difference after it's done restarting and loading that > information. Late to the game here; as mentioned by others, cwm does retain state upon restart/reload; there are a few things that are not retained however, such as client name history, previous client geometries and such.
Re: How to make the cwm window manager reread new config
On 2018-09-16, Родин Максим wrote: > Thank you very much, it works. > I always thought this would restart my whole session and I would loose > all my open windows. It does actually restart the window manager, but information relating to the session (group etc) is stored "attached" to the clients in "atoms" so that it can be picked up by the new cwm instance, you shouldn't notice any difference after it's done restarting and loading that information.
Re: How to make the cwm window manager reread new config
Thank you very much, it works. I always thought this would restart my whole session and I would loose all my open windows. 15.09.2018 21:38, Antoine Jacoutot пишет: On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 08:41:52PM +0300, Родин Максим wrote: Hello, May be a silly question, how can I make the cwm window manager reread its config file without loosing my working session? From cwmrc(5): BIND FUNCTION LIST restart Restart the running cwm(1). And from cwm(1): cwm rereads its configuration file when it receives a hangup signal, SIGHUP, by executing itself with the name and arguments with which it was started. This is equivalent to the restart function. -- Maksim
Re: How to make the cwm window manager reread new config
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 08:41:52PM +0300, Родин Максим wrote: > > Hello, > > May be a silly question, > > how can I make the cwm window manager reread its config file > > without loosing my working session? > > From cwmrc(5): > BIND FUNCTION LIST > restart Restart the running cwm(1). > > And from cwm(1): > cwm rereads its configuration file when it receives a hangup signal, > SIGHUP, by executing itself with the name and arguments with which it was > started. This is equivalent to the restart function. ..which in default config is bound to CMS-r. Pressing Control-Meta-Shift-r rereads config and redraw windows. Erling
Re: How to make the cwm window manager reread new config
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 08:41:52PM +0300, Родин Максим wrote: > Hello, > May be a silly question, > how can I make the cwm window manager reread its config file > without loosing my working session? >From cwmrc(5): BIND FUNCTION LIST restart Restart the running cwm(1). And from cwm(1): cwm rereads its configuration file when it receives a hangup signal, SIGHUP, by executing itself with the name and arguments with which it was started. This is equivalent to the restart function. -- Antoine
How to make the cwm window manager reread new config
Hello, May be a silly question, how can I make the cwm window manager reread its config file without loosing my working session? -- Maksim
Re: cwm window manager usage, hidden windows
On Mon 2016.12.05 at 14:21 +0100, Rudolf Sykora wrote: > Hello, > > I've been trying cwm for a while and would like to > ask a question about it. As cwm seems to be developed > within openbsd, I dare ask here. > > I seem to need desktops, thus my .cwmrc contains > > sticky yes > bind M-1grouponly1 > bind M-2grouponly2 > bind M-3grouponly3 > bind M-4grouponly4 > bind MS-1 movetogroup1 > bind MS-2 movetogroup2 > bind MS-3 movetogroup3 > bind MS-4 movetogroup4 > > which emulates desktops, and works fine > as long as one doesn't have hidden windows. My problem > with a hidden window shows, when > > 1) I have a certain group of windows, > 2) I hide one window, > 3) I switch to another group, > 4) and I return to the original group. > Now the window that I hid is no longer hidden. > This I find annoying. > (The movetogroup unhides all windows.) > > Is there any help (or does my use of cwm differ > from the usual use?) > > Thanks for comments, > Ruda Hi, I can't offer much help :) As you gathered, cwm doesn't have desktops, but it can emulate desktops, with a few caveats (as you've found one). I see this a lot from folks posting cwm configs - folks prefer desktops as opposed to groups, which is what the original cwm was designed around. The mixing of groups and ewmh desktops is fairly sloppy; replacing this emulation with actual desktops is something I would like to see; I have some inital stabs at it, but it does break groups and labels, thus it's almost a re-write from that stand-point (making all 3 work without setting so-called 'modes' of operations). Doesn't mean it won't happen; it bothers me enough to get back to it... Thanks, Okan
cwm window manager usage, hidden windows
Hello, I've been trying cwm for a while and would like to ask a question about it. As cwm seems to be developed within openbsd, I dare ask here. I seem to need desktops, thus my .cwmrc contains sticky yes bind M-1grouponly1 bind M-2grouponly2 bind M-3grouponly3 bind M-4grouponly4 bind MS-1 movetogroup1 bind MS-2 movetogroup2 bind MS-3 movetogroup3 bind MS-4 movetogroup4 which emulates desktops, and works fine as long as one doesn't have hidden windows. My problem with a hidden window shows, when 1) I have a certain group of windows, 2) I hide one window, 3) I switch to another group, 4) and I return to the original group. Now the window that I hid is no longer hidden. This I find annoying. (The movetogroup unhides all windows.) Is there any help (or does my use of cwm differ from the usual use?) Thanks for comments, Ruda
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On 06 Apr 2015, Kevin Chadwick wrote: [snip] https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/spectrwm Is a tiling wm and hacked up by OpenBSD devs. I'd be using that but I'm not sure I could make it easy for my users to use it (not it's aim) and until I have time to find out then I like to use whatever I give my users. Of course that's chicken and egg so it's probably time I switched and found out. However simply getting a consistent dark theme across apps with differences between current and release is challenge enough. I've been using spectrwm very happily for over 3 years now, after trying other tiling WMs such as i3, xmonad, and dwm (which would be my second choice). I hadn't realised that spectrwm is written by OpenBSD devs but that is very interesting and probably explains a lot.. -- Anthony Campbellhttp://www.acampbell.uk
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
At 7 Apr 2015 05:07:58 + (UTC) from Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com: Switch back to the virtual console you ran startx from after you try the menu items and read the messages waiting there for you. (Of course, I was confused until yesterday, too.) You're right ... I thought I saw that the WM changed, but when I click it shows a log message on tty and returns to the previous WM. Sorry for the noise, I don't have experience with WM's, so basically everything is the same to me. -Luiz
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On 4/6/15, L.R. D.S. arrowscr...@mail.com wrote: At 6 Apr 2015 23:12:43 + (UTC) from Brian Callahan bcal...@devio.us: Or, and this is just a hypothesis, you don't have all those other things and FVWM lists those for convenience. No, I can load everything normally... ok, I'm a bit worried now. I always check the signatures before/after install. You folks just have the Fvwm and no more? $ echo /usr/X11R6/bin/*wm* /usr/X11R6/bin/cwm /usr/X11R6/bin/fvwm /usr/X11R6/bin/twm --patrick I usually don't use X, but that's what I see here. No joking. dmesg ** OpenBSD 5.7-current (GENERIC.MP) #781: Wed Mar 18 19:03:42 MDT 2015 dera...@i386.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 2.01 GHz cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,NXE,LONG,SSE3,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,XSAVE,LAHF,PERF real mem = 3217440768 (3068MB) avail mem = 3152490496 (3006MB) mpath0 at root scsibus0 at mpath0: 256 targets mainbus0 at root bios0 at mainbus0: date 02/05/09, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xfb080, SMBIOS rev. 2.4 @ 0xf0100 (33 entries) bios0: vendor Award Software International, Inc. version F6 date 02/05/2009 bios0: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. G31M-ES2C acpi0 at bios0: rev 0 acpi0: sleep states S0 S3 S4 S5 acpi0: tables DSDT FACP MCFG APIC acpi0: wakeup devices PEX0(S5) PEX1(S5) PEX2(S5) PEX3(S5) PEX4(S5) PEX5(S5) HUB0(S5) UAR1(S3) USB0(S3) USB1(S3) USB2(S3) USB3(S3) USBE(S3) AZAL(S5) PCI0(S5) acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits acpimcfg0 at acpi0 addr 0xc000, bus 0-255 acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support, 8 var ranges, 88 fixed ranges cpu0: apic clock running at 182MHz cpu0: mwait min=45313, max=22512 (bogus) cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor) cpu1: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 2.01 GHz cpu1: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,NXE,LONG,SSE3,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,XSAVE,LAHF,PERF ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 2 pa 0xfec0, version 20, 24 pins ioapic0: misconfigured as apic 0, remapped to apid 2 acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0) acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus 1 (PEX0) acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus 2 (PEX1) acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX2) acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX3) acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX4) acpiprt6 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX5) acpiprt7 at acpi0: bus 3 (HUB0) acpicpu0 at acpi0 acpicpu1 at acpi0 acpibtn0 at acpi0: PWRB bios0: ROM list: 0xc/0xb400! cpu0: Enhanced SpeedStep disabled by BIOS pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (bios) pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 Intel 82G33 Host rev 0x10 vga1 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 Intel 82G33 Video rev 0x10 intagp0 at vga1 agp0 at intagp0: aperture at 0xd000, size 0x1000 inteldrm0 at vga1 drm0 at inteldrm0 inteldrm0: 1920x1080 wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (std, vt100 emulation) wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (std, vt100 emulation) ppb0 at pci0 dev 28 function 0 Intel 82801GB PCIE rev 0x01: apic 2 int 16 pci1 at ppb0 bus 1 ppb1 at pci0 dev 28 function 1 Intel 82801GB PCIE rev 0x01: apic 2 int 17 pci2 at ppb1 bus 2 re0 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 Realtek 8101E rev 0x02: RTL8102E (0x3480), msi, address 00:24:1d:fb:96:f7 rlphy0 at re0 phy 7: RTL8201L 10/100 PHY, rev. 1 uhci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 0 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 23 uhci1 at pci0 dev 29 function 1 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 19 uhci2 at pci0 dev 29 function 2 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 18 uhci3 at pci0 dev 29 function 3 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 16 ehci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 7 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 23 usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0 uhub0 at usb0 Intel EHCI root hub rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1 ppb2 at pci0 dev 30 function 0 Intel 82801BA Hub-to-PCI rev 0xe1 pci3 at ppb2 bus 3 ichpcib0 at pci0 dev 31 function 0 Intel 82801GB LPC rev 0x01: PM disabled pciide0 at pci0 dev 31 function 2 Intel 82801GB SATA rev 0x01: DMA, channel 0 configured to native-PCI, channel 1 configured to native-PCI pciide0: using apic 2 int 19 for native-PCI interrupt wd0 at pciide0 channel 0 drive 1: HTS541060G9SA00 wd0: 16-sector PIO, LBA48, 57230MB, 117208127 sectors wd0(pciide0:0:1): using PIO mode 4, Ultra-DMA mode 5 atapiscsi0 at pciide0 channel 1 drive 0 scsibus1 at atapiscsi0: 2 targets cd0 at scsibus1 targ 0 lun 0: TSSTcorp, DVD+-RW TS-H653G, D200 ATAPI 5/cdrom removable cd0(pciide0:1:0): using PIO mode 4, Ultra-DMA mode 5 ichiic0 at pci0 dev 31 function 3 Intel 82801GB SMBus rev 0x01: apic 2 int 19 iic0 at ichiic0 spdmem0 at iic0 addr 0x50: 2GB DDR2 SDRAM non-parity PC2-5300CL5 spdmem1 at iic0 addr 0x52: 2GB
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 07:12:43PM -0400, Brian Callahan wrote: Or, and this is just a hypothesis, you don't have all those other things and FVWM lists those for convenience. I include CWM and FVWM, I don't know why include two WM. -- Regards Henrique Lengler
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
At 6 Apr 2015 22:55:07 + (UTC) from Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com: Huh? Well, I was MitM'd ? The current snapshot (install57.iso) have all that packages here... When 'startx' they enter on Fvwm by default and when click on screen have: (Re)Start WM's
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
I think developers could do with WM the same done with lynx, remove and put on ports. I don't think someone need all the 9 WM on base system (fvwm, cwm, wm2, twm, ctwm, flwm, mwm, openbox and tvtwm). That's bloat. And flwm need fltk 1.3.X. JWM is really user friendly, minimal, don't have dependence of some C++ library. I personally don't like the fancy colours (maybe change to 18% gray or black). I seconded this to be the default. Also, a artwork of puffy as background would be nice :)
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
L.R. D.S. wrote: I think developers could do with WM the same done with lynx, remove and put on ports. I don't think someone need all the 9 WM on base system (fvwm, cwm, wm2, twm, ctwm, flwm, mwm, openbox and tvtwm). Huh? carbolite:~ wm2 ksh: wm2: not found carbolite:~ ctwm ksh: ctwm: not found carbolite:~ flwm ksh: flwm: not found carbolite:~ mwm ksh: mwm: not found carbolite:~ openbox ksh: openbox: not found carbolite:~ tvtwm ksh: tvtwm: not found
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
At 6 Apr 2015 23:12:43 + (UTC) from Brian Callahan bcal...@devio.us: Or, and this is just a hypothesis, you don't have all those other things and FVWM lists those for convenience. No, I can load everything normally... ok, I'm a bit worried now. I always check the signatures before/after install. You folks just have the Fvwm and no more? I usually don't use X, but that's what I see here. No joking. dmesg ** OpenBSD 5.7-current (GENERIC.MP) #781: Wed Mar 18 19:03:42 MDT 2015 dera...@i386.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 2.01 GHz cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,NXE,LONG,SSE3,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,XSAVE,LAHF,PERF real mem = 3217440768 (3068MB) avail mem = 3152490496 (3006MB) mpath0 at root scsibus0 at mpath0: 256 targets mainbus0 at root bios0 at mainbus0: date 02/05/09, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xfb080, SMBIOS rev. 2.4 @ 0xf0100 (33 entries) bios0: vendor Award Software International, Inc. version F6 date 02/05/2009 bios0: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. G31M-ES2C acpi0 at bios0: rev 0 acpi0: sleep states S0 S3 S4 S5 acpi0: tables DSDT FACP MCFG APIC acpi0: wakeup devices PEX0(S5) PEX1(S5) PEX2(S5) PEX3(S5) PEX4(S5) PEX5(S5) HUB0(S5) UAR1(S3) USB0(S3) USB1(S3) USB2(S3) USB3(S3) USBE(S3) AZAL(S5) PCI0(S5) acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits acpimcfg0 at acpi0 addr 0xc000, bus 0-255 acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support, 8 var ranges, 88 fixed ranges cpu0: apic clock running at 182MHz cpu0: mwait min=45313, max=22512 (bogus) cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor) cpu1: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 2.01 GHz cpu1: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,NXE,LONG,SSE3,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,XSAVE,LAHF,PERF ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 2 pa 0xfec0, version 20, 24 pins ioapic0: misconfigured as apic 0, remapped to apid 2 acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0) acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus 1 (PEX0) acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus 2 (PEX1) acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX2) acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX3) acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX4) acpiprt6 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX5) acpiprt7 at acpi0: bus 3 (HUB0) acpicpu0 at acpi0 acpicpu1 at acpi0 acpibtn0 at acpi0: PWRB bios0: ROM list: 0xc/0xb400! cpu0: Enhanced SpeedStep disabled by BIOS pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (bios) pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 Intel 82G33 Host rev 0x10 vga1 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 Intel 82G33 Video rev 0x10 intagp0 at vga1 agp0 at intagp0: aperture at 0xd000, size 0x1000 inteldrm0 at vga1 drm0 at inteldrm0 inteldrm0: 1920x1080 wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (std, vt100 emulation) wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (std, vt100 emulation) ppb0 at pci0 dev 28 function 0 Intel 82801GB PCIE rev 0x01: apic 2 int 16 pci1 at ppb0 bus 1 ppb1 at pci0 dev 28 function 1 Intel 82801GB PCIE rev 0x01: apic 2 int 17 pci2 at ppb1 bus 2 re0 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 Realtek 8101E rev 0x02: RTL8102E (0x3480), msi, address 00:24:1d:fb:96:f7 rlphy0 at re0 phy 7: RTL8201L 10/100 PHY, rev. 1 uhci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 0 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 23 uhci1 at pci0 dev 29 function 1 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 19 uhci2 at pci0 dev 29 function 2 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 18 uhci3 at pci0 dev 29 function 3 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 16 ehci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 7 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x01: apic 2 int 23 usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0 uhub0 at usb0 Intel EHCI root hub rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1 ppb2 at pci0 dev 30 function 0 Intel 82801BA Hub-to-PCI rev 0xe1 pci3 at ppb2 bus 3 ichpcib0 at pci0 dev 31 function 0 Intel 82801GB LPC rev 0x01: PM disabled pciide0 at pci0 dev 31 function 2 Intel 82801GB SATA rev 0x01: DMA, channel 0 configured to native-PCI, channel 1 configured to native-PCI pciide0: using apic 2 int 19 for native-PCI interrupt wd0 at pciide0 channel 0 drive 1: HTS541060G9SA00 wd0: 16-sector PIO, LBA48, 57230MB, 117208127 sectors wd0(pciide0:0:1): using PIO mode 4, Ultra-DMA mode 5 atapiscsi0 at pciide0 channel 1 drive 0 scsibus1 at atapiscsi0: 2 targets cd0 at scsibus1 targ 0 lun 0: TSSTcorp, DVD+-RW TS-H653G, D200 ATAPI 5/cdrom removable cd0(pciide0:1:0): using PIO mode 4, Ultra-DMA mode 5 ichiic0 at pci0 dev 31 function 3 Intel 82801GB SMBus rev 0x01: apic 2 int 19 iic0 at ichiic0 spdmem0 at iic0 addr 0x50: 2GB DDR2 SDRAM non-parity PC2-5300CL5 spdmem1 at iic0 addr 0x52: 2GB DDR2 SDRAM non-parity PC2-5300CL5 usb1 at uhci0: USB revision 1.0 uhub1 at usb1 Intel UHCI root hub rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1 usb2 at uhci1: USB revision 1.0 uhub2 at usb2 Intel UHCI root hub rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1 usb3 at uhci2: USB revision
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On 04/06/15 19:08, L.R. D.S. wrote: At 6 Apr 2015 22:55:07 + (UTC) from Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com: Huh? Well, I was MitM'd ? The current snapshot (install57.iso) have all that packages here... When 'startx' they enter on Fvwm by default and when click on screen have: (Re)Start WM's Or, and this is just a hypothesis, you don't have all those other things and FVWM lists those for convenience.
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
sorry for low level response , about openbox , all know that $ cp -R /etc/xdg/openbox/* ~/.config/openbox $ cat .xinitrc exec openbox-session by the way in linux , i love lxde (speed=xfce4 , but more modern). and i have recieved email. that recommend i3 ( http://i3wm.org/ ) which says that i3 is a tiling window manager, completely written from scratch. The target platforms are GNU/Linux and BSD operating systems, our code is Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) under the BSD license. --- tuyosi takesima
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On Apr 7, 2015 8:42 AM, patrick keshishian pkeshish pkesh...@gmail.com@ pkesh...@gmail.comgmail.com pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/6/15, L.R. D.S. arrowscript arrowscr...@mail.com@ arrowscr...@mail.commail.com arrowscr...@mail.com wrote: At 6 Apr 2015 23:12:43 + (UTC) from Brian Callahan bcallah bcal...@devio.us@ bcal...@devio.usdevio.us bcal...@devio.us: Or, and this is just a hypothesis, you don't have all those other things and FVWM lists those for convenience. No, I can load everything normally... ok, I'm a bit worried now. I always check the signatures before/after install. You folks just have the Fvwm and no more? $ echo /usr/X11R6/bin/*wm* /usr/X11R6/bin/cwm /usr/X11R6/bin/fvwm /usr/X11R6/bin/twm --patrick [...] Switch back to the virtual console you ran startx from after you try the menu items and read the messages waiting there for you. (Of course, I was confused until yesterday, too.) Joel Rees Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens. All is a stream of text flowing from the past into the future.
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
Otsukaresama desu. On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Tuyosi Takesima nakajin.fu...@gmail.com wrote: thanks fo reply . i understand jwm's state at present. openbsd's default X window manager(i don't know it's name) is difficult to use especially non-english language user . it's defect is that it doesn't show the state of input method. jwm show the state of input method(right under) and speedy . due to http://d.hatena.ne.jp/linuzau/20090201/1233468585 Window manager Memory usageGUI Window placement amiwm Small # Floating awesome Small × Tile type blackboxSmall # Floating dwm Small × Tile type enlightment Small # Floating evilwm Small × Floating fluxbox Small # Floating flwmSmall # Floating fvwm2 Small # Floating gnome Large # Floating jwm Small # Floating kde Large # Floating lwm Small × Floating metacitySmall × Floating olwmSmall # Floating openbox Small # Floating qvwmSmall # Floating ratpoison Small × Tile type sawfish Small × Floating stumpwm Medium × Tile type twm Small # Floating wmii2 Medium × Tile type xfce4 Medium # Floating is there another light X window manager in openbsd ? --- tuyosi takesima I'm using XFCE4 okay. It's a bit heavy, but I can use it, with patience. (I need to check my X11 configuration.) But fvwm, the default window manager, is no lighter than XFCE4. I just looked for window managers with # cd /usr/ports #make search key=window manager and got a lot of responses. I can't recommend any yet for Japanese. I need to try some of them first. :-) (/usr/local/bin/ibus-setup doesn't seem to have a nearby cursor option, but I have seen the effect in XFCE sometimes.) -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Chadwick m8il1i...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 15:19:57 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: I'm using XFCE4 okay. It's a bit heavy, but I can use it, with patience. (I need to check my X11 configuration.) But fvwm, the default window manager, is no lighter than XFCE4. Do you mean xfwm which is based on fvwm, if so the lightness is likely similar but full XFCE is obviously heavier as it takes longer to load up, but ofc ourse it does a lot more. On my twelve or thirteen year old single-processor 32-bit box running a Japanese IME and stuff that works with Japanese, fvwm doesn't really feel any lighter. Typing really lags sometimes when the processor gets busy. Which is what I should have said and didn't. Sorry. I've also had instances where the whole of XFCE locks up, which doesn't happen with fvwm. I've locked up fvwm twice today, but I'm sure it's because I don't know what I'm doing yet. Also one xfce-terminal seems to be able to take out all the others which doesn't happen with xterm and you hit process limits. I still use fvwm1 rather than fvwm2 but that is mainly because I see little need. Pcmanfm has a terminal here and find built in by default that Thunar doesn't have but whilst pcmanfm is still usable it does core dump sometimes with fvwm1 whilst it doesn't seem to with fvwm2, perhaps that is because I only enable some dbus services. Whatever the reason that has to be primarily a bug in pcmanfm and not the fault of fvwm. I still haven't worked out if fvwm2 is as easy to lock down as fvwm1 either and the config migration seems to have dropped fvwm1 support now too. https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/spectrwm Is a tiling wm and hacked up by OpenBSD devs. I'd be using that but I'm not sure I could make it easy for my users to use it (not it's aim) and until I have time to find out then I like to use whatever I give my users. Of course that's chicken and egg so it's probably time I switched and found out. However simply getting a consistent dark theme across apps with differences between current and release is challenge enough. Yeah, I need to make time to experiment and learn better ways to do things, too. -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 15:19:57 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: I'm using XFCE4 okay. It's a bit heavy, but I can use it, with patience. (I need to check my X11 configuration.) But fvwm, the default window manager, is no lighter than XFCE4. Do you mean xfwm which is based on fvwm, if so the lightness is likely similar but full XFCE is obviously heavier as it takes longer to load up, but ofc ourse it does a lot more. I've also had instances where the whole of XFCE locks up, which doesn't happen with fvwm. Also one xfce-terminal seems to be able to take out all the others which doesn't happen with xterm and you hit process limits. I still use fvwm1 rather than fvwm2 but that is mainly because I see little need. Pcmanfm has a terminal here and find built in by default that Thunar doesn't have but whilst pcmanfm is still usable it does core dump sometimes with fvwm1 whilst it doesn't seem to with fvwm2, perhaps that is because I only enable some dbus services. Whatever the reason that has to be primarily a bug in pcmanfm and not the fault of fvwm. I still haven't worked out if fvwm2 is as easy to lock down as fvwm1 either and the config migration seems to have dropped fvwm1 support now too. https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/spectrwm Is a tiling wm and hacked up by OpenBSD devs. I'd be using that but I'm not sure I could make it easy for my users to use it (not it's aim) and until I have time to find out then I like to use whatever I give my users. Of course that's chicken and egg so it's probably time I switched and found out. However simply getting a consistent dark theme across apps with differences between current and release is challenge enough.
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
Eivind Eide xeno...@gmail.com writes: i recommend jwm as window manager . Second that. It's a good WM for slow systems. But obsd port sticks at 2.1.0 http://openports.se/x11/jwm while upstreams have 2.2.2 http://www.joewing.net/projects/jwm/release-2.2.shtml#v2.2.2 ...probably have to read myself up on updating obsd ports one day instead of whining... We couldn't see the updates since upstream changed the location where the releases are stored. This has now been fixed and the road is clear if anyone wants to give a shot at updating it. ;) -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:11:21 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: On my twelve or thirteen year old single-processor 32-bit box running a Japanese IME and stuff that works with Japanese, fvwm doesn't really feel any lighter. Typing really lags sometimes when the processor gets busy. Which is what I should have said and didn't. Sorry. nice or renice whatever is doing the work. If you have multicore then it's less symptomatic but I don't see how anything else can solve that but using scheduling. Maybe some environments do some automated nicing but not that I know of.
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:11:21 +0900 Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Chadwick m8il1i...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 15:19:57 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: I'm using XFCE4 okay. It's a bit heavy, but I can use it, with patience. (I need to check my X11 configuration.) But fvwm, the default window manager, is no lighter than XFCE4. Do you mean xfwm which is based on fvwm, if so the lightness is likely similar but full XFCE is obviously heavier as it takes longer to load up, but ofc ourse it does a lot more. On my twelve or thirteen year old single-processor 32-bit box running a Japanese IME and stuff that works with Japanese, fvwm doesn't really feel any lighter. Typing really lags sometimes when the processor gets busy. Which is what I should have said and didn't. Sorry. I've also had instances where the whole of XFCE locks up, which doesn't happen with fvwm. I've locked up fvwm twice today, but I'm sure it's because I don't know what I'm doing yet. Also one xfce-terminal seems to be able to take out all the others which doesn't happen with xterm and you hit process limits. I still use fvwm1 rather than fvwm2 but that is mainly because I see little need. Pcmanfm has a terminal here and find built in by default that Thunar doesn't have but whilst pcmanfm is still usable it does core dump sometimes with fvwm1 whilst it doesn't seem to with fvwm2, perhaps that is because I only enable some dbus services. Whatever the reason that has to be primarily a bug in pcmanfm and not the fault of fvwm. I still haven't worked out if fvwm2 is as easy to lock down as fvwm1 either and the config migration seems to have dropped fvwm1 support now too. https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/spectrwm Is a tiling wm and hacked up by OpenBSD devs. I'd be using that but I'm not sure I could make it easy for my users to use it (not it's aim) and until I have time to find out then I like to use whatever I give my users. Of course that's chicken and egg so it's probably time I switched and found out. However simply getting a consistent dark theme across apps with differences between current and release is challenge enough. Yeah, I need to make time to experiment and learn better ways to do things, too. I'm *extremely* pleased with Openbox with customized hotkeys, including a hotkey for dmenu. Please note that Openbox is not the slightest bit useful unless and until you make customized keystrokes and make a 6 pixel margin on the left so you can always click the desktop. SteveT Steve Litt Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting http://www.troubleshooters.com/28
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:59:29AM +0900, Tuyosi Takesima wrote: thanks fo reply . i understand jwm's state at present. openbsd's default X window manager(i don't know it's name) is difficult to use especially non-english language user . OpenBSD have cwm and fvwm and I don't know why. -- Regards Henrique Lengler
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
i use ibus-anthy $ pkg_info | grep ibus ibus-1.5.5 intelligent input bus framework ibus-anthy-1.5.4japanese input engine for ibus and start by it /usr/local/bin/ibus-daemon -d -x -r i'll try cwm someday after studing it . thank you. --- tuyosi takesima
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
thanks fo reply . i understand jwm's state at present. openbsd's default X window manager(i don't know it's name) is difficult to use especially non-english language user . it's defect is that it doesn't show the state of input method. jwm show the state of input method(right under) and speedy . due to http://d.hatena.ne.jp/linuzau/20090201/1233468585 Window manager Memory usageGUI Window placement amiwm Small # Floating awesome Small × Tile type blackboxSmall # Floating dwm Small × Tile type enlightment Small # Floating evilwm Small × Floating fluxbox Small # Floating flwmSmall # Floating fvwm2 Small # Floating gnome Large # Floating jwm Small # Floating kde Large # Floating lwm Small × Floating metacitySmall × Floating olwmSmall # Floating openbox Small # Floating qvwmSmall # Floating ratpoison Small × Tile type sawfish Small × Floating stumpwm Medium × Tile type twm Small # Floating wmii2 Medium × Tile type xfce4 Medium # Floating is there another light X window manager in openbsd ? --- tuyosi takesima
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
i recommend jwm as window manager . Second that. It's a good WM for slow systems. But obsd port sticks at 2.1.0 http://openports.se/x11/jwm while upstreams have 2.2.2 http://www.joewing.net/projects/jwm/release-2.2.shtml#v2.2.2 ...probably have to read myself up on updating obsd ports one day instead of whining... -- Eivind Eide ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD - Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts
Re: jwm ; speedy window manager
On 2015-04-06 09:59:29, Tuyosi Takesima nakajin.fu...@gmail.com wrote: thanks fo reply . i understand jwm's state at present. openbsd's default X window manager(i don't know it's name) is difficult to use especially non-english language user . it's defect is that it doesn't show the state of input method. jwm show the state of input method(right under) and speedy . If you're talking about CWM, then what I do to see what input method is currently being used with UIM is to check the Show input mode nearby cursor option in the Global settings menu (the default one that opens up with running uim-pref-gtk) and set it to With time and set the time length to 1 second (you could set it to a longer time, but 1 second is enough for me). It also has the option of With mode which shows it permanently next to the cursor, but only when switched away from the default IME. This causes the input mode to show every time I change focus on a window. The only bug I notice with this is when using TCL/TK applications, the input mode shows up every time I hover over a text field or button (like OK, Cancel, etc.) which sometimes blocks a click, but I don't use many TCL/TK applications, so it's not a major issue for me. Of course, this would only apply if you're using UIM. If you're using SCIM or something else, then you'd have to see if they have their own options for showing what the current IME is. -- Bryan
jwm ; speedy window manager
Hi , all . i recommend jwm as window manager . it is light ant easy to use . so it is used on puppy linux . 1) pkg_add jwm 2) .xinitrc jwm 3) startx that all tuyosi takesima
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:50:50 +0100, marc li...@drwx.org wrote: Hi all, Subject: Choosing a window manager... All of you - you are completely misguided. The redmoondian horror misled you to use crude stuff. (Hey, if you're american: crude is *not* a noun here!!!) 'Cause there is one, and only *one* real and functioning window manager on this whole small planet! And it is ahwm. (http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ahiorean/ahwm/) Free at last, free at last, oh how i wished i would be free at last. And it is ahwm. -- Steffen sdao...@gmail.com
Re: Choosing a window manager...
If you want security use something with a smaller code base or no xorg at all (switch off the x aperture with sysctl), if you want features, use your choice of kde. I've always found it important to believe in something. I'm of the belief that I'm always right and everyone else is wrong. It helps me get through the day. ;) A contradiction scientists rarely believe in magic and also rarely believe in God. Now the big bang has finally been seen as a rediculous starting point for the multiverse, maybe this will change. Whatever the theory, something has to have been magicked up or created to start with. Following a religion to the letter is where the problems are. If God exists, then he understands complexity.
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:50:50PM -0400, marc wrote: I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? Thanks, Marc Hello, list! Just for my information: I can not even imagine 'security issue' in _window_manager_ (not the whole desktop environment). Could anyone provide me an example? -- With best regards, Mikle Krutov, Bercut ltd. VA$I engeneer.
Re: Choosing a window manager...
More northern than the North Pole :: Earlier in time than the beginning of time itself We can always measure north more accurately by whatever parameters we define. If there's a beginning to time then what started it or what made what started time. What made what made dark matter. The paradox is never ending and in my mind means there must be an ultimate creator. Of course, what made God(s) and what made heavenly light matter. But lets not dwell on that untill we get there ;-)
Re: Choosing a window manager...
There should be at least one evangelist. - Original Message - From: Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011 6:05 am Subject: Re: Choosing a window manager... To: misc@openbsd.org If you want security use something with a smaller code base or no xorg at all (switch off the x aperture with sysctl), if you want features, use your choice of kde. I've always found it important to believe in something. I'm of the belief that I'm always right and everyone else is wrong. It helps me get through the day. ;) A contradiction scientists rarely believe in magic and also rarely believe in God. Now the big bang has finally been seen as a rediculous starting point for the multiverse, maybe this will change. Whatever the theory, something has to have been magicked up or created to start with. Following a religion to the letter is where the problems are. If God exists, then he understands complexity.
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:23:36 -0400 Fasil Alemante (falem...@princeton.edu) wrote: There should be at least one evangelist. Fuck off ya gay Only kidding... ...yeah that's too polite for a stereotype evangelist Still kidding
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:32:50 +0300 Krutov Mikle nekoexmach...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:50:50PM -0400, marc wrote: I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? Thanks, Marc Hello, list! Just for my information: I can not even imagine 'security issue' in _window_manager_ (not the whole desktop environment). Could anyone provide me an example? # man -k aperture
Re: Choosing a window manager...
If there's a beginning to time then what started it or what made what started time. What made what made dark matter. are you talking about the console? :)
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On 2011-03-15, Bret Lambert bret.lamb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kevin Smith openbsd...@gmail.com wrote: I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? What you're asking is akin to: Hey everyone, I'm trying to decide between: Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. What's the best? Obviously, the answer is Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda bless you all. No, Discordianism it is. -- Worse is better Richard P. Gabriel
Re: Choosing a window manager...
No. Before that. - Original Message - From: marc li...@drwx.org Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011 5:09 pm Subject: Re: Choosing a window manager... To: Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: misc@openbsd.org If there's a beginning to time then what started it or what made what started time. What made what made dark matter. are you talking about the console? :)
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:03:02PM -0700, Kevin Smith spoke thusly: I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? What you're asking is akin to: Hey everyone, I'm trying to decide between: Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. What's the best? Follow the path of OpenBSD. It's the sound of one Puffy clapping. -- === Denny White - denny...@cableone.net GnuPG key : 0x1644E79A | http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net Fingerprint: D0A9 AD44 1F10 E09E 0E67 EC25 CB44 F2E5 1644 E79A === () ASCII ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments ===
Re: Choosing a window manager...
thx bryan. btw. im atheist. On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM, marc li...@drwx.org wrote: Hi all, I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? what's wrong with afterstep? ;-)
Re: Choosing a window manager...
Hey Brian, thanks for asking this question, saved me from having to type this out...quietly awaiting response now. -F - Original Message - From: marc li...@drwx.org Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:33 pm Subject: Re: Choosing a window manager... To: Bryan Irvine sparcta...@gmail.com Cc: marc li...@drwx.org, misc@openbsd.org thx bryan. btw. im atheist. On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM, marc li...@drwx.org wrote: Hi all, I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? what's wrong with afterstep? ;-)
Re: Choosing a window manager...
- Original Message - | thx bryan. | | btw. im atheist. I've always found it important to believe in something. I'm of the belief that I'm always right and everyone else is wrong. It helps me get through the day. ;) -- James A. Peltier IT Services - Research Computing Group Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus Phone : 778-782-6573 Fax : 778-782-3045 E-Mail : jpelt...@sfu.ca Website : http://www.sfu.ca/itservices http://blogs.sfu.ca/people/jpeltier
Choosing a window manager...
Hi all, I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? Thanks, Marc
Re: Choosing a window manager...
I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? What you're asking is akin to: Hey everyone, I'm trying to decide between: Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. What's the best?
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:03:02 -0700 Kevin Smith wrote: I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? What you're asking is akin to: Hey everyone, I'm trying to decide between: Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. What's the best? I've never heard Xorg called Jesus before. Tell a lie - I'm sure when many security conscious people have thought about xorg they've also thought - Jesus I'm fucked
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM, marc li...@drwx.org wrote: Hi all, I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? what's wrong with afterstep? ;-)
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kevin Smith openbsd...@gmail.com wrote: What you're asking is akin to: Hey everyone, I'm trying to decide between: Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. What's the best? Buddhism, you dummy! :-) -- chs,
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kevin Smith openbsd...@gmail.com wrote: I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? What you're asking is akin to: Hey everyone, I'm trying to decide between: Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. What's the best? Obviously, the answer is Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda bless you all.
Re: Choosing a window manager...
you should consider buddhism the way to real life, to get freedom in your mind, in your heart and on your computers ... From: Bret Lambert bret.lamb...@gmail.com Sent: Tue Mar 15 21:22:32 CET 2011 To: Kevin Smith openbsd...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Choosing a window manager... On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kevin Smith openbsd...@gmail.com wrote: I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? What you're asking is akin to: Hey everyone, I'm trying to decide between: Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. What's the best? Obviously, the answer is Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda bless you all. Cordialement Francois Pussault 3701 - 8 rue Marcel Pagnol 31100 ToulouseB FranceB +33 6 17 230 820 B +33 5 34 365 269 fpussa...@contactoffice.fr
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Mar 15 14:50:50, marc wrote: Hi all, I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). If that's your order of preference, then KDE, obviously. Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? Thanks, Marc
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kevin Smith openbsd...@gmail.com wrote: What you're asking is akin to: Hey everyone, I'm trying to decide between: Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. What's the best? rotfl :) :) You made my day. cheers, david
Re: Choosing a window manager...
I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? what's wrong with afterstep? ;-) It used to be better when its name was written `bowman'. Grumpy
Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:50 PM, marc li...@drwx.org wrote: Hi all, I'm deciding between kde, xfce, gnome, and fluxbox (in order of preference). Any experiences? Any relevant security issues on any of them? Thanks, Marc I'd suggest kde, xfce, gnome, and then fluxbox, according to your preference.
Re: Choosing a window manager...
This is really funny. I'd suggest kde, xfce, gnome, and then fluxbox, according to your preference.
OT: Re: Choosing a window manager...
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 17:56, Amit Kulkarni amitk...@gmail.com wrote: This is really funny. I'd suggest kde, xfce, gnome, and then fluxbox, according to your preference. Scrotwm... it's like tmux, but for your desktop. Easy, light, intuitive (i miss it when I have to work in our labs on CentOS). Hell, I miss OpenBSD, after a day of working on that complicated tub of shiat that is CentOS/RHEL...
.xinitrc and new window manager not loading
I am trying to get a new wm (scrotwm) and added it to .xinitrc but it's not working. Every time I press ALT-CRTL-Backspace and log back again, I get landed on fvwm. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. The same .xinitrc works on another box running bash shell for a normal user. My shell is ksh, user chris is a normal user (user's group is user). The .xinitrc file is owned by chris:user and has permission: -rw-r--r-- Here's my .xinitrc file: #!/bin/sh userresources=$HOME/.Xresources usermodmap=$HOME/.Xmodmap sysresources=/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xinit/.Xresources sysmodmap=/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xinit/.Xmodmap if [ -f $sysresources ]; then /usr/X11R6/bin/xrdb -merge $sysresources fi if [ -f $sysmodmap ]; then /usr/X11R6/bin/xmodmap $sysmodmap fi if [ -f $userresources ]; then /usr/X11R6/bin/xrdb -merge $userresources fi if [ -f $usermodmap ]; then /usr/X11R6/bin/xmodmap $usermodmap fi if [ -f $HOME/.bashrc ] then . $HOME/.bashrc fi if [ -f $HOME/.muttrc ] then . $HOME/.muttrc fi id1=$HOME/.ssh/identity id2=$HOME/.ssh/id_dsa id3=$HOME/.ssh/id_rsa if [ -x /usr/bin/ssh-agent ] [ -f $id1 -o -f $id2 -o -f $id3 ]; then eval `ssh-agent -s` ssh-add /dev/null fi /usr/local/bin/scrotwm if [ $SSH_AGENT_PID ]; then ssh-add -D /dev/null eval `ssh-agent -s -k` fi xidle -delay 3 -sw -program /usr/X11R6/bin/xlock -mode bat -timeout 5 -- I have also tried /usr/local/bin/scrotwm and exec /usr/local/bin/scrotwm but no luck. Thanks.
Re: .xinitrc and new window manager not loading
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:32:05AM +, Chris wrote: I am trying to get a new wm (scrotwm) and added it to .xinitrc but it's not working. Every time I press ALT-CRTL-Backspace and log back again, I get landed on fvwm. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. The same .xinitrc works on another box running bash shell for a normal user. First, the obvious . . . is scrotwm installed? My shell is ksh, user chris is a normal user (user's group is user). The .xinitrc file is owned by chris:user and has permission: -rw-r--r-- Here's my .xinitrc file: #!/bin/sh /usr/local/bin/scrotwm montagueneal# whereis scrotwm /usr/X11R6/bin/scrotwm or try just exec scrotwm if [ $SSH_AGENT_PID ]; then ssh-add -D /dev/null eval `ssh-agent -s -k` fi xidle -delay 3 -sw -program /usr/X11R6/bin/xlock -mode bat -timeout 5 -- I have also tried /usr/local/bin/scrotwm and exec /usr/local/bin/scrotwm but no luck. Thanks.
Re: .xinitrc and new window manager not loading
What do you use? xdm or startx? if you use xdm - you should use .xsession instead On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:32:05 + Chris atst...@gmail.com wrote: I am trying to get a new wm (scrotwm) and added it to .xinitrc but it's not working. Every time I press ALT-CRTL-Backspace and log back again, I get landed on fvwm. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. The same .xinitrc works on another box running bash shell for a normal user. My shell is ksh, user chris is a normal user (user's group is user). The .xinitrc file is owned by chris:user and has permission: -rw-r--r-- Here's my .xinitrc file: #!/bin/sh userresources=$HOME/.Xresources usermodmap=$HOME/.Xmodmap sysresources=/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xinit/.Xresources sysmodmap=/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xinit/.Xmodmap if [ -f $sysresources ]; then /usr/X11R6/bin/xrdb -merge $sysresources fi if [ -f $sysmodmap ]; then /usr/X11R6/bin/xmodmap $sysmodmap fi if [ -f $userresources ]; then /usr/X11R6/bin/xrdb -merge $userresources fi if [ -f $usermodmap ]; then /usr/X11R6/bin/xmodmap $usermodmap fi if [ -f $HOME/.bashrc ] then . $HOME/.bashrc fi if [ -f $HOME/.muttrc ] then . $HOME/.muttrc fi id1=$HOME/.ssh/identity id2=$HOME/.ssh/id_dsa id3=$HOME/.ssh/id_rsa if [ -x /usr/bin/ssh-agent ] [ -f $id1 -o -f $id2 -o -f $id3 ]; then eval `ssh-agent -s` ssh-add /dev/null fi /usr/local/bin/scrotwm if [ $SSH_AGENT_PID ]; then ssh-add -D /dev/null eval `ssh-agent -s -k` fi xidle -delay 3 -sw -program /usr/X11R6/bin/xlock -mode bat -timeout 5 -- I have also tried /usr/local/bin/scrotwm and exec /usr/local/bin/scrotwm but no luck. Thanks. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
Re: .xinitrc and new window manager not loading
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:32:05AM +, Chris wrote: I am trying to get a new wm (scrotwm) and added it to .xinitrc but it's not working. Every time I press ALT-CRTL-Backspace and log back ^^^ again, I get landed on fvwm. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. ^ The same .xinitrc works on another box running bash shell for a normal user. I assume you are using xdm(1). xinit(1) uses .xinitrc, but xdm uses .xsession. Converting to .xsession is rather straightforward (just 'exec scrotwm' is likely to suffice); just keep in mind that xdm runs some scripts in /etc/X11/xdm, in case something happens that you don't want to happen. The gory details are in the man page. Joachim
Re: .xinitrc and new window manager not loading
ln -s .xinitrc .xsession On 2009 Aug 19 (Wed) at 11:32:05 + (+), Chris wrote: :I am trying to get a new wm (scrotwm) and added it to .xinitrc but :it's not working. Every time I press ALT-CRTL-Backspace and log back :again, I get landed on fvwm. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. :The same .xinitrc works on another box running bash shell for a normal user. : -- The steady state of disks is full. -- Ken Thompson
Re: .xinitrc and new window manager not loading
keep it simple. #!/bin/sh # exec scrotwm # #exec /usr/X11R6/bin/scrotwm # 2009/8/19 Joachim Schipper joac...@joachimschipper.nl: On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:32:05AM +, Chris wrote: I am trying to get a new wm (scrotwm) and added it to .xinitrc but it's not working. Every time I press ALT-CRTL-Backspace and log back ^^^ again, I get landed on fvwm. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. ^ The same .xinitrc works on another box running bash shell for a normal user. I assume you are using xdm(1). xinit(1) uses .xinitrc, but xdm uses .xsession. Converting to .xsession is rather straightforward (just 'exec scrotwm' is likely to suffice); just keep in mind that xdm runs some scripts in /etc/X11/xdm, in case something happens that you don't want to happen. The gory details are in the man page. Joachim
Re: .xinitrc and new window manager not loading
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Peter Hesslerphess...@theapt.org wrote: ln -s .xinitrc .xsession On 2009 Aug 19 (Wed) at 11:32:05 + (+), Chris wrote: :I am trying to get a new wm (scrotwm) and added it to .xinitrc but :it's not working. Every time I press ALT-CRTL-Backspace and log back :again, I get landed on fvwm. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. :The same .xinitrc works on another box running bash shell for a normal user. Thank you all. ln -s .xinitrc .xsession did the trick.
xidle, xlock with awesome window manager
I'm using awesome window manager and trying to configure xlock so my system gets locked after x seconds if I don't touch the keyboard or mouse. But nothing seems to be happening after x seconds. I tried to put the following in my .Xdefaults XIdle.timeout: 5 XLock.mode: random XLock.mousemotion: on XLock.nice: 19 XLock.program: /usr/games/fortune -a XLock.random.modelist: maze bat biof pyro drift eyes lisa marquee matrix molecule nose pacman petri space swarm tetris worm I then commented the above from .Xdefaults and added the following line at the end of .xinitrc file xidle -delay 3 -sw -program /usr/X11R6/bin/xlock -mode bat -timeout 5 Could anyone please tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Re: xidle, xlock with awesome window manager
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:33:34PM +1100, Chris wrote: xidle -delay 3 -sw -program /usr/X11R6/bin/xlock -mode bat -timeout 5 Could anyone please tell me what I'm doing wrong? Do you have the above line starting in the background (with ) before invoking awesome? I haven't been using xidle but xautolock, which has worked fine for me for many years. Here's a .xinitrc from one machine: xautolock -time 5 -locker xlock -mode blank -lockdelay 15 ion3# my wm. yours would be awesome -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: captivating window manager
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 07:48:18PM +, Nicolas Legrand wrote: Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:47AM +, Nicolas Legrand wrote: Igor Zinovik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm moving from dwm to cwm. I think I've never felt so comfortable with a WM, I'm very happy it's in base and I join you to thank the devs. Thanks ! Really..? So a tilling window manager was not your thing? kind of, tought you can use dwm without tilling. I like the idea I don't have to care about sizing or placing the windows. Anyway at the end they where never where I wanted them nor did they have the size I wanted. And I realize having no bits of my screen unused was nice on the paper but didn't meet my needs. So I finally wanted to change. I'm working almost only full screen. So DWM is not -that- usefull for me actually. I had a look on CWM first cause it was in base, and finaly I found it more attractive. Taste matter. ( CWM's binary is almost twice the size of DWM:) 32.0K /usr/bin/dwm 52.0K /usr/X11R6/bin/cwm But I really don't know about libraries and memory usage etc. ) What I need is a GNU-Screen-like graphical-window-manager. Smaller than DWM and have a permissive license.
Re: captivating window manager
--- Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm working almost only full screen. So DWM is not -that- usefull for me actually. I had a look on CWM first cause it was in base, and finaly I found it more attractive. Taste matter. ( CWM's binary is almost twice the size of DWM:) 32.0K /usr/bin/dwm 52.0K /usr/X11R6/bin/cwm But I really don't know about libraries and memory usage etc. ) What I need is a GNU-Screen-like graphical-window-manager. Smaller than DWM and have a permissive license. Do you know 'ratpoison' [0]? It's not under a permissive license nor smaller than dwm, but it's GNU-Screen-like. If you plan to develop a window manager which is GNU-Screen-like, smaller than dwm and under a permissive license, then drop me line as I'd be really interested. [0] http://www.nongnu.org/ratpoison/
Re: captivating window manager
What I need is a GNU-Screen-like graphical-window-manager. Smaller than DWM and have a permissive license. Do you know 'ratpoison' [0]? It's not under a permissive license nor smaller than dwm, but it's GNU-Screen-like. If you plan to develop a window manager which is GNU-Screen-like, smaller than dwm and under a permissive license, then drop me line as I'd be really interested. PWM is the tiniest WM I've never seen, you can use the tabs wich is a bit as screen. Licences thought are rather restrictive (GPLv2, Clarified Artistic License). http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/ion/pwm.html
Re: captivating window manager
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 05:59:26AM -0700, F. Caulier wrote: --- Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm working almost only full screen. So DWM is not -that- usefull for me actually. I had a look on CWM first cause it was in base, and finaly I found it more attractive. Taste matter. ( CWM's binary is almost twice the size of DWM:) 32.0K /usr/bin/dwm 52.0K /usr/X11R6/bin/cwm But I really don't know about libraries and memory usage etc. ) What I need is a GNU-Screen-like graphical-window-manager. Smaller than DWM and have a permissive license. Do you know 'ratpoison' [0]? It's not under a permissive license nor smaller than dwm, but it's GNU-Screen-like. I've seen the name ratpoison many times before, but when I see it is GPL I don't look further for that WM. If you plan to develop a window manager which is GNU-Screen-like, smaller than dwm and under a permissive license, then drop me line as I'd be really interested. Right.. I think I'll plan to learn coding some day..
Re: captivating window manager
I'm moving from dwm to cwm. I think I've never felt so comfortable with a WM, I'm very happy it's in base and I join you to thank the devs. Thanks ! Igor Zinovik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello. Yesterday i upgraded my X and now i'm playing with new tool called cwm. I like to thank (thank you, thank you, thank you) Owain Ainsorth, Okan Demirmen and all other who brought this brilliant tool to the base! Definitely it is a fastest window manager i ever used. Very comfortable and keyboard oriented. A bit strange (no window titles), now i have to modify my shell prompt to see what machine i use, but it worth it. Bye, bye Openbox, you lacked `exec' feature. You served well, but i do not need you anymore, because there is captivating window manager in base!!! # pkg_delete openbox
Re: captivating window manager
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:47AM +, Nicolas Legrand wrote: Igor Zinovik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm moving from dwm to cwm. I think I've never felt so comfortable with a WM, I'm very happy it's in base and I join you to thank the devs. Thanks ! Really..? So a tilling window manager was not your thing?
Re: captivating window manager
Pieter Verberne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:47AM +, Nicolas Legrand wrote: Igor Zinovik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm moving from dwm to cwm. I think I've never felt so comfortable with a WM, I'm very happy it's in base and I join you to thank the devs. Thanks ! Really..? So a tilling window manager was not your thing? kind of, tought you can use dwm without tilling. I like the idea I don't have to care about sizing or placing the windows. Anyway at the end they where never where I wanted them nor did they have the size I wanted. And I realize having no bits of my screen unused was nice on the paper but didn't meet my needs. So I finally wanted to change. I had a look on CWM first cause it was in base, and finaly I found it more attractive. Taste matter.
captivating window manager
Hello. Yesterday i upgraded my X and now i'm playing with new tool called cwm. I like to thank (thank you, thank you, thank you) Owain Ainsorth, Okan Demirmen and all other who brought this brilliant tool to the base! Definitely it is a fastest window manager i ever used. Very comfortable and keyboard oriented. A bit strange (no window titles), now i have to modify my shell prompt to see what machine i use, but it worth it. Bye, bye Openbox, you lacked `exec' feature. You served well, but i do not need you anymore, because there is captivating window manager in base!!! # pkg_delete openbox
Re: captivating window manager
fluxbux cwm. Seriously, cwm can't even compete with fluxy... cwm is for people for people who seem to forget their using X. Get the drift? :D
Re: captivating window manager
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 05:45:09AM +0400, Igor Zinovik wrote: Hello. Yesterday i upgraded my X and now i'm playing with new tool called cwm. I like to thank (thank you, thank you, thank you) Owain Ainsorth, Okan Demirmen and all other who brought this brilliant tool to the base! Definitely it is a fastest window manager i ever used. Very comfortable and keyboard oriented. A bit strange (no window titles), now i have to modify my shell prompt to see what machine i use, but it worth it. Bye, bye Openbox, you lacked `exec' feature. You served well, but i do not need you anymore, because there is captivating window manager in base!!! Thank you. -- If God had intended Man to Walk, He would have given him Feet.
Re: captivating window manager
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 05:45:09AM +0400, Igor Zinovik wrote: Definitely it is a fastest window manager i ever used. Very comfortable and keyboard oriented. A bit strange (no window titles), now i have to modify my shell prompt to see what machine i use, but it worth it. Bye, bye Openbox, you lacked `exec' feature. You served well, but i do not need you anymore, because there is captivating window manager in base!!! Not wishing to rain on your parade (it's great that you enjoy cwm and like it so much, more power to you) but openbox certainly supports the `exec' feature. I agree that it's not very obviously named, but please have a look at [1] for a description of `Restart'. Just setting the record straight... Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd [1]: http://icculus.org/openbox/index.php/Help:Actions#Restart -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: Window Manager
blackbox, because is easy config Regards. Dmitri.- On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 09:32:47PM +0200, Manuel Wildauer wrote: Fluxbox On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:29:42PM -0300, Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez wrote: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? Regards ---end quoted text---
Re: Window Manager
I like blackbox. 2008/5/5 Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? Regards
Re: Window Manager
Fluxbox On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:29:42PM -0300, Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez wrote: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? Regards ---end quoted text---
Re: Window Manager
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:29:42PM -0300, Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez wrote: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? I use cwm (its in base)
Re: Window Manager
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 01:18:06PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:29:42PM -0300, Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez wrote: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? I use cwm (its in base) I have to agree with this one. It is in base and it keeps getting better and better (it is the reason I am running snapshots on my desktop instead of -stable) l8rZ, -- andrew - ICQ# 253198 - Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BOFH excuse of the day: Incorrectly configured static routes on the corerouters.
Re: Window Manager
I'll advocate for wmii - it perfectly divides your screen, allows for multiple desktops and doesn't depend on a mouse. The perfect solution to feeping creaturism! Vince On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:39 AM, andrew fresh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 01:18:06PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:29:42PM -0300, Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez wrote: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? I use cwm (its in base) I have to agree with this one. It is in base and it keeps getting better and better (it is the reason I am running snapshots on my desktop instead of -stable) l8rZ, -- andrew - ICQ# 253198 - Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BOFH excuse of the day: Incorrectly configured static routes on the corerouters. -- Vince Buffalo University of California, Davis Senior in Political Science and Economics, minor in Statistics - Information Technology University of California Fire Police Departments - http://vincebuffalo.org/
Re: Window Manager
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 09:39:03AM -0700, andrew fresh wrote: On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 01:18:06PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:29:42PM -0300, Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez wrote: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? I use cwm (its in base) I have to agree with this one. It is in base and it keeps getting better and better (it is the reason I am running snapshots on my desktop instead of -stable) l8rZ, As the current maintainer, thank you. It's nice to know our work is appreciated. -0- -- The mosquito is the state bird of New Jersey. -- Andy Warhol
Re: Window Manager
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:29:42PM -0300, Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez wrote: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? I don't understand the question. Are you asking what window manager I use? icewm: small, easy to configure, has a taskbar for frequently used apps. Works well on my low-resource systems. Doug. If indeed Doug is right about your question I'm testing e17, not so small, not that easy to configure (everything is new, it takes time), very shiny (I can show off with my OBSD now) Xavier.
Re: Window Manager
Douglas A. Tutty escribis: On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:29:42PM -0300, Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez wrote: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? I don't understand the question. Are you asking what window manager I use? icewm: small, easy to configure, has a taskbar for frequently used apps. Works well on my low-resource systems. Doug. It depends on the hard power you have, for low CPU use I prefer fvwm2, wich is really light and functional, other nice choices are icewm, windowmaker (wmaker) and enlightenment (this uses more CPU and have more cool effects). Try windowmaker, its really intuitive, and icewm is great for windows users. -Jesus
Re: Window Manager
Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez ha scritto: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? Regards wmaker (Window Maker) : small, easy to configure, has a taskbar for frequently used apps, and for each workspace you can have different applications, so you can have multiple workspaces with shortcuts to most used apps. Works well on low-resource systems. Francesco
Re: Window Manager
Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? For small systems, I use evilwm (with a few patches of my own) or OpenBox, on systems with more power (and RAM!) I use Gnome ( + compiz when I have 3D support, for example on Linux). -- Jonathan [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Window Manager
--- Gonzalo Lionel Rodriguez [Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:29:42PM -0300]: --- I dont know if it is the place to ask it, but that window manager uses? And why? ratpoison. easy to customize, very minimalistic.
