Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps you are confusing Desktop Environments (e.g. GNOME, KDE, XFCE, CDE, etc) and Window Managers (e.g. Window Maker, Fluxbox, Blackbox)? I urge you to check out this site for an extensive list of Window Managers and Desktop Environments.

AFAIK, the reason WMs may feel "zippy" when compared to DEs is that the latter simply has to do a fair amount of heavy lifting.

Desktop environments which aim to provide a more complete interface to the operating system, supply their own range of integrated utilities and applications.

Hope this helps.

Have you taken a look at xwinman.org? The site has quite extensive coverage of various Desktop Environments and Window Managers.

I have gentoo set up on several machines using XFCE as my primary WM. Fluxbox is kept around just in case. I use kdm as a login manager and Kopete for its IM capabilities. As a result, I *unfortunately* need KDE installed due to the incredible integration KDE has got going on.

Oh, and I'm also familiar with DSL, but I hate Debian...

HATE is rather strong... Why do you hate Debian? Surely, there are quite a few distributions out there. Hopefully, you will find one that suits you, sooner or later.

There are many options for linux on the desktop, you're not stuck with Gnome or KDE.

Try looking here: http://xwinman.org/

Thanks for the clear answers. But why do we talk about a "protocol" ? Isn't X a program for displaying stuff ?

Evidently the answers weren't all that clear to you. X is a protocol, not a program. It was designed from the start as a client/server display protocol. The programs that implement X are called an X server and an X client.

(Somewhat confusingly, an X Server is a program that generally resides on a network client, and an X Client is an application that is often, but not necessarily, on a network server.)

At work, we run X Servers on our Windows desktops to run GUI apps that exist on our Solaris servers.

And how about differences between XFree.org and X.org ?

Two different implementations of the X protocol. Specifics have already been answered in this thread.

And OpenWindows ? Are they three implementations of functions (same ".h"s) for displaying windows and drawing things ?

Plain X, by itself, is pretty boring. The windows, for example, don't have any of the trim you expect from a modern GUI. This is where window managers come in. One of the nice things about X is that it is decoupled from the window manager and therefore you have many choices. OpenWindows is the window manager Solaris has used for years (personally, I've never liked it). More information on window managers can be found here.

I would really like to see the shell opened up.
Microsoft over the years has really focused on providing a better and better user experience. Based on the current demos, Avalon will only move this goal further.

However, I am unconvinced that a single user experience is right for me. Explorer.exe may be a wonderful environment for 95% of users, but true customization (not just theming and custom animations) can only be acheived by having third parties contribute their own innovations.

Some environments already exist that replace explorer.exe: Litestep and BB4Win. These programs are only marginally useful as they were not programmed against the specs, and will likely no longer work under Longhorn.

I believe that a fair amount of teenagers+ who migrate to Linux do it not for the OpenSourceness, but for the possibility to tweak their environment. Wouldn't it be great if one day we had a variety on Windows such as this ?

I use Linux because it is "lighter." Seriously!

1. It powers my multimedia server which runs on a 486 and never runs a GUI. Any modern Windows distibution would render the machine useless.
2. It is my preferred gaming platform for NWN because I can load TWM as a window manager with almost no additional overhead to the OS.

Here's a great link I just found that covers a bunch of Window Managers. There's several on there I've never even heard of. There's also a lot of really ugly ones!

Try it out for yourself and find out why none of us KDE users can live without its Browser, its E-mail client or its complete office suite.

How does the point still stand. Linux is much much much more than skinable.

First of all, there is a large selection of window managers (much more than just KDE or Gnome). Or, if you prefer you can go without a GUI. Now, after you select your window manager, you can do a lot more than just skin it. You can change the feel of it too.

Of course, not everybody wants a customizeable UI, and that's fine. My original point was that some people might want something more customizeable than what OSX offers them, and installing Linux would give that to them.

I don't really know why I'm responding though, anybody who thinks that Linux is merely skinable obviously has never tried it.

do a search for window managers on google, or try xwinman.org a site about window managers. I find that while gnome and KDE look much like what most people would expect, some other window managers put a new twist on how you interact with the computer.
also look at 3dwm.org a 3d window manager that's used at the 3D-CUBE

another good one is the Mozilla based desktop over at OEONE.com

Winsupersite was write. Apple DOES *NOT* innovate anymore. ALL their gimmicks have prior art.

They don't make their own CPU's, they borrow it from IBM and Motorola. They didn't write OSX. They stole from the BSD and NextStep communities, and Screwed Mosfet too. Expose is an old feature look at XwinMan and see loads of window managers with innovations that apple would never DARE to innovate. Fuck Apple, Fuck Windows, Fuck The Apple Zealots that are going to mod the TRUTH DOWN!

I'm sticking with OpenSource software (Read : Linux) that actually innovates. Look at KDE 3.1, see how many features Apple has borrowed from it. Next thing you know Apple will release Ktunes.

Qvwm looks like Windows 95, while MLVWM looks like classic MacOS. There are lots of other nice window managers here

The writer of the article mentioned desktop usability. The desktop that was displayed looked like TWM, and I can understand the concerns. But it's a Unix for cryin' out loud! If you don't like something there are at least half a dozen replacements for it. I'm sure XFce would compile on it, which is my favorite. If not, take a look at Window Manager for X for all the X window manager known to Unix.

point your browser over to Xwinman.org. Some of the info seems a little out of date, but they still have a good overview of the popular window managers.