Has the Development of Window Managers Slowed?

al3x asks: "When I first got into Linux nearly five years ago, the new releases of competing window managers (like Blackbox, Enlightenment, Sawfish, etc.) were a constant thrill, and great strides were made with every release. I can't count the number of nights spent trying to get that sexy new E build to work, and what fun it was! But these days, window manager development seems to be stagnating. The last stable release of Enlightenment is from last year. Sawfish hasn't done much of anything in months, nor has Blackbox. WindowMaker had a recent update, but not with any exciting new features (it is rock solid, however). Now, verging from the paths of window manager favoritism or "they haven't been updated because they just work," why has development in this arena slowed to a crawl, and what's on the horizon?"

Comments

Couple possabilities

[nuintari]

I can't speak for all fo them, but AfterStep is undergoing a pretty big change, and as far as I know Enlightenment is getting a total rewrite. That'll slow down developement something fierce. Then ya look at some of the minimal ones, notably Blackbox and Sawfish, they both do what they were intended to do. new features aren't in the focus of some of the more minimalistic projects, so anything at this point is bug fixes. I don't know much about WindowMaker, but they could be working on a very new release, which could be in pre alpha states right now. Check the CVS of your favorites out and take a look, some of the code in the afterstep 1.9 is just great, but last time I checked, I still couldn't get it to compile completely.

GO KDE!

[ekrout]

I think that this is primarily because desktop environments have taken over. The KDE folks must be hooked-up to caffeine IVs based on how fast they release updates and totally new applications. Ximian GNOME is also quite nice, and has a large following. Basically, "window managers" as we know them have been replaced by these more full-featured environments that are helping to bring Linux to the desktop.

Re:GO KDE!

[Nelson]

That's correct. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the the very concept of window managers has been a hurdle slowing down the progress of the GNOME.

For a while there was a debate about "the GNOME window manager" and then there was the whole E thing when people were getting frustrated and quitting their jobs. Sawfish came out to fill a void and that's what it has done and now it doesn't seem as important that it get's all the newest wiz-bang gadgetry.

Newer versions of E are sounding more and more like they are trying to build a desktop or new environment than simply a window manager, that's great, more power to them.

But the essential truth is that for the majority of Linux users the window manager concept has come and gone and that desktops are where it is all happening now.

Because nobody's willing two do two things.

[Bowie J. Poag]

Here's why the mainstays for Linux development have ground to a halt:

1) Nobody is willing to work on something, pouring hours upon hours of work into it, only to have someone working in Company X take their code, and make a living off of tweaking it. Suppose you're writing a windowmanager for Linux. In order for your windowmanager to succeed, it probably has to be GPL in order for it to really catch on. And if its GPL, surprise-surprise, there are employees of parasitic companies like VA Linux Systems who make a nice living playing with your code. No one in their right mind is going to do something for free, working side by side next to someone who is getting paid to do the same. By simple virtue of the fact that parasitic GPL companies exist, you're effectively letting someone else make the money off your work by making it GPL. This is why companies who capitalize on Linux software development are a (tm) Bad Thing, because they assert a choking influence over the entire community. It stops becoming an exercise in fun, and rapidly becomes an exercise in profiteering.

2) Nobody is willing to think about doing anything different, more useful, or more ergonomic right now. The main driving force driving Linux UI development is "lets make it look like Windows!" which is a horrendously bad move. Instead of giving Linux its own face, its own appeal, and its own distinct look, we're playing Poor-Man's Explorer with X11. Instead of putting our own talents to work, making something useful for us, we're playing second fiddle to a third rate design by copying it.

Now, rather than purely bitching, here's what you can do about it:

Start at the ground up. Get ahold of the source of a weak windowmanager like fvwm, that has all the basic guts you need to work from. Ask yourself what makes sense to you as a user, NOT what makes sense because you've seen the same thing in Windows. Give Linux its own look. Try to avoid imitating other platforms. Build it because it makes sense to build, not because "Windows has it". The sheer number of things that Windows has wrong with its UI would require a completely separate article to discuss them in detail. Think about how to represent things differently. Is there a better way to represent the same information? Do you really want an OS that resembles a browser? Think, ask, and move. Learn, modify, and repeat.

Cheers, (and yes, Propaganda is still running..)

Re:Fvwm2

[Rich]

You might like to try using the NET enhanced version of FVWM. This adds supports for the extended WM hints specification agreed to by both KDE and GNOME. The homepage is http://fvwm-ewmh.sourceforge.net/. The existence of this extension also shows that while WM development might have slowed, it hasn't stopped.

Re:Configuring Window Managers

[MintSlice]

I recall installing drivers for my ati rage 128 a few months back:

Windows 98: 10 minutes
Xfree86: 4 full evenings

I recall my recent attempts to install my new Nvidia Gforce MX 200

Linux: No reboots. The new card (the old one was a Voodoo 3) was detected during the boot sequence after adding the card. I configured the card for my setup and it started X using the new card without missing a beat. Time taken: 30 seconds (literally)

Windows: 4 reboots, two failed shut downs, a trip into Linux to download drivers because the ones on the disk didn't work, and finally it worked. Time taken, about an hour (including download time)

Granted, I then had to install the Nvidia version of the liunux drivers to get full value from the card, but that was relatively simple and didn't involve a reboot of the system to achieve, and took less than 30 minutes including downloading the drivers. This process wouldn't even be an issue if Nvidia would GPL their drivers so they could be included in the kernel and X. Yes, that's right, the only hick-up I had with installing a new graphics card under linux was problems caused by non-GPL software.

Here's another example

A recent change of network card on:

Linux: restarted computer, the change of network cards was detected during boot, the current network config was migrated to the new card (after asking me if I wanted too) and the connection to the network was made without a reboot. Time taken: 10 seconds

Windows 98: The new card was detected, a driver was requested (it was on a floppy) and the machine finished it's boot process. No network connection. I open the network config tools to find that a secondl network card config has been loaded (which doesn't work). I have to remove the original setup, config the new setup and reboot. Time taken: 10 minutes.

Still not convinced? Try it with a sound card.

Sadly, I think Linux gets a hard rap when it comes to hardware. Changing and installing hardware in Linux is exceptionally easy, and limited only by a lack of support by hardware manufacturers. Given support by manufacturers linux ability to hand new hardware or hardware changes leaves Windows for dead. I can even change my processor and motherboard anmd linux will get everything sorted out during the restart without having to reboot once. Try that in Windows!

Oh and before you start telling me that Linux doesn't support as much hardware as Windows, try installing windows on a Macintosh, or a mainframe, or a wristwatch. Many operating system companies won't even move to a new platform for fear of what new hard might do to their stability. Apple's reliability on Macintosh is often cited as a result of a limited hardware base (an that reliability isn't that good. Microsoft originally started NT on an Alpha and said they wanted a kernel that would be easy to port to different processors. They don't even support the Alpha chipset anymore and are having troubles getting Windows to run on x86.

We've got Linux running on three different platforms here at work (x86, PowerPC, M68K) and running well.