Slashdot Mirror


Sun Drops Sawfish for Metacity

Cardhore writes: "According to this article, Sun's and Wipro's developers are now working on Metacity, instead of Sawfish. Metacity and Sawfish are two window managers for the GNOME desktop, and Sun has decided to use Metacity over Sawfish for GNOME 2. This decision has been based on issues such as accessibility, maintainability of the code [1], documentation, multi-head support and a general eagerness from the community to commit to Metacity in the future." Here's a brief description of Garret LeSage's experience with Metacity, which is described here as a "boring window manager for the adult in you." Anyone with Metacity screenshots, please post below :)

24 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks for defining the terms by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Metacity and Sawfish are two window managers for the GNOME desktop

    Thanks for explaining, and I hope this is the start of a new policy on /., where potentially-unfamiliar terms are defined. Time after time I've encountered some unexplained reference in an article and wondered, "Am I the only person who doesn't know what this is?"

  2. Re:Enlightenment by noda132 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Work on e17 certainly hasn't stopped. It's just always slow because they're a bunch of people working in their spare time for free, yadda yadda.

    I tested it out about a month ago and it was freakin' incredible. If what I poked around with is any indication, it's going to have the best themeability of the lot (and a great theme-writing program, too!). It has a lot of great things going for it. But it's quite a ways off, I wouldn't expect even a beta this year.

  3. Re:Reason for the switch. by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So there you have it! Before you start flaming back and forth about what's better, think about the logistics behind using a WM that's no longer being maintained.

    Everybody has the source, and it is apparently quite usable since many people sue it. If someone like Sun additional features or bug fixes, they can make them and publish them. The fact that a single person has moved on to doing something else makes little difference for open source software.

    Choosing Metacity may be the right thing for Sun to do anyway, but the departure of even the main developer of Sawfish would not be sufficient reason.

  4. It is all about themes ... by Serpent+Mage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have used both window managers frequently for about 4 or 5 months now (sawfish2 and metacity that is) and find both of them fast, stable, and great products overall from a user perspective.

    Configurability is easily in favor of sawfish right now but that is only because there is not a gui configurator for metacity currently afaik. However, i knew how to make the modifications I wanted and everything works identically to sawfish so no big worries there.

    Port over Crux to metacity and you will have another convert .. until then sawfish rulez!

    The BIGGEST factor keeping me from using metacity full time is that the Crux theme has not been ported over to it and I cannot figure out how to make metacity themes (or sawfish themes for that matter) and I really hate the look of the default metacity theme when combined with the Crux gtk and gtk2 themes.

  5. Sun goes for eye-candy-less wms by shaldannon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm actually surprised that they ever went with Sawfish, since it has all sorts of nifty extras (differently themed windows, for example). From the two screenshots I was able to find of Metacity, it looked like a bland Gnome. Given that Sun was a major purveyor of CDE and olwm, I'm not the least bit surprised that they've switched to a tamer wm. I still think they're missing out, but I guess the philosophy behind the decision is "these machines are made for work, not glitz." Not for me...I use Gnome + E .16 at work....single monitor (makes me wish for my dual-head box at home...) with the same desktop look and feel as my home desktop (see more recent shots).

    --


    What is your Slash Rating?
  6. Couldn't hack the Lisp? by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could programming language ignorance or bigotry be at least partially at the root of this? Probably not, but one wonders anyway.

  7. Re:Reason for the switch. by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fact that a single person has moved on to doing something else makes little difference for open source software.

    This can be a problem for niche open source software. Some packages are never developed/driven by more than one person. When that person moves on, it's real easy for the package to drift apart. Sure "anyone" can use the source and built it, fix it, maintain it, and further develop it but usually the further you go from just using it towards further development, the greater the skill required which increases the chances that the package will just get orphaned.

  8. KDE/Win32 style Alt-Tab window list? by iguana · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I like the KDE/Win32 style alt-tab window list (small window pops up with all available windows listed; alt-tab selects between them).

    Very user friendly and very quick to pop between a large collection of windows. No need to mess up your stacking order plowing through umpteen windows to find the one you're looking for.

    Why wasn't such a feature implemented in Sawfish? General unpopularity with the feature? Too similar to Windows?

    Does Metacity have a similar window list? Or does it use the annoying Sawfish style?

  9. Re:Just more wasted effort and time by foobar104 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The world needs one full-assed solution, not 400 half-assed solutions. That's the eternal problem with free software / open source development. Quit bickering about which one is better and which one to use; pick one, stick with it, and get it done.

    I absolutely agree with you. I get so discouraged when I run into things like the 90 items listed under "Window Managers" on Freshmeat, and not a one of 'em especially useful.

    That's the problem with the current state of open source development. Rather than putting 10,000 brains on one project, you put one brain each on 10,000 projects. Net result: almost zero result for a vast amount of work.

    Maybe the only way to get programmers organized is to get a bunch of them in one place and wrap a company around them.

  10. Code Maintainability? by big.ears · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When they say "unmaintainability", this is code-word for "Programmed in Lisp", rather than "Programmed in a sloppy messy spaghetti-like fashion", or "The primary developer is no longer working on it". Most likely, the Wipro programmers don't have much experience with lisp/scheme/rep, and a decision was made to dump it for Metacity, which happens to be written in a language they speak (c, that is).

    If you read the metacity source code, at least on earlier releases, Havoc had written things like "I won't implement idea X, because it is crackrock. Tough luck." Things like making metacity play nicely with XMMS. Of course, this was when it was his pet project and not being considered by Sun/Wipro. One wonders if there will be a Sun fork of the project, or if Havoc will turn over development or make compromises that Sun will inevitably require.

    While I think metacity is a pretty cool project, Sun's decision is probably one of these management mistakes that have been talked about in all the sociology of software development books. Think of all the little bugs that have been sorted out over the years in Sawfish that will have to be solved again. Things like maintaining focus of window when changing desktops using keybindings; or dual-head setups that have different monitor resolutions while using multiple workspaces and desktops. These things will all have to be sorted out again.

  11. Re:Enlightenment by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I dumped Enlightenment in favour of Sawmill (as it was known then), simply because E was a big bloated monster that wanted to own the desktop whereas Sawfish knew its place - to be a window manager and nothing more. It was not hard to see why Red Hat dropped it - they needed a WM, not an entire desktop and the kitchen sink.


    Frankly me and probably 99% of other GNOME users don't give a crap what WM they're running as long as it doesn't get in the way of GNOME. It should be as unobtrusive as possible and limit its features to window-manager-y things.


    I suppose E would be a good fit if you didn't want to run GNOME, or could put up with the bloat, or wanted to run kewl gigeresque desktops with metal knobs and shit, but for the rest of who just want to run some GNOME apps, then Sawmill is a perfectly usable and functional WM.


    Ultimately I'd like to NOT KNOW what WM I'm running. I don't really care that much as long as it moves windows around and is reasonably skinnable. If Metacity is a move in that direction then that fine by me. The sooner I don't need to know what WM is running the better.

  12. There's a point to this by hatless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think there's some missing the point going on here. From Sun's perspective (indeed, from a sysadmin's perspective), the lack of its own setup tools, relying on a command interface to change settings is a plus.

    Metacity gives GNOME a chance to address one of its manageability flaws, the confilct between a desktop environment and the window manager. Which controls wallpaper? Screensavers? Why are there separate themes and theme settings interfaces for window chrome and the window contents?

    It's because some power users high up in GNOME and window manager development--who usually aren't responsible for any machines beyond their own personal ones--like the flexibility of mixing and matching, and like pushing the bounds of what each component of their system can do. So overlapping--and conflicting--features get built.

    This isn't the end of the world, but it does make a GNOME system more unwieldy than it has to be. KDE can run with several window managers, but it comes with one of its own that leaves configuration matters to KDE. GNOME hasn't had this yet. Enlightenment, sawmill and sawfish have been progressively better fits, but Sun and others who are moving to Metacity probably see it as a simpler route to getting a decent (GTK+ 2, anti-aliasing, multihead, accessibility-enabled) window manager seamlessly tied into GNOME than revamping Sawfish--and subsuming all of its configuration into GNOME--would be.

    GNOME with Sawfish is a much tougher sell to a simplicity-minded CDE administrator than GNOME with Metacity will be, I suspect.

    1. Re:There's a point to this by cnladd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      GNOME with Sawfish is a much tougher sell to a simplicity-minded CDE administrator than GNOME with Metacity will be, I suspect.

      That statement right there hit the nail on the head, so to speak. There are a huge number of people that hate the CDE and wish it had never been born. The majority of those folks have usually never used more than one "corporate" UNIX system. I still remember the day, after numerous upgrades of several different systems (over the course of more than a year) that I walked into the datacenter and looked at the heads attached to our primary servers (17 primary servers, a few hundred smaller servers w/o heads).

      Seventeen boxes. Among them several HP-UX, Digital UNIX, OpenVMS, Solaris, and a lone Linux box (yup, we were testing it back then for a web server). All running CDE. Five different OSes, a single common interface that used a single common configuration script (and associated .fp and action files). Once I saw that I stopped hating CDE and realized how it can really make an admin's life easier. :)

      I think that's the same goal that Sun is shooting for. I know that they've caught a lot of flak for moving away from CDE - especially to GNOME, something that many Solaris admins I know consider "flashy". Moving to a simpler window manager is probably a good move on their part, and will be an easier move for those admins that really loved the CDE's simplicity.

      --

      --
      Welcome to the land of the easily amused...

  13. Can the button order be changed? by Mendax+Veritas · · Score: 3, Insightful
    One thing I notice in all the metacity screen shots I've seen is that the title bar buttons are badly arranged (a problem it shares with many other WMs). Putting the close button right next to the maximize button (or any other non-destructive button) is just dumb, even if it is fashionable nowadays (MacOS X and Windows since Win95 have the same problem, though older versions of MacOS and Windows did not). Can this be changed without modifying the source and recompiling?

    I recently got tired of sawfish too, so I switched to fluxbox, which is a new fork of blackbox with some nice features. One of its new features is that the user can change the button order! So I have the close button on one side and the minimize and maximize buttons on the other side, as they should be.

  14. translucent windows and other nonsense by henben · · Score: 1, Insightful
    For goodness sake, what problem do translucent windows solve? The need to see what's behind your xterm while simultaneously rendering it unreadable?

    The window management in Windows is better than anything I've seen in Linux. I'm sorry, but it's true. I don't care if you can make windows "roll up" into the title bar and you think it looks cool - what problem does that solve that wouldn't be handled better by minimising the window and showing it in the taskbar? Really, I'd be interested if someone could tell me the advantage.

    I'd like to see a better way to handle multiple windows, but sadly it seems we are stuck with things that look cool rather than anything useful.

    These are the problems that need to be solved, I reckon:

    • Provide a consistent, graphical way to traverse the file system.
    • Provide a graphical way to represent pipes and allow the user to send the output of one GUI application to another. For example, if I want to send the source of a web page to my text editor, I shouldn't have to go "View Source, Copy, Launch Text Editor, Paste" - there should be a natural way to do it in a single gesture. Ditto for sending a web page image to a graphics editor.
    • Similarly, there should be a simple way to record a sequence of operations in the GUI and replay/modify it.
    • With the advent of widescreen displays and multiple monitors, the GUI needs to arrange windows intelligently without the user dragging them back and forth.
    1. Re:translucent windows and other nonsense by pthisis · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The window management in Windows is better than anything I've seen in Linux.

      I'll agree that translucence and themability are fluff. I might be able to envision an actual use for translucence if I thought about it long enough, but it'd be a real corner case.

      But...

      Things that suck in Windows window management:

      • Click to focus + focus autoraise. The latter is the biggest problem. I can't tell you how often I want to be typing into the window _behind_ another window, so I can see the contents of another window while I type. And click to focus is just annoying, why put another step in the way of my work? There are some hacks to get focus-follows-mouse, but a lot of apps don't work well with it.
      • The task bar. This thing just blows, it's the first thing I turn off in Gnome/KDE. At most I want a couple of launch buttons and a clock, but I _don't_ need the entire bottom half of the screen real estate taken up by icons of every running app, and the thing is only usable if I have at most 8-10 windows open. Usually I have 4-5 times that. Give me alt-tab, windowshade, window groups (and raise/iconify/etc working on entire groups), virtual desktops, and restricted alt-tabs (meta-tab limited to xterm, control-tab limited to mozilla, etc) over that any day. In other words, real tools for managing the windows (which is what I want out of a window manager). Sawfish lets me do that. The groups, especially, are a godsend. Launch an editor, debugger, and GUI designer all in one group, then operate on that group as a whole when I need to. Which leads to...
      • ...MDI or whatever it's called when the IDE/Word/whatever opens a bunch of subwindows inside its own window instead of just opening them as real windows. God this sucks. I already have a window manager, I don't want every application to _also_ have a window manager. Of course, if your IDE takes the approach of putting everything into one window rather than seperate windows which can be grouped together then you need something like this. Ugh.
      • Clippy. Yeah, he's not related to window management but even now that he's dead he deserves to be kicked around.

      Sumner

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    2. Re:translucent windows and other nonsense by Hitokage_Nishino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First of all, some of the requests you list are not the job of a Window Manager. A window manager is supposed to manage windows. Obvious point, but you seem to want more.

      Second, and this is my opinion, Enligtenment beats out the Windows WM in every possible way. I don't mean in terms of fluff and flash, but in pure functionality(although it does that too). Many of these are standard among X WMs.

      - Can enter text into a window other than the one on top, vital feature to me. Extremely useful when you have a window containing data on top of, let's say a spreadsheet, and need to input it in.

      - Can make any window go to the top or bottom of the layout, and also have it stay there.

      - Can make any window maximize only to available room.

      - Can make any window fullscreen.

      - Can remember specific settings for a program and always use it when program starts.

      - Can destroy any window no matter how frozen the app is.

      - Can shade. While you can also minimize, shading allows you to move or do whatever as if it were not minimized.

      - Multiple/Virtual desktops. One screen gets crowded with lots and lots of windows. Much more convenient to separate them out.

      - Can make any window stay present in all desktops.

      - Rather intelligent window placement

      - Lots of configurability.

      - eesh Shell interface. Allows you to control all aspects of the WM through the command line or a script.

      Sorry, don't believe the Windows WM has any of these.

    3. Re:translucent windows and other nonsense by __past__ · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't care if you can make windows "roll up" into the title bar and you think it looks cool - what problem does that solve that wouldn't be handled better by minimising the window and showing it in the taskbar? Really, I'd be interested if someone could tell me the advantage.
      It moves the window out of your way while keeping it easily accessible, and where you want it. Usually, it's quite a long way down to a "task-bar", even if you chose to have one eating you screen real-estate.
    4. Re:translucent windows and other nonsense by quantum+bit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For goodness sake, what problem do translucent windows solve? The need to see what's behind your xterm while simultaneously rendering it unreadable?

      Can't argue with that. I like plain light-grey-on-black xterms. Easy to read.

      I'm sorry, but it's true. I don't care if you can make windows "roll up" into the title bar and you think it looks cool - what problem does that solve that wouldn't be handled better by minimising the window and showing it in the taskbar? Really, I'd be interested if someone could tell me the advantage.

      Ummm, ok. Not everybody likes the whole "taskbar" idea. When I'm on a Windows box, I frequently have so many windows open that the taskbar is utterly unusable (takes me 30 seconds just to hover over icons and find which one I'm after). On my X desktop, I have no taskbar or anything like it -- I use sawfish with no desktop envorinment. Just gkrellm in the corner of my left-hand monitor, a tiny pager in the bottom left (4 virtual desktops X 3 monitors == lots of room :), and the windows themselves. If I have too much open and the windows are overlapping, just click on the desktop and I get a nice, easy to read menu with everything grouped by application or class. It really saves me a lot of time. Right-click gives me a list of commonly used programs to start. To answer your question, when I'm not using a window and want to get it out of the way, I shade it. It's a lot easier to find it again since it hasn't changed position.

      Trust me, after getting used to that, it's a pain to work in Windows because it just takes so long to get anything done.

      One feature I absolutely love about sawfish that Windows doesn't have anything close to is the customizible bindings to do almost anything you want. On an MS box, if the title bar of a window is obscured, there is no way to move it without either moving something else first, or using the task bar to raise the window (disrupting your Z order). In sawfish, I just hold down the windows key, grab the window anywhere, and drag it where I want it (without changing the Z order). Incredibly convenient. And Windows+X for an xterm? ;)

      And don't even get me started on focus-follows-mouse. Just imagine having a bunch terminals or whatever, simply pointing at the corner of xmms with the mouse, pressing 'B' for next track, then going back to what you were doing. Windows has a hack with tweak UI that tries to do this, but some apps (*ahem*, MS OFFICE *ahem*) insist on raising themselves to the top whenever they get focus, which is incredibly annoying...

  15. Re:I use it... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Pro: [...], fast

    Do you have anything to support that statement? With metacity 2.3.337, switching to a desktop with 14 NEdit windows and 2 xterms takes quite a while, well over 1 second. You can quite easily see the individual NEdit windows being mapped, bottom to top. The workstation is a Dual Xeon with 512MB main memory. A dual fucking Xeon and I have to watch my windows get mapped 1 by 1.

    It seems to me people are parrotting the "metacity is fast" line without really checking it out. Probably a groupthink preference for C implementations.

  16. Everyone here is missing the point.... by niola · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are running a Sun server chances are you won't have any of this shit running - well at least if you have a clue. Why use system resources and have services running, and also providing the machine with more ways to be compromised if it is a server?

    If I am running a production server, there won't be shit for a GUI on there. Who needs it...

    --Jon

  17. Oroborus by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I recently on a whim tried out the Oroborus window manager and was pleasantly surprised to find that it is a "boring" wm that does nothing but manage windows, has no menu, icons, pager, or anything. It's also Gnome compliant. It looks really cool by default with a green window border somewhat reminiscent of the qnx gui.
    The thing that bugs me about Gnome is that it doesn't have its Very Own window manager. Well actually, it seems like it doesn't have a lot of things of its own, like a file manager, to name one. Everything is someone else's project. Gnome will adopt Metacity, and then, like with Enlightenment and Sawfish before it, the developer will head in some other direction, leaving Gnome in search of a new one.
    You've got Gnome with gmc, you've got Gnome with Nautilus. Which one is the real Gnome? Why doesn't the Gnome project unify and maintain its own components? To me it seems that they're really lacking in this area. I like how organized KDE is. The wm and file manager are built as part of the kdebase tarball. All one neat package.
    This is not meant to fan any kind of KDE vs. Gnome flames, however. I think Gnome is pretty neat, but I just keep waiting...and waiting...for it to "get there".

    --
    You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
  18. Re:Enlightenment by Mandelbrute · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So therefore it's not hard to guess the cause of Red Hat / Raster split - Red Hat wanted a functioning, lightweight WM to put behind GNOME so it could sell it to businesses and normal users
    RedHat (or a person who was there at the time and is unlikely to still have a job) wanted a window manager that looked like win* with a bit of fvwm thrown in so that win* users could use their distribution easily from day one - not a bad goal really. E with the right theme gave them that almost from the first day Raster worked there. Raster then proceeded to put stuff into E that would not be used in that cut down theme. One of Rasters superiors (who is probably no longer at RedHat) who was not particularly skilled in the use of email flamed Raster and his "posse" (simply being an unprofessional way of refering to the unpaid developers) for putting stuff in in their spare time which wasn't in the business plan. Raster was not supposed to get the email, but technical illitracy will out - and eventually raster went off to work somewhere else with different management. Google will tell you more. The other window manager was used simple becuase it was the window manager for gnome.

    Enlightenment was briefly part of gnome, but the dependencies and politics killed that. At that point E ran on a variety of platforms, and the gnome people of the time didn't have any short term plans to move off x86 hardware and linux. Raster et al more or less had a choice between personally porting the rapidly moving target of the gimp tool kit (gtk) to Solaris etc, or just keeping the window manager seperate. Gnome at the time was sadly dominated by politics over functionality, but thankfully moved on to where it is now. There were actually arguments at the time over whether it should ever be ported to any kind of commercial OS for idealogical reasons. In hindsight, the Enlightenment project was better off without that, and other themed window managers were developed to work with gnome and kde. E v0.16 of course works with both.

    E was always about "kewl fx" as well as funtionality anyway - the alternatives were fvwm (not fvwm2) which looked pretty horrible and was time consuming to configure, and windowmaker, which had a few cool features like the dock.

    I wouldn't have called Enlightenment a desktop shell (E16) at the time that GNOME was being released
    That, I believe, is the long range plan. E at the time was simply a window manager with icons, menus, and a pager. The filemanager etc comes seperately, as whatever one you pick from kde, gnome or myriads of unconnected projects.
  19. just the interface by fons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm no expert at this, so i'm going out on a limb here, but i think they only 'stole' the interface.

    The underlaying (is that an English word?) multimedia platform (gstreamer) seems to be very original and innovative and something we will probably hear more about in the future.

    Sure, it looks like iTunes, but under the hood it's a completely different thing. In my opinion the inteface is just a thin layer on the surface.

    It just depends on how you define 'stealing'. It's a blurry discussion. iTunes isn't the first audio player so you could say they stole the idea from earlier audio software.
    Every spreadsheet and wordprocessor looks alike. But that's far from saying that they stole from each other or that they are the same.

    Furthermore rythmbox is not a finished product so who knows. Maybe it will be skinnable in the future.

    just my two cents.