Matchbox -- a Small Footprint Window Manager

An anonymous reader writes "In this technical article at LinuxDevices.com, Matchbox project leader Matthew Allum introduces his creation Matchbox: a small footprint window manager for PDAs and other resource-constrained embedded devices. Allum recalls why he decided to embark on the project, outlines its key objectives, describes its architecture and unique characteristics, and ponders its future. Cool piece of software; good read."

Comments

Re:If it's resource constrained, why run X?

[JordoCrouse]

like using the framebuffer device, or Qt/embedded

First of all, QT/embedded is just as bloated as X (maybe even more).

The framebuffer is a good idea, but by the time you end up implementing all the stuff you need to actually run a decent program, you have implemented most of the XLib anyway. Trust me, I have gone that route before.

X has its advantages when used on networks, like the client/server model, but it's overkill for personal devices.

Ok - first of all - if you want to run multiple apps in a window manager environment, you *need* to run it as a client/server setup - Thats exactly what you are looking at on a window manager - multiple clients running on a single server. IMHO, its much better to have a client and server than a monolithic application - less resources to be used.

Secondly, X uses this same client/server configuration on the desktop - and though some take advantage of the networkability of the protocol, most don't. Yet, nobody ever attacks RedHat or SuSE for using X in a client/server configuration.

Re:If it's resource constrained, why run X?

[dmiller]

X is a resource hog

Prove it!

My X is currently using 21M of my RAM (RSS). That is with 6 1600x1200 virtual desktops and a whole lot of windows open.

Seeing as how 21 * 2^20 * (6*1600*1200*4*2). It seems to be doing a very good job of managing resources. Much better than Mozilla (55M RSS) or Evolution (45M RSS).

Are you going to back up your assertion with numbers, your are you just going to recite the tired ./ mantra that "X is bloated"?

Re:small and efficient

[JPriest]

It also uses Tiny-X server instead of the standard Xfree86, which I'm sure has quite a bit to do with the reason it's not huge and doesn't suck.

Re:No X for my pda

[kevin lyda]

wait, pda's are low power, low mem devices and you say they have no need for the remote display ability of x? really?

assume that a low memory foot print version of an x-server exists (and you should assume this since it actually does exist). assume your pda has a wireless card and a color screen (because many do). and let's say you're a web designer and you're in a meeting with just your pda and for some reason you need to do up a quick logo. so you fire off the gimp from your high powered desktop box and hae it display on your pda. you do up a quick logo using some gimp scripts and effects and then pass it around.

there, that's one use for remote display. now use you imagination and fill in the other 1 million cases where gui requirements are small and the stuff behind the gui are highly cpu and/or memory intensive. wait, i forgot java, make that 10 million cases...