Slashdot Mirror

User interfaces must be usable, and much of the code that you see in KDE and Gnome these days has little to do with that. I don't want to add to my system tons of heavyweight software layers if all I need is a working desktop with drag&drop support.
Under Linux I found that Windowmaker plus Rox are a much faster alternative to the above giants.
Anybody out there tried them both under Solaris or other OSes?

WindowMaker?

• Rox Filer
• Windowmaker

Check out two links: GNUstep and WindowMaker. These two, combined, are producing something far better than a lame Windoze clone: a NeXTSTEP clone!

In response to a few of the comments in this thread, I'd like to point out that Window Maker concentrates more on functionality than on "features". Every window manager has its own niche and is trying to appeal to a particular crowd. We try to appeal to those users that want a consistent, usable desktop that sits somewhere in between the minimal ones like Blackbox, and the eyecandy ones like E. See our comparison chart.

What's on the horizon? The developers recently reworked the code that generates and maintains files which help make up the UI (menus, states, etc.). To the end user, this means there is one less library dependency to worry about, providing they're the ones compiling the code. But the focus of this question was on "features". Window Maker won't be producing breakthroughs like what the Berlin project is doing, for instance. I get the impression this is what the questionaire was driving at. In our case, we're trying to improve compatibility with existing desktop environments (GNOME, GNUSTEP, and KDE) so that Window Maker is more useful in that regard. The big one right now is better support for KDE2, and will probably be there with the next minor rev release.

My personal feeling on this subject is that while new features and new breakthroughs are great, a large majority of existing users barely make use of what's there now. This is probably because a lot of projects focus on "features" rather than on what they were originally meant to do, and most users will pick whatever their buddy is using at the time. Whether or not future technologies allow better interaction as a human<->computer interface will depend soley upon how they're implemented, and in the case of a window manager, I think most people would agree that our current idea of a window manager isn't it. Some developers will continue to concentrate on fixing the now, while others will worry about the future. Both groups are needed.

In response to a few of the comments in this thread, I'd like to point out that Window Maker concentrates more on functionality than on "features". Every window manager has its own niche and is trying to appeal to a particular crowd. We try to appeal to those users that want a consistent, usable desktop that sits somewhere in between the minimal ones like Blackbox, and the eyecandy ones like E. See our comparison chart.

What's on the horizon? The developers recently reworked the code that generates and maintains files which help make up the UI (menus, states, etc.). To the end user, this means there is one less library dependency to worry about, providing they're the ones compiling the code. But the focus of this question was on "features". Window Maker won't be producing breakthroughs like what the Berlin project is doing, for instance. I get the impression this is what the questionaire was driving at. In our case, we're trying to improve compatibility with existing desktop environments (GNOME, GNUSTEP, and KDE) so that Window Maker is more useful in that regard. The big one right now is better support for KDE2, and will probably be there with the next minor rev release.

My personal feeling on this subject is that while new features and new breakthroughs are great, a large majority of existing users barely make use of what's there now. This is probably because a lot of projects focus on "features" rather than on what they were originally meant to do, and most users will pick whatever their buddy is using at the time. Whether or not future technologies allow better interaction as a human<->computer interface will depend soley upon how they're implemented, and in the case of a window manager, I think most people would agree that our current idea of a window manager isn't it. Some developers will continue to concentrate on fixing the now, while others will worry about the future. Both groups are needed.

As for the Linux desktops, I tend to disagree...there are teriffic desktops under Linux, you just need to get used to them: this means, using them more than 10 minutes and say "bah, it isn't like windows, I'm going back". I personally use WindowMaker as desktop under Linux, first it was very weird but after a week or two it's just like any other environment (in some case I feel that it's even easier).

Like most of us I've been forced to use a ton of different O/S's at jobs (all investment banks) over the years. The one thing I could never tolerate was unreliability since I HAD to be sure that my trading model / spreadsheet was running when I needed it. As a result the best OS combination for me was Solaris on one box and OS/2 on another (until it was taken away by those bastards in IT) and replaced with the worst OS I have ever used Windows NT 3.51. OS/2 was great because it was super stable and allowed me to hack around as I wished. I didn't need a command line but I did need a good spreadsheet and and groupware (Notes) that I could configure to do what I wanted (I wasn't a programmer, just a tech aware trader). Solaris was great for massive derivative apps and market data but CDE stank as a desktop and I still don't understand how Sun could have not offered something better. The problem with Solaris was that the BOFH admins had locked everything down and we users could touch nothing.

Around that time I installed my first home copy of SuSE 6.2 and spent hours of utter torment trying to get X configured etc.. etc.. Horrible though it might have seemed I loved it suddenly I was in control (however chaotic and dangerous that control was). However I knew that the Sysadmins would never allow me to use it at work. "Freedom of choice for users = more work for Sysadmins" and they, like most people are lazy and want a quiet life. More importantly you need to be weird to want to work high-up in IT support for BIGCO. Success is measured by the size of your budget / empire / office / car not by installing low cost / no cost OSes. These guys want to spend trillions with Sun / MS otherwise how do they justify their big budgets and offices?

A couple of years ago I took a lifestyle choice and quit the megabucks slavery of Wall Street and set up my own software co. I learnt 80% of what I know about technology from wrestling with Linux and I use it now because I feel more free doing it. In the end it was a choice linked to what I wanted in life for myself and others. I now take my son to school before logging in to WindowMaker and clicking on the Konqueror appicon to read /. I got myself I life and I got Linux (and I'm a lot happier for it.......!)

Strange, I have a Satellite 210CT which is technically seen a P120 with 32 Meg RAM and I run Peanut Linux with kernel 2.4.8 and on top of that WindowMaker. Easy compile/install, very sleek.
Peanut comes with KDE2 and a lot of apps....KOffice works perfectly on the machine, tough it is quite long at first load. I already did surfing sessions with Netscape 4.76 with about three browsing-windows open, a LICQ session open plus some other little tools. Works okay to me. I have been using this machine for 4 (5? years) and this was the most accountable upgrade I ever did from W95-OSR2.
Of course the 640x480 resolution might be a little on the low side, but even then with W95 things get cluttered fast too on that res. (Mine does 800x600 and sometimes I find it too small)

Ok, that's all I'm going to say. My hangover makes it hurt to write.

Steve is going to FREAK!

We're ugly-ing up his perty desktop with dirty old X apps :)

Hey, at least the screenshots had WindowMaker, which has NextStep look, which in turn was Steve's idea. =)

It's kinda funny that WindowMaker (which is affiliated with GNUstep (hence the logo at the top of the dock)) is running -- since GNUstep represents NeXT circa 1994, I suppose you can have three entirely separate generations of software running.
--

When /. last reported about MacOSX, linking to some screenshots, I had this strange urge to switch from One True Window Manager(TM) to Enlightenment, because (I guessed) E would have Aqua-style themes.

Now, those themes will be ny00ked. Thank you, Apple, for helping me to resist the Temptation! God Bless You!

(This comment was supposed to be humorous, even when I probably failed. I still use wmaker, with NextStep-style GTK+ theme. Well, NextStep stuff *is* Apple's property these days, so I still use Apple's look and feel... =)

Doesn't Nautilus require Mozilla libs?

More bloat, yea.

Not any closer to pulling me away from WindowMaker.

I'm glad to hear that the project is still alive and doing so well and that this issue is being resolved. He's always been very passionate about E and no matter what window manager you use, you have to appreciate this kind of enthusiasm he has for his project. It's this kind of attitude that helps to continually drive the whole Linux community forward.

Do yourself a favor, and check out Window Maker!

I cursed and cursed. I learned emacs. I unlearned all those windows keystrokes. (not really, its kool to switch my fingers to windows mode on a win box). I killed gnome and kde and installed a gui that used only a few megs (in code and execution) and was as foreign looking to Windoze as possible, Windowmaker

But as I learned to make major changes to my system without a gui or goddamn, *f-ing rebooting every 5 minutes I began to feel that godlike power agian that hooked me on computers back when I was 9. I began to love Linux. I feel natural with it and can really get around.

Funny, but just after that transition phase I took an engineering management role in a dot com and help in the setup of a several hundred K in unix hardware (smp sun boxes, linux, raid arrays, yada). I can tell you being able to live at the command line (and I mead live - getting help, light browsing, writing code (java and c++), working with multiple apps, email) was incredibly useful - I'd say mecessary

Though I've said alot, I don't know what to say. Sometimes I actually don't want every joe 6 pack to be running linux. The prideful part of me says, "learn the goddamn system and stop complaining. And if you can't, puleeze go back to windows. Grandma shouldn't be anywhere near a linux box anyway." The human part of me (oh, pride IS human, Doh) says, "*sniff*, try these:"

linuxhelp.net
linuxhelp.org
linuxselfhelp.com
linuxnewbie.org
How To's

One of the few window managers that doesn't look like Windows95 .

Well, this is nice, agreed, but exactly these "neat features" are very clear indicators that mozilla people don't set their priorities right. What's the point in customizable buttons when the application underneath is unusable?

As for correctness, Mozilla is much better than Konquerer. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but Mozilla always renders web pages correctly. It also has the best standard support of all the browsers in the market.

Yes, that's true. It's a HTML4 compilant renderer which is good. (Opera also conforms to HTML4 AFAIK.)

And finally, you need KDE to run Konquerer. That means if the sysadmin at my school isn't willing to install KDE, I can't use Konquerer at all. I'm sure the sysadmin will install Mozilla, though, because it's not as platform dependent as Konquerer.

I hope you know this is false. As I pointed out: I'm using Konqueror using Windowmaker. There is no need to run KDE2.0 for Konqueror.

I like some of the KDE apps, but I dislike KDE's attempt to copy the Windows GUI. Who on earth thinks this stupid 'start' button was a good idea? Gnome is not much better in this regard. Or why is everyone copying the Window-style filemanager? I think the old Amiga-style Diskmaster or Nextstep's filemanager were much better concepts.

The problem for many people who might otherwise be interested in it is that it depends on Objective-C which is a minority language by any standard. The good thing about Objective-C is that it's built in to most of the more recent versions of the GCC, the bad thing (to the unfamiliar) is that it's the bastard child of C and smalltalk. Myself, I find it eminently readable and robust, so I'll go on using it even if it is "totally irrelevant".

For free software it all comes down to personal preference, that's why there won't be a One True Interface ®. Now or in the future, that's not to say that certain interface idioms won't become nearly universal, or that better education and more experience won't raise people's expectations. But as long as anyone can modify or alter any aspect of their system (a good thing) and as long as the only check on releasing code is the choice of uptake on the part of the users there will be only minimal interface consistency.

This isn't a bad thing, the people who want consistent UI standards are acting as if the Free Software Movement is a unitary entity that should be acting in concert towards a defined goal. Ha.
Gnustep Links for the interested Official Gnustep site
Unofficial Gnustep Site
WindowMaker
Swarm Project not part of Gnustep, but an interesting use of Objective-C.

All y'gotta do is flood the patent office with a bajillion requests and they'll give you any patent you want. :)

In which case, I say we make the Windows clone run WindowMaker ! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The whole point of a GUI is this: I start up an application I've never used before, and it works the way I expect it to; it looks familiar, little guess work, I can quickly begin using the application in the way it was intended. Keyboard, mouse, file access, printing, all the same. Mac has this, Windows has this. Linux? The user is at the mercy of the developer. The value of choice associated with the Linux desktop is a complete facade. If the app was written using the GTK, it will only interact with the Gnome desktop, Gnome File access, Gnome help browser, and it will only listen to the Gnome configuration. If it was written using QT, I'm most likely forced to interact with KDE File manager, KDE Help browser, KDE configuration etc... I have NO choice. And if it was not written in either? I'm screwed. Each new application is a whole new set of problems for the user.

It's funny that if people need a good example of an Intuitive and mouse friendly desktop, they need look no further than WindowMaker. In fact, the state of the Linux Desktop would be downright pathetic if it was not for the wonderful work coming out of the WindowMaker and GNUstep camps. (That config util is a work of art! And the file manager, sexy! Now there's the compelling reason I need to get my Mom to switch to Linux)

Perhaps if the Gnome and KDE developers had to eat their own dog food and not be allowed to use the command line for ANYTHING, we might start to see some of Linux's desktop problems solved; less theme support, and more functionality. I know that they don't, because of the little things; you can't search through list boxes, list views, and tree views by typing the first few letters of the thing you're looking for. Such a simple yet vital feature, completely overlooked. How about screen corners and edges for optimized mouse use? Hardly utilized (Gnome not at all, KDE a little) Sure, these things are trivial to implement, but that fact that these things were overlooked in the first place means that we've got a long way to go before we see a usable Linux Desktop.

...

(I don't mean to come down so hard on KDE and Gnome, they both have many great features. I just think that some basic, fundamental functionality has been overlooked. A single point of configuration for starters...)

The whole point of a GUI is this: I start up an application I've never used before, and it works the way I expect it to; it looks familiar, little guess work, I can quickly begin using the application in the way it was intended. Keyboard, mouse, file access, printing, all the same. Mac has this, Windows has this. Linux? The user is at the mercy of the developer. The value of choice associated with the Linux desktop is a complete facade. If the app was written using the GTK, it will only interact with the Gnome desktop, Gnome File access, Gnome help browser, and it will only listen to the Gnome configuration. If it was written using QT, I'm most likely forced to interact with KDE File manager, KDE Help browser, KDE configuration etc... I have NO choice. And if it was not written in either? I'm screwed. Each new application is a whole new set of problems for the user.

It's funny that if people need a good example of an Intuitive and mouse friendly desktop, they need look no further than WindowMaker. In fact, the state of the Linux Desktop would be downright pathetic if it was not for the wonderful work coming out of the WindowMaker and GNUstep camps. (That config util is a work of art! And the file manager, sexy! Now there's the compelling reason I need to get my Mom to switch to Linux)

Perhaps if the Gnome and KDE developers had to eat their own dog food and not be allowed to use the command line for ANYTHING, we might start to see some of Linux's desktop problems solved; less theme support, and more functionality. I know that they don't, because of the little things; you can't search through list boxes, list views, and tree views by typing the first few letters of the thing you're looking for. Such a simple yet vital feature, completely overlooked. How about screen corners and edges for optimized mouse use? Hardly utilized (Gnome not at all, KDE a little) Sure, these things are trivial to implement, but that fact that these things were overlooked in the first place means that we've got a long way to go before we see a usable Linux Desktop.

...

(I don't mean to come down so hard on KDE and Gnome, they both have many great features. I just think that some basic, fundamental functionality has been overlooked. A single point of configuration for starters...)

The whole point of a GUI is this: I start up an application I've never used before, and it works the way I expect it to; it looks familiar, little guess work, I can quickly begin using the application in the way it was intended. Keyboard, mouse, file access, printing, all the same. Mac has this, Windows has this. Linux? The user is at the mercy of the developer. The value of choice associated with the Linux desktop is a complete facade. If the app was written using the GTK, it will only interact with the Gnome desktop, Gnome File access, Gnome help browser, and it will only listen to the Gnome configuration. If it was written using QT, I'm most likely forced to interact with KDE File manager, KDE Help browser, KDE configuration etc... I have NO choice. And if it was not written in either? I'm screwed. Each new application is a whole new set of problems for the user.

It's funny that if people need a good example of an Intuitive and mouse friendly desktop, they need look no further than WindowMaker. In fact, the state of the Linux Desktop would be downright pathetic if it was not for the wonderful work coming out of the WindowMaker and GNUstep camps. (That config util is a work of art! And the file manager, sexy! Now there's the compelling reason I need to get my Mom to switch to Linux)

Perhaps if the Gnome and KDE developers had to eat their own dog food and not be allowed to use the command line for ANYTHING, we might start to see some of Linux's desktop problems solved; less theme support, and more functionality. I know that they don't, because of the little things; you can't search through list boxes, list views, and tree views by typing the first few letters of the thing you're looking for. Such a simple yet vital feature, completely overlooked. How about screen corners and edges for optimized mouse use? Hardly utilized (Gnome not at all, KDE a little) Sure, these things are trivial to implement, but that fact that these things were overlooked in the first place means that we've got a long way to go before we see a usable Linux Desktop.

...

(I don't mean to come down so hard on KDE and Gnome, they both have many great features. I just think that some basic, fundamental functionality has been overlooked. A single point of configuration for starters...)

Afterstep is a window manager. it could put its prefs in ~/Windows98, but that wouldn't make linux a microsoft product.

Windowmaker is the official GNUStep Window Manager (and also the official GNU Window Manager), and has a look/feel more reminiscent of NeXTs.

• I'd like to see more Gnome compliant window managers. Choice is a good thing. I feel like Oliver Twist actually, "Please Sir, Can I have some more?" :-)

And to all those good wm developer souls: It is vitally important that MORE window managers become compliant. One of the X cornerstones is what you get a lot of choice. Don't let the advancements of KDE/Gnome limit our choice of window manager! :)

another nice on is alt+[up/down arrow] ... this will allow you to rotate through windows in your current workspace and bring them to the foreground. it will also bring up the dock in the order too. i'd say you can probably get by pretty well without the use of a mouse in windowmaker. for a while there my mouse was broken and i went about a week functioning quite well without it, and now because of that i rarely have to use it. if you haven't tried it yet... give it a shot: http://www.windowmaker.org. another place i'd suggest for some nice addons is the doc app warehouse at http://www.bensinclair.com/dockapp

It seems every X11 window managers' design heavily incorporates the mouse as a necessary tool for window management. I even get this impression from reading snippets of POSIX specs. Here's a (very botched) paraphrase, or at least, the impression I got when learning about POSIX window manager recommendations:

"The window manager should not intercept any key bindings... they should all be passed to the application and the mouse should be used for windowing."

Anyway, I have, since I first booted linux and fired up X, always thought this was STUPID. The one thing that I see Windows having over Mac OS or linux window managers was the common, global key-mapping that comes from a tidbit of smart thinking at one point in the design (or stealing somebody elses' idea) and then the subsequent forcing of all the applications that run within your operating environment to adopt "similar" keybindings and look-and-feels.

I took key bindings for granted in Windows. Say, in the middle of anything else, I suddenly had the urge for some Slashdot in a maximized explorer window.

Ctrl-Esc R iexplore [enter] [F4] www.slashdot.org [enter] Alt-[SPACE] x Done. Or maybe size it a bit and move it some. Alt-[SPACE] S (arrow keys) [Enter]. And the cordless mouse is still stuck somewhere in the couch cushions with dead batteries.

Before I figured out that there were window managers that supported something other than focus-follows-mouse, I almost developed tennis elbow, slapping that rat around to keep my focus where i wanted it, and the windows raised where I wanted them. very frustrating.

I moved to BlackBox, because it was nice and speedy. But I still had no pop-up root menu on the keyboard. (I kept telling myself I'd learn C++ and contribute a patch)

later I moved to Windowmaker, and found out why people swear by that. Its neat, theme-able, and nicely configurable. But something about it still irked me. Maybe I preferred the simplicity of BB.

three days ago, i slapped Sawmill on my machine and I think I've found a new love. It's all configurable in the same way emacs and scwm are, very modular, and it looks all pretty, very theme-able too. Not too bad in terms of speed, either. It's not blackbox (I loved BB's responsiveness) but it works well, and you can BIND stuff. With a wussy GUI configuration editor, even! If you want. wow.

So now i have a nice pretty desktop, that plays nice with gnome (even though I don't use gnome much), yet is not quite as hungry as Enlightenment or KDE, and supports lispy customizations (I don't know it well enough to code yet, but i can see the ability of the program to expand). I've got alt-space mapped to the window controls, ctrl-esc mapped to a popup app list, and f12 mapped to the root menu. So now i can, once again, sit on the couch across the room with the cordless 'board and have nearly-full control over my work environment. All I have to do is figure out how to configure it to be able to size the windows with the keys. That and implement selection, copy, and paste using shift and arrow keys. :-P

Maybe the whole system is flawed and maybe Berlin will work more to my liking. Man, i wish i already knew how to code. Then i'd just go FIX all this stuff, instead of bitching about it, eh? ;) (Helping berlin or any other OSS project to completion would be hella cool too.)

Good luck, jacobian, in your search for the "right" configuration.

PS The two links I included are just examples; I don't mean to single those two out ;).

Alex Bischoff
---

• Between the KDE Two Conference material and KDE 2.0 Technology Overview, it appears that there is a proliferation of messaging systems.

  It is evident that the C++-based CORBA options are pretty slow, and thereby not acceptable for mass use; barring that, has there been any consideration of using a messaging system that is in use elsewhere, so as to both have evidence that it works, as well as a reduction in the proliferation of new APIs?

  What comes to mind are:

  • Lightweight Distributed Objects (LDO), submitted as an IETF draft, and
  • HTTP-SOAP, also an IETF draft
• Has any consideration been made of using some of the configuration libraries and data formats already available, such as:
  • ACAP, which has an IETF draft
  • libPropList which is used by GnuStep and OpenStep as well as by WindowMaker.
  • Ted Tso's .ini file reader?

It is such a shame when new formats have to be designed and managed, when debugged code already exists to implement these sorts of things.

• Between the KDE Two Conference material and KDE 2.0 Technology Overview, it appears that there is a proliferation of messaging systems.

  It is evident that the C++-based CORBA options are pretty slow, and thereby not acceptable for mass use; barring that, has there been any consideration of using a messaging system that is in use elsewhere, so as to both have evidence that it works, as well as a reduction in the proliferation of new APIs?

  What comes to mind are:

  • Lightweight Distributed Objects (LDO), submitted as an IETF draft, and
  • HTTP-SOAP, also an IETF draft
• Has any consideration been made of using some of the configuration libraries and data formats already available, such as:
  • ACAP, which has an IETF draft
  • libPropList which is used by GnuStep and OpenStep as well as by WindowMaker.
  • Ted Tso's .ini file reader?

It is such a shame when new formats have to be designed and managed, when debugged code already exists to implement these sorts of things.

It's great to see Alfredo Kojima get some recognition. He gets so little hype compared to some other UI folks, but IMHO he's responsible for one of the most usable and best-designed free software projects out there.

(WindowMaker for those who don't know what I'm referring to...)

A solid, stable, pretty, glitzy GUI is needed first.
As many have mentioned before, see KDE or WindowMaker or Enlightenment w/ Gnome

The OS needs to be usable to a new user - on the same level as Windows.
Again, see above comment, and Corel Linux
Linux needs to be easy to install, easy to uninstall, able to sense hardware without the user needing to open the PC to read numbers off of chips.
Yet again, see Corel Linux
Linux needs to support the latest and greatest hardware, like USB (USB2), firewire, parallel port scanners, WinModems...
Again, see.... er.. wait. Damn, we don't have these. Linux needs to have GAMES!
See Linux Game Tome and Linux Games and Loki Games
End see

IIRC, The only diffence in Server and Workstation is what setting the registry has for multitasking quantum times. That is just a variable's worth of difference. I'm sure there are a few other differences but I assure you they are just as suttle.

Joseph
Mmmmm WindowMaker. Small, fast, and feature rich.

I love Linux and I would also love to have a mac with Mac OS X client on it. There is enough room in this world for both.


Mmmmm WindowMaker. Small, fast, and feature rich.

You say NT is better than Freenix, the *BSDs and Linux. If so, why does Hotmail run FreeBSD? I know that you bought Hotmail with it running Solaris. You then put NT on it. Finally, FreeBSD took the cake and has remained ever since. The reason seems clear to me. I'm curious as to what you have to say?

Joseph

Mmmmm WindowMaker. Small, fast, and feature rich.

You say NT is better than Freenix, The *BSDs and Linux. If so, why does Hotmail and many other microsoft sites run FreeBSD?


Mmmmm WindowMaker. Small, fast, and feature rich.

Try mixing and matching GUI components and build your own interface. If you've got the time, of course. Run a lightweight window manager, Sawmill (I forget the URL), WindowMaker, or a few others. WindowMaker has KDE hooks, I don't know about SawMill, never used it, but I hear it's excellent. Pick a good file manager, there are several lightweight ones out there. A search of "file managers" at google.com/linux presents a good start. Pick a "launcher" of sorts, like the Gnome Panel or KDE's thingy... I forget what they call it. Netscape's a hog regardless, but it will run, try getting navigator only and have a seperate email app.

It can be done. On a 75MHz pentium I had a quick desktop, but the standard Gnome and KDE just about choked on it, so I made my own. Here's a list of what I consider important in a GUI for users that pretty much just use what you throw at them:

• in no particular order
• File Manager (with click on file and start app)
• Point and Click to apps (an obvious menu)
• Web Browser (opera soon? :)
• Email Client
• A Desktop (like desktop icons... some people tend to have all their files on their screen... not good practice and very ugly, but they do...)
• Word Processing
• Spreadsheet
• Other apps based on what you've got going in the cluster...
• Consistency

That's a short list... by no means definitive. But if you can find a combo of these things and put them together, you can create a pretty good GUI out of these bits and pieces that may run. That's the best thing about Gnome and KDE, they let you pick and choose between the two, for the most part. No, you won't get a full-fledged GUI, but you can come pretty close.

Hope this helps a little...

However. It is not all fine and dandy.

The "configuration problem" has not one issue, but several:

• The proliferation of "little languages" as formats.

  XML represents Yet Another Format; it is of value if it pushes out some of the existing formats. If it merely augments the population with another, there is no win here.

  Result: Ambiguous. XML might provide value.

• The Serialization/Locking Problem.

  The issue here is that you need to ensure that the configuration is written out correctly.

  This may require writing out the new config to a new file, validating that it is readable and correct. (Oops, made a mistake updating /etc/inet.d. Now the system won't reboot...)

  There is merit to having a "database form" ala IronDoc where the physical representation is a database system, which provides a somewhat different persistence model than the typical text file.

  (Before people start proposing that I be shot, I tend to favor the notion of, if using a binary format, synchronizing it carefully with a text format.)

  The merit of a "databased" scheme, which should provide a separate database for each facility, is that updates can be implemented "instantly" without needing to rewrite a whole file, and without a need to parse the file. Note that even in a situation where XML is used as an interchange format, there is still merit to storing the "tree" in database form. David McCusker, author of IronDoc and architect of the (regrettably failed) "Bento" database system that was part of OpenDoc, suggests this very use for IronDoc.

  For those that feel religious about using text files, a system like libPropList still has merit over the "let's do something with XML" idea since it has, already debugged, the locking, parsing, and config-file-rewriting code that let's use XML, it's k001 doesn't inherently provide.

  In short, deciding to use XML merely establishes a format; it does not resolve that:

  • Updates are managed well
  • The output from a particular program that manipulates a config file actually produces valid XML
• Federating Configuration.

  Michael Stonebraker (of fame with such developments as Ingres and Postgres) has most recently founded a company called Cohera based on the Mariposa Distributed Database Management System. This tool allows many databases to work together to process queries.

  The "obvious" implication of this with this thread is that a valuable thing to be able to do is to join together many "databases" that are configuration repositories, and provide a central way of getting at the data.

  The critical thing that is necessary is for configuration repositories to provide some sort of "metadata" so that they, in effect, publicize their existence.

  A "federation" tool like Linuxconf, Ganymede, or such, can then be used to join together the metadata and manage it all together.

  Unlike the situation with the infamous Windows Registry, this doesn't force all the configuration data into one fragile binary DB; it allows the data to stay wherever it was concluded that it should reside.

  The critical factor here is not that data files all have a common format; it is that there be some way of translating their data into a common format.

  XML has a lot to offer here in terms of providing a central "presentation" format. It could offer more if tools were available to make this a two-way street, where updates done to the central XML could be pushed back to the individual configuration data repositories.

  However. If someone writes some integration code to (say) connect Linuxconf to libPropList so that it could directly manipulate libPropList files, that would also represent a movement in the right direction.

Conclusion: XML may have value to offer in confederating config information.

That has to come along with a whole lot of coding effort to build robust configuration data repositories that may or may not use XML.

...is http://www.windowmaker.org

/Bergie

--

One on of the screenshots there is a transparent version of RXVT, which is also mentioned in the shots description. Does anyone have a link to the src of Alfredo's rxvt hack? I thought that was very cool.

Hey. I think Mac is pretty (and) cool. If it wasn't for Steve Jobs there would be NO Window Maker and NO AfterStep. I currently use those and I think Mac has (and always had) the coolest and most user friendly GUIs. On the other hand, I share the #linuxwarez opinion about KDE =:P. OSes, unlike girls or women (which are human beings, not objects or binary code) can fit on the same hard drive. So you can run both MacOS/Rhapsody and Linux on the same machine without having to lie to /etc/fstab about your HFS partitions or anything like that.
PS: This was written from a geekguy's point of view.

I personally don't need all that extra stuff so I just use WindowMaker. So I don't have any files on my desktop, because I don't have that functionality (don't miss it, reminds me too much of winbloze and Macintosh, mac isn't quite as bad, but I still won't use one as my personal computer).

This whole thing is about choice. You choose your GUI based on what you need. Check out the feature listings, go read up on a couple of these proggies, gnome stuff is at www.gnome.org and KDE is based at www.kde.org. I personally use WindowMaker, refered to earlier as "GNUstep." They all have their advantages, they all are extremely configurable, check out themes.org, and pay special attention to OctoberX's stuff (he's one of /.'s).

So I guess what all the hubbub is about, is that we pick what our GUI looks like and how it reacts to our commands. It is a huge matter of personal needs and preferences. There isn't anything forced on us. SuSE comes configured to run KDE, but I changed when I decided I didn't like it. Like the distro wars, one's choice of GUI can get to be pretty personal and some users tend to get pretty emotional about their particular window manager.

ph43drus

Don't use Enlightenment, but use a functional, fast window manager like Window Maker.