Killing Clutter With The Antidesktop

Espectr0 writes "Hate window managers? Cannot live without one? Well, you can, kind of. A Freshmeat editorial called 'The Antidesktop' talks about how you can get rid of flashy, bloaty window managers without loosing functionality." It depends on how many tasks you want to keep track of in your head, too.

Comments

loose versus lose

[DuncMan]

sigh... that should read "... without losing functionality". Two very different words.

Re:loose versus lose

[nmg]

I agree. Porper English is nowhere to be seen these days.

Re:loose versus lose

[DeadSea]

More and more people seem to be getting this one wrong. It isn't even hard to remember, if you think about it.

• loose - rhymes with moose and goose. "I set the dog loose to run in the woods."
• lose - present tense of lost. Related to loss. Those words only have one 'o', so "lose" has only one as well. "We need to get another goal, I don't want to lose."

Re:loose versus lose

[Espectr0]

Sorry, english is not my primary language. Not to be a troll, but what is the excuse of the editor? :)

Re:loose versus lose

[Espectr0]

So, can you make it so you think that i wanted to say "so you wouldn't have to set free some functionality" ? :-D

Lol, i had a rough time remembering if "functionality" is a real word.

Re:loose versus lose

[LMCBoy]

Where is LoseNotLooseGuy when we need him?

To the grammarmobile, LNLG!

Re:loose versus lose

[Quaryon]

I'm coming to the opinion that the English language has actually changed so that "loosing" is now a valid spelling of the word. I hate it, I must admit, but you see far more people spelling it this way than the correct way ("losing"), and I guess that's how language changes.

English has evolved throughout its history - I guess this is just another evolution, albeit one I would rather not see.

Q.

Re:loose versus lose

[kelnos]

i have friends that swear that you can spell "lose" (i.e. to misplace or create a lack of something) either "lose" or "loose." it pisses me off to no end.

i maintain that the only reason you can do that is because so many people have made that common(?) mistake it has become allowed due to lack of education ^_~ ... or a lack of will to educate... *sigh*

Re:loose versus lose

[deprecated]

Fight the slackerly orthography! Those who can't spell lose or loose will lose loose and lose.

Re:loose versus lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Hail, and well met, packer of fudge. Get thee out of my sight.

Re:loose versus lose

[mickwd]

Jesus, no wonder they say programmers have problems designing desktops for "normal" users.

Looks like some of them can't even get the language right. And then they expect the bloody language to change.

(NOTE: This rant is only aimed at people for whom English is a first language).

Re:loose versus lose

[Anonymous Coward]

In my accent anyway (Irish), "loose" and "lose" even sound different, so it's not like they're "the same word" in my mind AT ALL. "loose" rhymes with "goose". "lose" rhymes with "shoes"

I really don't know how people confuse them. Shoes and Goose sound nothing alike to my ear, and neither do lose and loose.

Then again, maybe my Irish ear is more vowel-attuned, since lots of Irish words have dipthongs and tripthongs.

Re:loose versus lose

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I don't think I would call it evolution, it is moving the wrong way. Evolution has an implied improvement.

Re:loose versus lose

[dcm1101]

OK, this bugs me a little. I'm not a prescriptivist when it comes to (human) languages and in fact believe english should reflect the continuing evolution of social intercourse. I cheered when "d'oh" was added to the OED. But... In this case, the language would be losing functionality: two words with different meanings cannot be spelled the same way, one of the meanings would have to go and that would be a loss to the language and our ability to express ourselves.

Re:loose versus lose

[Anonymous Coward]

That wouldn't be a big deal if the words had the same meaning. Since they don't have the same meaning, the context of the statement is needed to determine wich one of the two meanins of "loose" was desired. Sometimes, the context isn't there:

"I loosed my pants."

Did the person lose their pants in the laundry, or did they slacken the belt a notch or two?

The actions described by lose and loose are distinct and common experiences and therefore require distinct words to describe them. Other aspects of language might be able to be written off as just a matter of change but the loose/lose mixup will always be an example of illiteracy unless we evolve to the point where we either:

a.)never lose anything again

or

b) accomplish engineering miracle that removes the need to loosen things.

Until then, we will require words to describe them both.

Re:loose versus lose

[Alien Being]

How about 'retrogression'? Soon we will all be back to grunting.

Re:loose versus lose

[JonWan]

Not to worry English isn't the primary language of the U.S. either.

--

"Hey, this is America. Speak Spanish, Damn it." - Cheech Marin

Re:loose versus lose

[psxndc]

ouch. I really torpedoed my rant with that one, huh?

psxndc

Re:loose versus lose

[Alien Being]

either "lose" or "loose."

Their spelling rules are as lose as a gose.

Re:loose versus lose

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, loose (l oo s) and lose (l oo z) sound different to me too. But that's probably just because we're not idiotic enough little Slashdaughters.

Re:loose versus lose

[Quaryon]

two words with different meanings cannot be spelled the same way

Heh, if this were true we'd lose half the English language :)

Trvial example off the top of my head:

Leaves: "He leaves the room.", "The train was late due to leaves on the line".

In that case you can tell the meaning since one is a verb while the other is a noun, but there are countless other examples where this isn't true.

How about "lead": "He put the dog on a lead". "The element with symbol Pb is called lead". In this case both are nouns, they're even pronounced differently but they are spelt the same.

English is just a crazy, mixed-up language due to all the people who invaded the UK throughout history all bringing their own words with them.

Q.

Re:loose versus lose

[jazman_777]

...two words with different meanings cannot be spelled the same way, one of the meanings would have to go and that would be a loss to the language and our ability to express ourselves.

Did you really mean, "that would be a loose to the language..." ? OK, it's getting bad here. But what do you expect of a mass of people educated by the government?

Re:loose versus lose

[Anonymous Coward]

dawg, i don't wanna be hearin that shiz about the way i get my word on, yo. just cuz you ain't be understandin my flava ain't be meanin that i don't speak good.

it's murda murda murda!

Re:loose versus lose

[Quaryon]

Unfortunately, most of the users probably think lose should be spelt "loose" too - one of the few times when two wrongs actually do make a right :)

Q.

Re:loose versus lose

[tzanger]

How about "lead": "He put the dog on a lead". "The element with symbol Pb is called lead". In this case both are nouns, they're even pronounced differently but they are spelt the same.

Base and Bass are another nasty one. the latter has two pronounciations, and two meanings based on the pronounciation.

Re:loose versus lose

[Mr Z]

Either he lost his pants or he loosened his pants. In modern American English, so far as I know, there is no loosed. Although, to be fair, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary has some interesting and archaic-sounding examples of loosed :

Loose \Loose\, v. n. [imp. & p. p. Loosed; p. pr. & vb. n. Loosing.] [From Loose, a.] 1. To untie or unbind; to free from any fastening; to remove the shackles or fastenings of; to set free; to relieve.

Canst thou . . . loose the bands of Orion ? --Job. xxxviii. 31.

Ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them, and bring them unto me. --Matt. xxi. 2.

2. To release from anything obligatory or burdensome; to disengage; hence, to absolve; to remit.

Art thou loosed from a wife ? seek not a wife. --1 Cor. vii. 27.

Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. --Matt. xvi. 19.

3. To relax; to loosen; to make less strict.

The joints of his loins were loosed. --Dan. v. 6.

4. To solve; to interpret. [Obs.] --Spenser.

Joints of his loins? Uhm, yeah. Now bring me that ass. ;-) I'd say "loosed" is not part of the current vernacular. Or "loosing", for that matter. It says something that only the unabridged dictionary lists those strange words.

--Joe

Re:loose versus lose

[plugger]

I had never heard/seen this until about a year ago and now everyone seems to forget how to spell "lose". Where did this come from?

They're just a bunch of loosers.

Re:loose versus lose

[plugger]

...you see far more people spelling it this way than the correct way

Not looking for an argument here, but are you sure that the majority use lose and loose incorrectly? Maybe - hopefully - you just notice the exceptions and don't spot the correct usage.

Re:loose versus lose

[(void*)]

They are loosers.

Re:loose versus lose

[plugger]

They are known as a homonyms (two words which share the same sound, and sometimes the same spelling).

Re:loose versus lose

[plugger]

I was government educated, and I know the difference. Ok, I admit being something of a bookworm in my childhood. Another advantage of reading a great deal is the ability to write a word to check the spelling. Most of the time, a misspelled word just looks wrong.

Re:loose versus lose

[reallocate]

Editor??

Re:loose versus lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but once English standardised circa 1534 the correct spellings were the cprrect spellings (and yes, standardiSed is correct in British English).

Spelling something incorrectly does not one day magically make it correct.

Using LOOSE when LOSE is meant (or vice versa) is an incorrect use of the language.

Re:loose versus lose

[reallocate]

Hmmm... The only place I see "lose" consistently misspelled as "loose" is on Slashdot. That might be attributed to a lot of bouncing 'o' keys. Given the other spelling mistakes that show up regularly, though, I'm guessing it's one part sloppy typing and one part "These Guys Can't Spell".

Re:loose versus lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Then your opinion would be incorrect.

Re:loose versus lose

[LoseNotLooseGuy]

Unfortunately, I was called away to an emergency at Kuro5hin. I told ThenOrThanBoy to keep an eye on things in my absence, but frankly I am beginning to doubt his commitment to the Cause.

It's hard to find good minions these days.

Re:loose versus lose

[dcm1101]

Touche. You are right, of course; homonyms, heteronyms, homophones and homographs are rampant throughout the language. They follow no easily classified patterns and wreak havoc with clear communication, though they do provide fodder for punsters and poets. But that is no reason to add another.

Re:loose versus lose

[AVryhof]

Well Jee.....A and O are not next to each other on a standard keyboard......Does that clue you in to something?

Re:loose versus lose

[DohDamit]

I am coming to the opinion that people who use such terrible grammar are really in no position to say exactly how the language is changing. I have no fucking idea where you're seeing more people spelling it this way, unless you're Timmy the Gimp Boy and your only social outlet is Slashdot.

Just in case you are wondering, you should've said, "I think that the English language has...." Hopefully you get the idea.

Re:loose versus lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? WTF? Never heard of homonyms?

Re:loose versus lose

[Francis Avila]

The reason for this common confusion is quite simple: English (as usual) is absolutely brain-dead. Case in point: inconsistent pronunciation.

Cf.: choose and loose; chose and lose.

The O in lose is of the same length as the O in loose, yet only one receives a double O. However, this is inconsistent with the pattern in choose and chose, where an O terminated by a Z-sound receives the double O--with loose and lose the matter is the exact opposite. And the pronunciation of O in chose is inconsistent with the pronunciation of O in lose. (Admit it: how many of you at first sight said "chOHz and lOHz"?

Face it folks: there hasn't been a decent language in the western world since the fall of the Roman empire, when the barbarians corrupted all elevated discourse. It's all been downhill since then. Even modern greek is disgusting compared to its glorious ancestors.

And that is why people should learn classical languages: to escape the mire of the vulgarity that is every modern tongue. None can achieve even half the precision and elegance of the full case system (for example) or radical inflection (for another) that are found in (for example) Greek and Latin.

And while I'm on it: I'll split my infinitives any time I damn well please. That's a totally artificial rule introduced by the humanists who systematized English while high on Latin grammar (and rightly so), yet ignored its germanic origins. Just because in Latin an infinitive is a single unit, doesn't mean it is in English! Besides, the Latins thought nothing of inserting adverbs in the middle of their periphrastic verbal constructions, so why should we in our own? Besides, splitting infinitives introduces a nuance and precision that is otherwise lacking in English.

[Whew, I feel much better.]

Re:loose versus lose

[DuncMan]

I think the English and American languages also need the help of;

• YourVersusYou'reGirl
• ToOrTooOrTwoMan
• CaptainCouldHaveNotCouldOf

Re:loose versus lose

[DuncMan]

Quaryon wrote:
I'm coming to the opinion that the English language has actually changed so that "loosing" is now a valid spelling of the word. I hate it, I must admit, but you see far more people spelling it this way than the correct way ("losing"), and I guess that's how language changes.

This is a confusing point. And I'm going to have to disagree... I think.

People are still using "lose" and "loose" (and the various derivative words) correctly when speaking, but they're getting the spelling confused. So the affected languages haven't changed- these people just can't, or won't, spell correctly.

Yes, yes, I'm off-topic as hell. I'm a bad person.

Re:loose versus lose

[jonadab]

> They are known as a homonyms (two words which share the
> same sound, and sometimes the same spelling).

More particularly, if they are spelled the same they are homographs
(from a Greek word for writing), and if they are pronounced (roughly)
the same they are homophones (from a Greek word for sound). A pair
of words can be either, neither, or both. If they're either or both,
they qualify as homonyms.

I still don't like the double-o spelling of lose, but it is true
that the language is capable of supporting that as well as the
existing word loose with very little loss of clarity, since the
difference can generally be glorked from context.

Back to topic: I suppose the arrangement he's got going is okay
if all you do is browse the web and work with text (which, I admit,
is an awefully large percentage of what I do), but how in the name
of all that is sane would you use the Gimp? Also, I wouldn't like
to be out my always-visible clock on the panel. It's a small thing,
but I wouldn't want to give it up. I'd have to look clear across
the room at my physical clock then, or something.

Plus, he uses the other fork of Emacs, so he must be a heretic ;-)

Re:loose versus lose

[some guy I know]

inconsistent pronunciation.

The word that I like to use to illustrate this is "through".
Drop or add one letter at a time to change the vowel and/or consonant sound in a different part of the word:

through --> though
though --> tough
tough --> thought

through --> trough
trough --> rough

Re:loose versus lose

[Quaryon]

So you can't see the difference in meaning between "I am coming to the opinion that" and "I think that"..? The difference is subtle, I'll grant you, but there is a significant difference. If I had said "I think that" it would be false - I *don't* think that, but I'm getting to the stage where I might do soon...

I'm not defending my grammar, by the way - I'm sure it's terrible. After all MS Word is forever telling me everything I type is wrong..

Q.

Re:loose versus lose

[plugger]

Thanks for the definition of homograph, that was a new one on me.

Console

[RalphJay]

I think this guy is taking it too far. If you really want to avoid all bloat, you shouldn't run X anyway. Seems to me someone who doesn't like windowmanagers etc. should just run stuff from the console (and definately not Mozilla).

Re:Console

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I think the idea is that you can have it basically like you are in cli with
screen, but if you absolutely need to view a web page with a graphical browser
you can.

Re:Console

[RalphJay]

Well I think the idea is that you can have it basically like you are in cli with screen, but if you absolutely need to view a web page with a graphical browser you can. But that's my point: running X just because there may be a need some time to view a graphical webpage seems overkill to me. Talk about bloat. (And besides, decent webpages - even those with images - are perfectly viewable in Links.)

Re:Console

[stratjakt]

Perfectly viewable? Maybe in "Links", but surely not in Lynx.

I was trying to grab some tarballs for the one non-gui machine I'm running.. And even the linux related sites are bloated with graphics and doodads. All of the download links would just show or . Sometimes you can decrypt what the file is from the URL, sometimes you cant.

So I had to browse to what I wanted with my wintel box, right click what I needed and "copy shortcut" (because of course they have to rewire the status bar so it wont show the URLs), paste it into a text file, then enter the entire URL into lynx. There are other ways, but that was the path of least resistance.

The console based web browser has gone the way of the dodo. I guess the world ran out of things to say with text, and can only communicate in flash animations and doodles now.

Re:Console

[Blkdeath]

I think this guy is taking it too far. If you really want to avoid all bloat, you shouldn't run X anyway. Seems to me someone who doesn't like windowmanagers etc. should just run stuff from the console (and definately not Mozilla).

I agree. We have screen on the console and things like SVGALib for simplicity. Mozilla is the anti-lean, if you will, for a desktop. It consumes 50MB of RAM as soon as you actually use it for something - which is atleast 17MB more than X.

At home, for some strange reason, I run rxvts instead of Xterms. Now, the reason this is strange is because I run KDE 3, Mozilla, OpenOffice, and VMWare. Colour me quirky. ;)

If I want to use my computer in a lean environment, I'll use something along the lines of TWM, LWM, etc. where I can still have some of the window manager functionality (resizing of windows to optimize my desktop space usage, for example) without all the bloat of desktop wallpapers, flashing/pulsing icons, translucent menus, etc.. In my normal work environment, however, I do appreciate a lot of the glitz so I leave it all enabled.

All a matter of choice, of course, but I don't see the point of going out of your way to make a complex situation in the interests of simplicity.

Re:Console

[cduffy]

It's not just about eliminating bloat; it's also about usability. I've been using ion for quite some time, and love it. I can run my favorite apps (Evolution, Galeon, &c), control *everything* by keyboard... and have absolutely no wasted real estate on the screen, or issues juggling which window is on top of which.

Simply put, don't knock it 'till ya try it.

Re:Console

[Bastian]

I think windowmanager choice is a somewhat different issue from software package choice.

My take on the whole issue is that software (office suites, Mozilla, etc.) is what the computer is actually there for, and this stuff should be the focus of what I am doing when I sit down.

To that end, when I login on my computer, I am not logging in to goof around with Gnome or KDE, I'm logging in to browse the web, check my e-mail, or work on some project.

It's probably of note that I program enough that most of my time interacting with my computer is either done through a web browser or through CLI.

I also want X. As far as I can tell, the CLI jockeys who don't use X aren't using any applications that need X - say, OpenOffice or a web browser. The GUI people who say someone who wants to use X but have it get out of his way, on the other hand, have missed the point.

I like WYSIWYG word processors like OpenOffice, I like browswing webpages with web browsers that are capable of displaying images, and I don't know how in the heck I would maintain my webpage if I didn't have X to run a decent paint program from.

What I don't like is navigating endless menus, using the mouse to manipulate files, and not being able to efficiently switch tasks with only a keystroke. You know that feeling some people express that Windows is more of a roadblock on the path to efficient computer usage, and so is MacOS? I feel the same way about Sawfish.

This is a very different issue from Mozilla wasting resources - that has nothing to do with the interface. Frankly, the Web is a mouse-driven thing, and for that I can handle Mozilla being mouse-driven. Resource wastage is bad, but then again so is resource wastage on most any other decent web browser. Besides, Mozilla is an application, not a desktop environment.

Re:Console

[vmfedor]

You're missing the point, I think. If you have a machine with 16MB or less of RAM, you probably wouldn't be running any sort of graphical system anyway.

This guy is just talking about using a 'window manager' that has all of the functionality of X, without the clutter. He never mentioned a reduction in memory usage. His goal in using ratpoison was to be more productive, not use less system resources. ;)

vmfedor

Re:Console

[FattMattP]

I think this guy is taking it too far. If you really want to avoid all bloat, you shouldn't run X anyway. Seems to me someone who doesn't like windowmanagers etc. should just run stuff from the console (and definately not Mozilla).

He's not taking it too far. He's doing what works for him. He didn't say X was bloated. He may just not like the concept of windows and having to drag stuff around and out of the way all the time. I feel the same way. Everytime I have to use a MS Windows box, I maximize all of the windows. That way I get to use all of my screen space and I always know where my menus and the close/minimize buttons are.

Re:Console

[Blkdeath]

To that end, when I login on my computer, I am not logging in to goof around with Gnome or KDE, I'm logging in to browse the web, check my e-mail, or work on some project.

Granted, but the ability to quickly re-arrange, re-size, create, and destroy windows is invaluable to working efficiently. When I'm running at 1024x768, sometimes I don't want six Xterms opened (which don't fit on the screen all at the same time without hiding portions of atleast two of them), but I can do so very easily without having to futz with command-line options. Ctrl-Alt-T opens a new terminal - I can open them even on my slow(er) laptop at a rate of two per second when my system is under a typical load. I can destroy windows at a rate of about five per second with configurable keyboard shortcuts, too, using WindowMaker or KDE, or even just Ctrl-D within Xterms.

What I don't like is navigating endless menus,

Why navigate menus? I rarely, if ever open my Kmenu - I've got keyboard shortcuts assigned to all tasks (again, under both my primary window managers). Some things have icons on my taskbar because hey, they're pretty. :) Moreover, you can organize the menu any way you'd like. My friend likes to group his applications by task ("Cd burning", "Audio", "Video", "Internet", etc.), as do I, but not to that extreme. More like "Applications", "Multimedia", and a couple of other fairly broad categories. Of course, you could also remove all entries and have only your five most commonly used applications right in the root of your menu if you want to.

using the mouse to manipulate files,

Why would you do that? Midnight Commander within an Xterm is perfect for that. Ctrl-Alt-T{cr}mc{cr} and I'm manipulating files. If I want to see more detail, I maximixe the Xterm and mc shows me wide listings of my directories. If I want to see larger type, I Ctrl-RightClick the Xterm and select "Huge" and give my poor eyes a rest. If I want to shoot the window to the background, I middle-click on the titlebar and it drops allll the way to the bottom of the 'pile'.

and not being able to efficiently switch tasks with only a keystroke.

Ctrl-Esc, scroll to desired task, Cr. Else, Alt-Tab works. Or, if I have tasks focused in alternate desktops, Alt-1 through Alt-0 switches from one to another.

This is a very different issue from Mozilla wasting resources - that has nothing to do with the interface. Frankly, the Web is a mouse-driven thing, and for that I can handle Mozilla being mouse-driven

In the interests of efficiency on a scale of 1-10, Mozilla rates somewhere around 0.5. {smile}

If you want graphical, mouse-driven web browsing even with anti-aliased fonts and JavaScript, backgroundable downloads - use Links.

Re:Console

[eno2001]

Why lean? I'm not trolling, I'm just curious. Why would someone who has a P4 1.x Ghz box with 1 Gig of RAM and 200 Gigs of HD want to run lean? What are you going to do with the other 3/4ths of a gig of RAM and 90% CPU other than run apps? What I usually do if I need extra horsepower is init from runlevel 5 to runlevel 3. Then I run my job from the console.

I do think that X is pretty resource hungry, but look at all of the useful things it can do. Just last night I ran it over a DSL connection using VPN. My upstream is only 128K and using 'lbxproxy' to compress the X data from the client apps, the response was pretty much on par with a VNC session. If anything, I think we need something like a local X proxy so that we can leave apps running for reattachment later. To be honest, I am still frustrated by the fact that I can't remotely reattach to a background job or one that was started in a session that was disconnected. (I think screen might be able to do this, but I'm still unsure) Look at Windows XP... a user can log off and let someone else log in to do other work, then log back in later to pick up where they left off. Damn cool. We need that in *nix. VNC can kind of do it, but with a real X proxy that supported acceleration, ANY app could be run this way. Now THAT would be damn cool. Of course that's just my opinion... and I'm sure you know what people say about opinions.

Re:Console

[Blkdeath]

Why lean? I'm not trolling, I'm just curious.

Two words; Laptop battery. {smile}

My Toshiba's Li-Ion battery will keep me powered for quite a long time, but if I'm working on a jobsite I want to conserve as many of my resources available as possible to get the job done quickly and efficiently. Besides, as my battery life slowly drains, the CPU, video, and cooling fans are throttled down, giving me less power for 'glitz'.

Re:Console

[Aknaton]

I generally prefer the console but the problem with the console is that you are limited to 80x24 characters, unless you use a platform with framebuffer support.

A minimal X environment allows me to use 110x50 xterms; nice when using programs such as Mutt. Plus, I have access to graphics should I need it.

Re:Console

[eno2001]

Good point. :) I didn't think of that, but running lean on a laptop makes a lot of sense. I tend to have more of a desktop bias since most of my computing is done at home and at work.

Re:Console

[sketerpot]

Perfectly viewable? Maybe in "Links", but surely not in Lynx.

FYI, there actually is a web browser called Links. It is supposed to be a lot like Lynx, but not Lynx.

Perhaps you didn't know that.

Re:Console

[blakestah]

I think this guy is taking it too far. If you really want to avoid all bloat, you shouldn't run X anyway. Seems to me someone who doesn't like windowmanagers etc. should just run stuff from the console (and definately not Mozilla).

It was not at all about bloat.

It was about clutter. Visual distractions, not memory usage.

Re:Console

[Blkdeath]

I tend to have more of a desktop bias since most of my computing is done at home and at work.

"Work" for me tends to be my laptop. Sometimes I sit at the store with it, sometimes I'm at client sites. I use it as my primary machine at home because I can sit on the couch and watch TV and half-ignore the computer, so as a result it's become quite a comfortable desktop environment.

As far as non-lean configuration goes, when I'm on mains power (which is actually the majority of its lifetime) I want to use an environment that's both functional/efficient and easy on the eyes. If I have to look at this thing for upwards of twelve hours out of a day, I want some eye-candy. Since I can do that without functionality or efficiency loss, I consider my situation to be the best of both worlds.

If anybody thinks their desktop of choice 'gets in the way' - disable all the features that you don't like, and re-map the rest of them the way you like it. Since I switched to Linux from OS/2, people will probably tend to find my desktop 'feels' more like OS/2 Warp than a typical Windows or Linux setup. (For the record - OS/2 with Object Desktop installed was a schweet environment to work in! For the lean side of things, FileBar was perfect. Man, I miss that operating system...)

Re:Console

[eno2001]

As an old OS2 fan (Warp 3), I'd like to see a screenshot of your Linux desktop. :)

Re:Console

[Da VinMan]

Nope, sorry, I can't agree. If you want the best browser going on Linux, you need to use Mozilla. If you want to use Mozilla, you need X.

Why should command line users have to sacrifice the best apps so they can work in their preferred manner?

My pet peeve with all of this is that almost all window managers (Windows XP included) do not give you an intuitive way to ditch the mouse in all situation. You've got to dig deep and long to find all the keyboard shortcuts available, and some aren't even documented anymore. Why?!

Re:Console

[pabs]

Here is a screenshot of Links, Twin, and a whole bunch of other goodies. Who says the command-line is dead?

Re:Console

[Theom]

That's not a command line, it's a text mode window manager that is running a terminal emulator...

Re:Console

[Anonymous Coward]

links -g

Re:Console

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just about eliminating bloat; it's also about usability.

Usable? Default key bindings suck (hey, how about letting the applications handle the function keys, buddy?) and as for bloat, you better read the mailing list archives: Tons of discussion about adding all kinds of interpreter/Java bindings/whatnot crap. You'd think people would be aware of creeping featuritis by now.

Re:Console

[Anonymous Coward]

On x86 VGA, one can use higher res text-mode VGAs by using vga=0x000. This does NOT require framebuffer support to be compiled in.

Re:Console

[psergiu]

> 110x50 xterms

132 columns IS the LAW kid.

Nice concept

[jos3000]

With so many people around here being attracted by the smooth curves of Mac OS it's nice to see utilitarian ideals being put into practice.

Re:Nice concept

[jazman_777]

With so many people around here being attracted by the smooth curves of Mac OS it's nice to see utilitarian ideals being put into practice.

I like smooth curves (especially my wife's). I am not drawn to Spartan asceticism and the utilitarian "ideal".

Re:Nice concept

[Anonymous Coward]

erp. Wrong, fuckface!

Log into an OSX box as >console

Welcome to "utilitarian ideals" on the smooth curves of Mac OS.

Aloha! and have a cookie...

Re:Nice concept

[Anonymous Coward]

I like smooth curves (especially my wife's).

I like them too!

Is it just me?

[FortKnox]

Is it just me, or does that just appear to be like an 'emacs windows manager'?
Basically, a maximized emacs window with all the commands you can use without a mouse, and no bloat.

Also, how does one loosen functionality?? ;-)

Re:Is it just me?

[zrodney]

Basically, a maximized emacs window with all the commands you can use without a mouse, and no bloat.

I think that's the first time I've seen Emacs and no-bloat in the same sentence! ;)

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for a) It's not emacs, b) it's not emacs, and most impotantly c) it's not emacs.

Seriously, anyone who has ever used screen knows how cool it is. irc session, vim coding,
html docs all on one tty in split in frames is great. And the ability to detach
and reattach is the greatest. I can detach my screen session and then go to school. Hit
the labs and reattach that session over a ssh connection and be exactly where I was at
home. How cool is that?

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not quite an emacs window manager. The closest thing I've found the the emacs experience in the window manager arena is Ion It has the frames and minibuffer thing going for it.
My desktop at work is dual-head running several Ion frames, with emacs windows, xterms, and galeon windows. Its really all I need. If Emacs were to gain the ability to run graphical applications in emacs buffers similar to how it can currently run console apps, it would be the perfect window manager for what I (and I think a lot of other people here) want out of a desktop.

Re:Is it just me?

[gowen]

But everything else has moved around it, and emacs has stayed relatively still. Now your window manager is 20MB, and your terminals are 5MB each, and your browser ... don't get me started. EMACS used to be Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping. Now its Eight Megs And Conveniently Small...

Re:Is it just me?

[----]

It's actually more like ...

Eighty Megs And Constantly Sswapping.

Re:Is it just me?

[gowen]

I use emacs continuously, with a single instance open for development, usenet, email [gnus], compilation, file management [dired] and LaTeX. It usually runs for over a week before I close, and its never got *close* to 80MB. It tops out about 20, maximum

X-windows

[CaptainAlbert]

> I get the graphical abilities of X without all the clutter that usually attends it

It would be churlish of me not to mention... :)

X-Windows: ...A mistake carried out to perfection.
X-Windows: ...Dissatisfaction guaranteed.
X-Windows: ...Don't get frustrated without it.
X-Windows: ...Even your dog won't like it.
X-Windows: ...Flaky and built to stay that way.
X-Windows: ...Complex nonsolutions to simple nonproblems.
X-Windows: ...Flawed beyond belief.
X-Windows: ...Form follows malfunction.
X-Windows: ...Garbage at your fingertips.
X-Windows: ...Ignorance is our most important resource.
X-Windows: ...It could be worse, but it'll take time.
X-Windows: ...It could happen to you.
X-Windows: ...Japan's secret weapon.
X-Windows: ...Let it get in *your* way.
X-Windows: ...Live the nightmare.
X-Windows: ...More than enough rope.
X-Windows: ...Never had it, never will.
X-Windows: ...No hardware is safe.
X-Windows: ...Power tools for power fools.
X-Windows: ...Putting new limits on productivity.
X-Windows: ...Simplicity made complex.
X-Windows: ...The cutting edge of obsolescence.
X-Windows: ...The art of incompetence.
X-Windows: ...The defacto substandard.
X-Windows: ...The first fully modular software disaster.
X-Windows: ...The joke that kills.
X-Windows: ...The problem for your problem.
X-Windows: ...There's got to be a better way.
X-Windows: ...Warn your friends about it.
X-Windows: ...You'd better sit down.
X-Windows: ...You'll envy the dead.

Re:X-windows

[Anonymous Coward]

it's called x-window

Re:X-windows

[Ari Rahikkala]

No, it isn't.

The X Window System:
The standard UNIX graphical environment. With Linux, this is usually
XFree86 (http://www.xfree86.org). You may call it X, XFree, the X
Window System, XF86, or a host of other things. Call it 'XWindows' and
someone will smack you and you will have deserved it.
-- fortune

Re:X-windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. It's cawlded the X Windowing System

Re:X-windows

[JordanH]

The following has been attributed to Dennis Ritchie and Bill Joy, but I seem to remember it being Rob Pike. When someone pointed out that X fills a much needed void:

"I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. --- Rob Pike, on X"

Also, Dennis Ritchie was said to have been heard saying:

"Steve Jobs said two years ago that X is brain-damaged and it will be gone in two years. He was half right."

Re:X-windows

[Anonymous Coward]

maximum # of simultaneous X remote desktops >> maximum # of simultaneous Terminal Server clients >> maximum # of simultaneous Mac OS remote desktops (hint: 0)

'nough said.

Re:X-windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the UNIX world pretty much rejected Rob Pike's windowing system because it sucked and lacked functionality, so there's a little more than sour grapes involved here. A little sense of history before quoting Rob Pike on X would be a good thing.

Re:X-windows

[Anonymous Coward]

yt ys yndiede kauled the X Wyndeauxinge Cysteme.

Sounds cool

[IamTheRealMike]

It's a good idea (disclaimer, I read the article a few hours ago). When I first started using vim (emacs now) my friends saw me use it for a few moments when looking over my shoulder. I did a key sequence, I don't recall what it was, and they actually said "whoa" and took a step back :) Advanced emacs usage has the same effect. If you're fast with the keyboard, this kind of thing can push efficiency through the roof.

Re:Sounds cool

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I don't recall what it was, and they actually said "whoa" and took a step back

Maybe you farted?

Re:Sounds cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah there's nothing like fixing typo's in code using the compiler as a spell checker in emacs

Alt-x compile
ret
ret
Ctl-x ` , fix brain-cramp that was generating 10^6 warning,
Ctl-x Esc Esc

Anybody else notice that searches are saved in the re-do stack in Emacs these days? Boy that one irks me -- not enough to hack emacs to remove it though. I liked it when Ctl-S had its own stack ?

Re:Sounds cool

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL!

Re:Sounds cool

[ebyrob]

this kind of thing can push efficiency through the roof.

Efficiency at what? Text manipulation is a very small part of my day. For most development work I do, it's all about reading and understanding what is there already. Lots and lots of reading of all sorts of stuff. Lots and lots of searching and "find definition" or "find all uses of"...

I find I have two modes of operation. "read mode" with one hand on the mouse. And "write mode" with both hands on the keyboard. I spend waaay more time in "read mode". For me, it's much faster to click on one word or grouping in a page of text than to try and cursor over to it.

Re:Sounds cool

[ameoba]

If you're fast with the keyboard, this kind of thing can push efficiency through the roof.

No... Productivity goes through the roof. The faster you type the more work you can accomplish. A more efficient interface would require less typing, so lightning keyboard skills aren't neccessary.

Of course, lightning typing + efficient interface is even better. +)

Re:Sounds cool

[iamacat]

A lot of applications can not be used like this unless they provide a command line language, so that you can access a lot of different functions from the same window. For example, my debugger (CodeWarrior) has to display variables in one window, source in another one, memory in yet another one... To use it with ratpoison you need either a very good memory or very fast fingers. gdb on the other hand will do just fine. Another efficiency-killer is Acrobat-formatted documentation. It's usually so extensively formatted that even with full screen you need to scroll in order to understand documentation for one function. Forget about looking at you code at the same time. Some send me a program to unformat it. Please...

Re:Sounds cool

[pabs]

Use pstotext.

EvilWM

[sfraggle]

For the less radical EvilWM is a similarly "minimalist" window manager. There are no menus or icons, the only window decoration is a 1 pixel border.

Pretty obvious

[qurob]

The majority of people who can/want to run this kind of desktop, already do.

Warning

[bucklesl]

...how many tasks you want to keep track of in your head, too.

Do not chew bubblegum while attempting to use the Antidesktop.
thank you.

Re:Warning

[mccalli]

Do not chew bubblegum while attempting to use the Antidesktop.

Do not taunt Antidesktop...

Cheers,
Ian

I have NO clutter.

[garcia]

I use Enlightenment. I have no icons. I have a menu that comes up on the left mouse click w/my favorite programs.

I use Brushed Metal for my theme. It's clean. I have no graphics in my background (a holdover from my 256 color, 800x600, 8 bit days using a laptop). I have 2 virtual desktops. One's for Mozilla, the other's for whatever else (again a hold over from when I was using dual heads).

I don't need keyboard shortcuts, and I can easily cut and paste back and forth between the web and my other windows.

I like it simple, but "ratpoison" reminds me of Desqview/X (which went away for a reason).

I will keep screen on the console where it belongs and use X like *I* believe it was supposed to be used.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to do what you do, but enlightenment was unstable and slow. I use sawfish now. It does everything I used enlightenment for, but faster and without crashing.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

unstable and slow? I have NEVER had a crash w/E. Nor do I feel that it is slow. I guess I am just weird.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[SirSlud]

same effect can be achieved with blackbox or icewm .. I could never get sawfish happy on my box, but that was more due to my own laziness than any shortcoming in sawfish.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[ewieling]

I still miss DESQview/X's window manager. It was fast, had a clean interface, and supported using a keyboard to navigate instead of a mouse. I wish someone had ported it to other *nixes, but since it was written in x86 assembly I'm not suprized it never happened.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[peterpi]

(This is not flamebait; I just want to show that you don't need plain black to be fast).

I use Windows 2000. My desktop is a mess of icons. I don't look at them, and I don't click on them either. I just hit Windows-D, type in the first couple of characters for the one I want, and press return.

For example, "i" launches Internet Exploer, "ou" launches Outlook, "ba" launches bash in cygwin, "v" launches vi... you get the picture. This has the advantage that anybody else can still use the computer.

For example, to type an email, I would do the following:

Windows-D
o (return)
CTRL-n
(to)
tab tab
(subject)
tab
(content)
CTRL-enter

... and the email is sent.

Command lines are all good and well, and I love bash to death, but don't knock GUIs if you're just using them wrong.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[taviso]

and supported using a keyboard to navigate instead of a mouse.

ummm, if you need to navigate without using a mouse for whatever reason, most window managers offer keyboard shortcuts.

but if you really need to use X , with _ANY_ window manager, without a mouse attached, try hitting ctrl-shift-num-lock , you can then use the numeric keypad as if it were a mouse.

try it out, its a useful tip to remember.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will keep screen on the console where it belongs and use X like *I* believe it was supposed to be used.

screen has uses, even in X. I generally use screen not to split up the screen into multiple regions, but to attach and detach sessions. It's great for the times when you're doing things over ssh with a flaky connection.

So, strictly speaking, I think that using X and using screen are orthogonal concepts.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Rude Turnip]

Hi, I'm the other Slashdot member who isn't in the closet about having to use Windows.

On my XP laptop that I use for work, I picked up a copy of Workshelf from the NextStart folks (www.winstep.net). It's basically a better dock than the OS X dock. In addition, I bought a copy of Object Desktop so I could customize the Start Menu to be a little box that slides out of a corner only when I need it. In the end, my desktop is very similar in nature to an OS X desktop (hard drive, trash bin and dock).

To keep things simple, I have Windows only show "My Computer" and the trash can on the desktop, while hiding any other desktop icons. Workshelf has a "Desktop Shelf" that can show you all the icons in their unhidden glory. The other workshelves (tabs) are set up to give me quick access to programs and running tasks. I have shelves for networking, office apps, utilities and current tasks.

Of course, the ultimate minimalist desktop is the Bloomberg Professional interface, which is really a sort of X server that sits on top of Windows and lets you access the Bloomberg system, which is a vast (and expensive) library of real-time and historical financial data on just about anything.

You get two or four LCD screens, each with a window that is always maximized. The top line of each window has a command line where you type in commands to go to different screens. Although you can sort of navigate Bloomberg screens like they're web pages, you can only really get things done through the command line. Imagine a cross between AOL and a bash prompt and you've got an idea of what I'm talking about.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooo.... you're using your GUI like a pseudo-CLI??

How do you feel about things like CLIM and XMLTerm, which are "graphical CLIs"

Note that I mean a unix-style CLI with tab-key completion and so on - one of the major problems I've noticed is that people's thoughts seem to run:

1. Command Prompt DOS Boxes Suck to use compared to Windows.

2. Command Prompt DOS Boxes are a Command Line Interface.

3. Therefore Command Line Interfaces Suck.

Spot the improper generalisation.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[peterpi]

I've never heard of either of them, Sorry!

When you navigate in Explorer, you type the first few characters of what you want, and that file/directory becomes selected. It's just like tab autocompletion, but you don't actually have to bother pressing tab.

My left pinkie is saved from RSI :)

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Telastyn]

no Flamebait my ass.

GUIs, especially window's GUI is designed for common content between apps. It's designed so that everything should be fairly clear for someone to point, click, choose, repeat until they get what they want.

If the designers meant outlook to be used your way, they would've made it look like mutt, and done away with the ludicrous overhead that comes from rendering icons and menus that are never used.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[brain159]

WTF would we know/care about whatever "CLIM" and "XMLTerm" are? We're *windows* users.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[peterpi]

They wanted outlook to be possible to be used both ways. That's why it has icons aplenty and keyboard shortcuts.

Don't knock me for having to use Windows at my place of work. All I'm trying to state is that there's a helluva difference between a desktop that looks fast and one that actually is fast.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Enlightenment was slow on a Pentium II 200 MHz processor. You may not have noticed this, but we're long past those days now.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[xmda]

I do something much like that, just without all the clutter on the desktop (yes, I am annoyed by a cluttered desktop). I call it smart shortcuts and it works (kinda) right out of the box on Windoze 95/98/ME/NT4/W2k/XP:
"look ma, no mouse!"

You like?

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

And while we're at it, don't forget ALT-TAB. The best thing is that it orders items based on last usage, so it's cake to ALT-TAB between two apps to cut and paste.

I can Ctrl-C Alt-Tab Ctrl-V Alt-Tab all day long

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Telastyn]

Indeed. I'm just saying that the keyboard shortcuts are less a design of the window manager, and more a microsoft only convention.

I agree that there is quite a difference between looking and being fast.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[ewieling]

That's faster than the DV/X way method of: O or M --Eric

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

ALT-ESC is also good if you want to cycle through all the apps. But, if there are too many apps, the mouse is faster.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Mike Schiraldi]

I use Enlightenment with all the decorations turned off too -- when i don't have any applications open, all i see is the root window.

I do things a little differently from you, though. I don't use the mouse menus; instead, i use keyboard shortcuts:

Shift-F1 opens an xterm
Shift-F2 opens an xterm running "su -"
Shift-F5 opens emacs
Shift-F6 opens Mozilla

That's it; i run any other apps from the xterm. I do it this way because it's a lot easier to hit Shift-F5 than to find the root window (which may be buried beneath a pile of windows), click, hold, drag to "Mozilla", and release.

I also turned off all titlebars. Focus follows the mouse, and this is how i do window operations:

Bring to front: Alt-Left click
Send to back: Ctrl-Alt-Left click
Move: Alt-Left click and drag
Resize: Alt-Right click and drag
Maximize: Alt-Double left click

Re:I have NO clutter.

[DCheesi]

I use Enlightenment. I have no icons. I have a menu that comes up on the left mouse click w/my favorite programs.

Heh, I used to have much the same thing on my windows 3.1(!) box. I had a replacement 'shell' which used the right mouse button (virtually unused by apps in those days) to display a program menu; I got it down to where I literally had nothing on the screen at startup, other than my wallpaper. This was especially useful for keeping nosy college roomates from messing with my computer!

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Mike Schiraldi]

I should add, in reference to my other reply, that using Alt-Left-click and Alt-Right-click is a giant leap forward in productivity. I always see other people carefully moving the mouse to the three-pixel border of a window so they can resize it, or dragging the mouse all the way up to the top of a window so they can move it. All i have to do is slam the Alt button and grab onto a window anywhere. No aiming for tiny borders or titlebars.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[sporty]

Hah! Until you have objects on your desktop that begin with o. :)

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats funny, occasionally i have to sit down
at a Windows desktop to configure a device
(that is being phased out). I cannot describe
how painful that is, no virtual desktops,
no virtual terminals, no command line tools,
no tools at all in fact, you want to telnet to
a port to test functionality get ready for a
window to pop up, and slow as shit. Oh its also
on a machine that has at least 200 Mhz more speed
than everything else. Totally worthless. If you
rave about the Windows gui, you have never used a
modern window manager under X (e.g. Windowmaker,
blackbox).

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used enlightenment for a long time, each time the releases were negilible, in the sense that they real did not have any changes worth commenting on, oh yeah (iconbox) wow gee that one was a winner . After the last E dr 16 release I gave up on E to be any use to anybody. I did the switch to MAC OSX and I have been using it ever since...
I have been on the development mailing list for E, there is absolutely no activity in the past five months, one can conclude that E development is very dead

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Ctrl-Z]

Gee, sounds like someone needs to be (re-)introduced to twm. I was using settings like this about five years ago in my default twm setup. (Granted, "Mozilla" was "Netscape" then, and I don't, didn't, and have never used emacs).

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Mike Schiraldi]

I need other features of enlightenment, like windows groups and "Remember this window's size / location / stacking layer for future sessions".

Re:I have NO clutter.

[spitzak]

You just described a command-line interface. With the added feature that the ability to type the command requires you to clutter your desktop with icons that you will not click on. Brilliant.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[hotpotato]

How clever of you. You've managed to take the whiz-bang GUI interface of Windows where you can 'do everything with a simple click', and reduce it to the mechanism Linux users have been using for several years now: Keyboard Shortcuts.

However, this is just a poor excuse for a great mechanism, which Windows still lacks. For instance, what if you're in the middle of working on something, and just want to have a quick look at a web page? Win-D, i, Enter, Browse, Close, ... uh oh.. those other 27 windows you arranged so lovingly on your desktop are all minimized, with no easy way to restore!

Geez.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[puppet10]

Or you can just assign the 7 or so most used programs a shortcut key on the right click properties Shortcut tab where it says Shortcut Key, which will go to a shortcut by hitting CTRL-ALT-(Letter/number you choose to assign)

So you could assign many more than 7, but 7 or so are good because it will be quite quick to learn and easy to rememeber.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[RevAaron]

What are mouse buttons with that?

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pressing Windows+D again will restore all windows to their previous position.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[silvaran]

I use Enlightenment. I have no icons. I have a menu that comes up on the left mouse click w/my favorite programs.

I.. AM.. AMERICAN

Re:I have NO clutter.

[peterpi]

I have every window maximized. Alt-Tab switches between them in a least-recently-used pattern. You could call it a set of "virtual desktops" if you will, but that, of course, would be flamebait. :)

Re:I have NO clutter.

[taviso]

What are mouse buttons with that?

im glad you asked :-)

Divide - Make Button1 the default
Multiply - Make Button2 the default
Subtract - Make Button3 the default
Seven - Move the pointer up and left
Eight - Move the pointer up
Nine - Move the pointer up and right
Add - Double-click the default button
Four - Move the pointer left
Five - Emulate the default button
Six - Move the pointer right
One - Move the pointer down and left
Two - Move the pointer down
Three - Move the pointer down and right
Zero - Lock the default button down
Decimal - Release the default button, if locked

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

I ran Enlightenment (DR16) on a P133 for more than a year, and it was fast enough for me. You just have to turn off all the eyecandy and it's as fast as blackbox (although the memory usage was a meg or so higher).

E itself isn't slow, it just comes with all the eyecandy on by default. If you bring up the preferences and turn off the sliding windows, etc. it's as fast as anything else I've ever used. Plus its desktop pager is better than any I've seen in any other windowmanager, and it is more configurable than any other WM i've seen.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there's been no activity if you count 2 or 3 messages a day as no activity.

E DR17 is coming along well, download it from CVS and have a look.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[z0om]

E's not slow. I've been using enlightenment since version .13.x (i guess for over 4 years now...wmaker before that). i've given others a chance along the way (sawmill/sawfish, blackbox, fluxbox, xfce, ice...the list goes on). I've never been able to stay with one of the others for more than 1 day, I always come back to E...kick ass kb shortcuts...i'm just so much faster in E.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[RevAaron]

Sounds like fun!

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

The pager is the number one reason I use e16 to this day, but the easy configurability is quite nice as well.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you're on the wrong mailing list, or you're simply not on one at all. Development is slow and steady enough to exhaust the tortoise. But there are a few dozen messages on the list per month.

Re:I have NO clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been on the development mailing list for E, there is absolutely no activity in the past five months, one can conclude that E development is very dead

You can browse the e-devel mailing list archive here . I think you will find that it is quite active - 3 or 4 messages a day on average. On 2002-10-10 there were 12 messages, on the 2002-10-07 there were 7. I'm sure you must be on the wrong mailing list if you describe this as "dead" or "no activity".

Re:I have NO clutter.

[mackstann]

i've tried most of the wm's around, with the exception of ion and ratpoison, due to what seem to be obvious conflicts between my idea of an ideal desktop, and ion/ratpoisons developers' idea of it.

i used blackbox more than any other, moved to pwm, liked it (impressively customizeable) but it had some shortcomings, moved to sawfish, loved the key/mouse binding flexibility (double click root window for an xterm woo hoo!!), but it was slow on my little p233 when the system is under full load. now i use openbox, with 2 modifications i made to it:

1. moving/resizing a window does NOT raise the window. i dont like not having control over window stacking like that, leave the damn thing where it is. what if i have a window partially overlapping another window, and i want to resize the bottom window? i have to resize it, and THEN fix the stacking because the wm did it for me? stupid.
2. the mouse wheel now allows me to manually control window stacking. alt+wheelup sends the window to the bottom, alt+wheeldown brings it to the front. as usual with openbox and almost all wm's, alt+leftmousebutton moves the window, and alt+rightbutton resizes it. *VERY* handy.

like anything else, its not for everyone, but its _PERFECT_ for me.

(btw, while i doubt many people have the same preferences as me, if you use openbox and are interested in the patch, feel free to email me, mack-at-incise.org, or come into #openbox on freenode)

get a bigger monitor

[cr@ckwhore]

Hmm... reduce desktop clutter? You could try ratpoison, the counter productive approach, or you could get a bigger monitor... worked for millions of users, including myself.

Re:get a bigger monitor

[cmallinson]

or you could get a bigger monitor... worked for millions of users, including myself.

A growing number of people now use laptops for their day to day work, and having a way to be more productive/less distracted with less desktop space is a good thing.

Re:get a bigger monitor

[lgas]

...or they're stuck on a lame 15-17" monitor at work and the boss won't spring for a better one.

Not for the faint of heart

[BESTouff]

Although I find his setup really geeky and probably will never use it, that's what I like with X (and Linux in general): those who have the balls can really customize what they want to appear how they like it.

This guy must have a good laugh at each GNOME/KDE flamewar ...

Re:Not for the faint of heart

[snol]

If you want to see what a customizable desktop SHOULD be, you need to try Litestep, which unfortunately only runs under Windows. It's definitely geared towards people who want more eyecandy than this guy, but you really can make your desktop look and act pretty much however you want. Check out the vast variety of screenshots on Litestep.com and the list of modules at Shellfront's module archive. It may be possible to do the same under X using a variety of different applications scripted to all start on login, but personally I have no idea where to find what I'm looking for. For instance, I click on the left edge of the screen (even with a window maximized) and I get a popup menu containing a list of programs and places to navigate to. I press (windows button + spacebar) and a single-line command prompt appears ready for a variety of input, including regular command line stuff, Litestep-specific commands, web address or search to open in the default browser, etc... All this together with a taskbar/clock/system tray/media controls/virtual desktops/whatever, in any graphical/spatial configuration you define. Granted the command prompt in Unices is an effective replacement for some of the functionality, but it doesn't take care of all of it and certainly doesn't provide for the flexible eye-candy.

If someone wants to rebut me by telling me how to configure all of this in Linux, I'll definitely boot up my Linux partition and try it out.

Re:Not for the faint of heart

[snol]

I forgot to mention that Litestep's core as well as most modules are GPLed. If you object to that, there's a non-GPL (I think it's Artistic Licensed) clone called Retrostep.

Ick

[aengblom]

Not a fan of flashy bloated loose things.

They're on street corners near my home a lot though.

someone had to right?

Lightweight window managers

[sfbanutt]

Another lightweight window manager is called lwm. It can be found at http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/project/windowmgr/sr c/lwm/lwm.html It has most of the advantages of ratpoison, but allows real windows. I believe there is a debian package for it and I know there's a gentoo ebuild. It's great on an older laptop if you're going to run X.

jim

Re:Lightweight window managers

[PaddyM]

I hated LWM. I used a whole bunch of window managers during one year (my window manager year) and LWM took the worst parts of all WMs and combined them into one.

But maybe I'm just too stupid to know how to use it.

Re:Lightweight window managers

[lpontiac]

I'll second the lwm recommendation. My only gripe would be that it's pretty much impossible to use mouseless - I keep intending to hack some keyboard-friendly stuff in, but never seem to get around to (a) learning X and (b) getting around to it :)

I do believe that the (more recent) lwm homepage is at http://www.boognish.org.uk/enh/lwm/

way OT, but Karma is cheap

[slow_flight]

Another very common one is 'moot' vs. 'mute.'

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[Neon Spiral Injector]

And effected and affected.

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[Hadlock]

as in "the haberdashers opinion in the creepy crawly incident was a moot point"? which is correct? moot, or mute? i was of the understanding that it's moot.

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[sqlrob]

moot is correct.

moot = not relevant any longer
mute = quiet, unable to make sound

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[DeadSea]

But what about in the sentence:

"The mime's opinion was a mute point."

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[Verteiron]

That is a pun or play on words, and you should be sentenced to public flogging for that. Mute point.. arggg...

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning, pop culture reference upcoming: "You've got it all wrong, it's a moo point. Moo.. It's like a cow, you know, it doesn't matter."

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[mosch]

those are the same, for all intensive purposes. after all, in this doggy dog world, we have better things to worry about than people who can't spel.

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I hate to quote Friends, but this was funny dialogue:

RachelOrSomebody: [asserts something during an argument]

Joey: It's a moo point.

RachelOrSomebody: What did you say?

Joey: Y'know, a moo point. It's a cow's opinion, nobody cares.

[audience laughs]

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[MaxVolume]

Now THAT is why I read /.

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[Fascist Christ]

That is a pun or play on words, and you should be sentenced to public flogging for that.

If such puns were outlawed as such, then Shakespeare would have died of flogging.

Take for example, from Hamlet, when the Prince asks the gravedigger whose grave he is digging, the gravedigger replies that he is digging his own grave. Hamlet responds that of course it is his because he "lies" in it. hehe

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "dog EAT dog world", schmuck.

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "for all intents and purposes" not "intensive purposes."

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[spoon42]

people misusing cite/site/sight piss me off to no end.
I've considered opening a troll account just to beat them about the head over it. :)

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[slow_flight]

Didn't you mean "for all intensive porpoises?"

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[Brian Kendig]

"The mime's opinion was a mute point."

Well, that goes without saying.

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[susano_otter]

You should do what I do: put your karma where your keyboard is, and use the account you've got. Why are you getting so upset over something you don't even think is worth putting your name against?

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[then, it was nigh]

*chuckle* For maximum effect, though, you should have said, "we have better things to worry about then people who can't spel."

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[mhesseltine]

Said a big Snoop Dogg fan:

after all, in this doggy dog world,

I like Snoop as much as the next 16 year old, white, suburban kid, but I thought the phrase was "dog eat dog" world.

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[pediddle]

[offtopic] Who can confuse those? Mute=Meeyote, Moot=um...Moot. Just sound out the "oo", does it make a "y" sound?

Great

[ksw2]

Just when I thought I was 1337 with fluxbox, now this. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

language evolves over time

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been lot's of cases of words, usages, and spellings that were not accepted at one time that do get accepted over time. Personally I do not see the difference one way or the other, after all, it is perfectly obvious what is intended. Not only that, but "lose" is a stupid spelling. How do you pronounce "rose"??? Now how do you pronounce "lose"? Does that make any sense.

Frankly I think "loose" works better and don't fault the editors for using it.

Re:language evolves over time

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Great thought, but if you are going to assign a new word to replace "lose", pick one that is not ALREADY IN USE. Loose is a word, and it already has a meaning.

Let's just call everything Marklar, since we don't want to bother to learn unique qords to match unique meanings.

Now shut your marklar before I shove this marklar up your marklar, you damn marklar.

Re:language evolves over time

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Arrgh, typo city.

quords = words

It figures, the one time I don't preview...

Re:language evolves over time

[Anonymous Coward]

hey jackass, you might want to examine your first sentence for any errors...

Re:language evolves over time

[Anonymous Coward]

should read:
quords = marklar

sorry for the inaccuracy.

Re:language evolves over time

[Tackhead]

> Great thought, but if you are going to assign a new word to replace "lose", pick one that is not ALREADY IN USE. Loose is a word, and it already has a meaning.

How about "Luse." (Or "luze", to throw a bone to the 1337 crowd?)

As in, "I hereby loose the hounds of BOFH upon those who can't spell, for they luse badly."

It looks weird at first, but compare it with "fused". It even has similar connotations - burned out, no longer workable, etc.

So a loose fuse can't be fused, and is thus useless. A loose fuse is a lusing fuse until you unloosening it. A fused fuse worse that a loose fuse, it's a very lusing fuse. Luse that fused fuse, (you luser!) before something catches fire!

The proposed conjugation:

I luse, he luses, she luses, we luse.
I lused, he lused, she lused, we lused.
I'm erotic, my friend's kinky, those people are perverted.
I'm a BOFH, my friend's a luser, those people are MCSEs. /rimshot.

Now that we've loosed the tight fuses and lused the lusing fuses, can we talk about moose and mice? My sister was once bitten by a moose.

Re:language evolves over time

[eno2001]

My peeve:

"Nukeyelar" instead of Nuclear. I know what a nucleus is, but what the hell is a "Nukeyelus"? George Bush Sr. is to blame for this one becoming popular. Even more annoying is that it's now found in encyclopaedias.

Re:language evolves over time

[Anonymous Coward]

Shaddap l00z3r! 1337 ind33d. Hrmph!

Re:language evolves over time

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind you, moose bites can be pretty nasty.

And WHO MODDED THAT DOWN? what a luser.

Re:language evolves over time

[plugger]

I know I'm being picky, but fuse has a Y sound in there.

It would sound something like "Lyooze"

I'll be happy to talk about your moose, but only if we can follow up with a discussion of my rough plough, though it's just a thought. Argh, what a horrid language this is.

Re:language evolves over time

[jmontana66]

And while we're at it ... one of my pet peeves is apostrophes in the wrong place. That first sentence should be: "There have been lots of cases ..."

Re:language evolves over time

[jmontana66]

Actually, I think Reagan did it first, with more of a "yuh" sound in there than "ye." As in "nuke-yuh-ler."

Re:language evolves over time

[diesel_jackass]

If everyone spoke esperanto, we wouldn't have silly problems like this.

Re:language evolves over time

[EngMedic]

mind you , moose bites can be pretty nasti...

Re:language evolves over time

[trailerparkcassanova]

Yes, "nukeyelar" gained a syllable and "terist" lost one.

Re:language evolves over time

[some guy I know]

Actually, I think Reagan did it first...

Actually, John F. Kennedy also said "nucular".
An easy way to learn the correct way to pronounce nuclear is to say "new clear", gradually reducing the pause between the words, until it becomes "newclear", the pronunciation of which is indistinguishable to "nuclear" (at least to me).

If ratpoison is too minimal for you..

[Xzzy]

..try larswm.

It's not the eden of windows managers, but what it DOES offer is the ability to manage every window on your desktop via the keyboard, it maximizes the amount of your desktop you get to use for working, yet still retains the ability to keep the mouse useful. It also offers rudimentary window managing features so those odd applications that refuse to cooperate can still be used (such as gimp).

I use it full time these days, it took me a couple days to get into the rhythm but now, considering using anything else is unthinkable.

I tried ratpoison, liked the philosophy, but it seemed to me it took the keyboard driven GUI philosophy way too far to be useful for an X session.

I dig, man.

[pub]

" It depends on how many tasks you want to keep track of in your head, too. "

I find that I do this, anyway. I'm one of those people can't work well with a lot of clutter around. A clean, sleek, minimalist desktop enviornment is an extension of this, especially if my desk has gone the way of junk (which it often has, and in fact, is at this moment).

Tons of little window bars, be they floating around or anchored or what-have-you, don't really help me get my mind in order. I'd just as soon hit a control key to switch between "windows" as I would search around my desktop for the right little bar.

Just an early word of enthusiam, as it seemed to be in an early minority.

Infuriated With Improper Spelling

[dremel]

How many more times to I have to read the word 'loosing' where an author meant 'losing' before I am legally released from all obligations against torturing said authors? They're even pronounced differently, thus causing me to mentally trip on a conversational rock and fall in a pit of grammatical despair.

Re:Infuriated With Improper Spelling

[jxs2151]

How many more times do I have to read:

"How many more times to I have to read..."

when the author meant to say:

"How many more times do I have to read..."?

Re:Infuriated With Improper Spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm almost certain I read something, somewhere, pertaining to "tasting your own medicine", though I don't recall exactly where it was. For the love of all things holy, if you're going to point out someone's erroneous spelling, consider spell checking your own post first. With the font I'm using, you wasted nearly 1.5 inches in my browser.

Re:Infuriated With Improper Spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know what the author meant, sally? Did you?
Mad at a few grammatical errors? Seek an anger management class...your underwear is in a bunch over nothing.

And for others.......

[IamTheRealMike]

For those who like the "lite" approach, but don't want to go quite this extreme, try FluxBox.

It can do tabbed windows, task switching, virtual desktops, keygrabbing (emacs style keybindings from all over your desktop) and so on. If you run it without a desktop, and if you have the Xscreensaver collection then you can run:

/usr/X11R6/lib/xscreensaver/atlantis -root -texture

and get a beautiful animated dolphin as your "wallpaper". I think that's the command anyway, i'm at work so please correct me if wrong. If you're going to save CPU cycles in one way, you might as well spend them in another :)

Re:And for others.......

[symbolic]

I'm not sure I'd want to entrust my window management to an app that (based on at least one screen shot on the Fluxbox SourceForge project page) looks like it was thrown together by someone with a rather adolescent take on life.

export BOOBS="large"
import -window root boobies.jpg

is something I'd expect to see from a 12-year-old.

Re:And for others.......

[Corporate Gadfly]

Totally agree with you regarding fluxbox. However, I disagree with you on a minor point.

atlantis and xscreensaver maybe all nice and good, however you can't beat the look and feel of good old xfishtank with the -d switch which means:

[-d] clip fish, swim on root window

.

Combined with good old Esetroot and you will have fish swimming on top of your root background. In the case of atlantis, I didn't see a way of how to not let it totally obscure the background.

Combined with transparent, borderless, titleless Eterm and gkrellm with invisible skin you can have a pleasing effect.

Re:And for others.......

[cjpez]

Oh, man, I always knew that you could run xscreensavers in the background like that, but never bothered to try it out. Too much fun. Also, you don't need Fluxbox to do that; I'm using Icewm and it's fine, I suspect it'll even work in gnome/kde. After all, it's just drawing graphics on your root window.

Personally, though, I would suggest ifs or fluidballs. Wonderful! For added fun, try setting up a cron job on someone else's box to start up decayscreen after awhile. *snicker* What fun!

Oh, and the xscreensavers might be /usr/[local/]lib/xscreensaver instead, depending on your setup...

Re:And for others.......

[uhmmmm]

I suspect it'll even work in gnome/kde. After all, it's just drawing graphics on your root window.

I don't think so, at least not the way they're setup by default. IIRC, they don't draw the desktop on the root window, but on their own window that obscures the root window.

Re:And for others.......

[Otter]

It won't work that way, but in the KDE options, if you go to Appearance->Background you can set an application to run in the KDE root window. I think you can do the same for the Nautilus root window.

Re:And for others.......

[CvD]

FluxBox is cool. I use it. I love the mouse scroll button desktop switching thingy (as you roll the mouse button up, it switches to the next workspace, down for the previous - but only if you roll it onna desktop, so not if your pointer is inside a window)

I recently also got my internet keyboard shortcut keys (on a compaq keyboard) working nicely. Buttons do useful things like opening a new tab with Slashdot, Google, or Google News. Or a new xterm. Or starting gcalc. Very nice.

FluxBox is nice. The only gripe I have is the still rather sparse documentation, especially on customizations.

FluxBox is fast! I like FluxBox.

Re:And for others.......

[.com b4 .storm]

For my fellow Debian users, you have to install the xscreensaver-gl package to get Atlantis, not just the xscreensaver package.

Re:And for others.......

[commanderfoxtrot]

Surely xmatrix is the one to use?!

Cool

[kindbud]

Subject says all I wanted to say.

Re:Cool

[kindbud]

Oh, please. Minimalist comment for minimalist WM. Get it now?? You mods who "overrated" the parent didn't get the joke. Oh, well, subtlety is not a forte of Cheetos-munching-Dew-slugging kids, I guess.

And yet..

[whereiswaldo]

And yet Microsoft still claims that Open Source threatens innovation. Pah!

Yes Ratpoison

[SomeOtherGuy]

I have been using Ratpoison on of my (small resolution 800x600 with 64 Megs ram) machines for months. Once you get used to having those extra pixels and that extra memory, its hard to go back.

Flashy window managers

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if you *like* flashy bloat? :)

I actually installed an extra stick of ram just so I could use all the eye candy in enlightenment, without slowing down what I already had.

Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

Personally, I am tired of X-Windows and all the Window Managers associated with it. They are clunky hacks based on ancient tech. Fortunately for me, I found a modern, composited windowing system using the Portable Document Format (PDF) for my UNIX system. It sports crisp graphics, anti-aliased fonts, and blends 2D, 3D and multimedia content together with transparency and drop shadows. It even integrates OpenGL converting every window into a texture. As a bonus it supports all those non-Roman languages. Multiple monitor support is seemless -- no more hacking XFree86 files and searching for drivers and solving conflicts. Thank God!

Check out its home page here.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[Anonymous Coward]

AND..... ...No support for any other OS. :P

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[ichimunki]

That's great. Now if you can tell me where to download the source code for that, I'll be quite grateful, as I'm pretty sure the supplied binaries won't run on all the x86 machines in my house. Then, once I do get it compiled on my application server, what are the odds that I can run it as a display server on my thin-clients?

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

That's great. Now if you can tell me where to download the source code for that, I'll be quite grateful, as I'm pretty sure the supplied binaries won't run on all the x86 machines in my house.

Unfortunately, I don't have the source handy as I tend to use their pre-compiled binaries. I really don't have time to compile their source everytime they update their code so I elect to use the binaries. If I were you, I would contact the author and see if you can get the source for usage on your x86-based UNIX system. It runs like a dream on my old PPC-based UNIX system. Much better than XFree86 and its various Window Managers.

I can't believe I forgot. You can get a copy of Microsoft Office that runs on it if you need that kind of application for your business environment. Which I hear a lot of people do!

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

AND..... ...No support for any other OS. :P

What other operating system would you want to use but UNIX?

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[brad-x]

I believe you're missing the point.

There is no source available for your windowing system.

Further, its RAM usage rivals if not exceeds that of X, not to mention the CPU horsepower required to generate the visual effects we all know and love. X is a lightweight, a true performer compared to Aqua.

Also, I don't use Microsoft Office on any platform at all. I like to considerviable alternatives.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

I believe you're missing the point.

Actually, I think you got it the other way around. You're missing the point. Think different!

There is no source available for your windowing system.

If there is no source available, how does the author compile the binaries? Divine intervention?

Further, its RAM usage rivals if not exceeds that of X, not to mention the CPU horsepower required to generate the visual effects we all know and love. X is a lightweight, a true performer compared to Aqua.

CPU Horsepower required can't be that high sense most people gripe that the PPC manufacturer is far behind that of the x86 manufacturer in terms of speed.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[squiggleslash]

It's available from here. He didn't mention the Display PostScript support the system has too. And I assume his comments about "no more hacking XFree86 files" was a reference to his personal choice to use the Linux Framebuffer device and XFree86 with that, rather than use an accelerated driver.

That is, of course, unless he was refering to some proprietry closed-source product that doesn't run over X11 and is therefore completely off-topic...

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[Kingstrum]

Ye Gods, Man! Have you gone insane?!

I eagerly await the day when X is replaced by a much better structure, but why on earth would I want to replace *everything* -- from simple ASCII text on up -- with someone else's dipshit idea of "the Next Great Thing"? PDF? I say "buy a clue!"

Wanna talk bloat? Have you bothered to check what your memory usage is lately?

Quartz? Sure, very sweet, and I'm even hoping that some of that snazzy tech leaks back and influences whatever replaces X. However, I would hope that the Free/Open version DOES NOT take a page from Apple's new playbook and screw people out of one of the best parts: skins, themes, and the ability to tweak to your heart's content.

And finally...gee, how to put this nicely?...Ummm, OS X IS NOT UNIX! [look at the definition of "netinfo"] I've been hearing all this harping about how it is a "revelation" and "UNIX GUI done right", etc. ad naseum. Sadly OS X has more in common with Windows than it does UNIX. It lends itself to some of RedHat's goofiness and I gave up on them a loooooooong time ago.

Now before the whining sets in "it's all supposed to be so easy" and "real people shouldn't have to edit text files to use UNIX", I say "bullshit!" I have yet to meet the person who was born knowing Windows, let alone computers; so why is it that the world suddenly has some great fear of LEARNING? Read a man page, get a clue, hack around, and have some fun for BOB's sake! Think of a GUI as the hard candy shell around the nut of your system: Fancy, nice to look at, but not really the point. Personally, I prefer a customized FVWM2 with all the bells and whistles I want. Not Apple, not RedHat, not some other knob with grandiose ideas of providing me a "pleasent user experience".

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

Ye Gods, Man! Have you gone insane?!

Obviously not to your level of insanity.

Wanna talk bloat? Have you bothered to check what your memory usage is lately?

Want to talk about hysteria? Take a DEEP BREATH and CALM DOWN. It seems the frustration level of your Window Management system is making you a hostile individual that needs to BOLD and UPPERCASE non important information.

OS X IS NOT UNIX!

Uh, yes it is and the Open Group has Apple's back on this. Judging from your post, you need to get your facts straight. Take advantage of that "LEARNING" you so boldy promote. Maybe edit a few text files on who produces UNIX products...give you a hint, RedHat doesn't.

Sadly OS X has more in common with Windows than it does UNIX. It lends itself to some of RedHat's goofiness and I gave up on them a loooooooong time ago.

Sadly, you obviously have never used Mac OS X as a full time operating system or you would know this is absolutely false. Since Mac OS X is a UNIX product, it is more like UNIX than Windows. Common sense there buddy.

Keep this up in Slashdot and someone is going to punch your ticket for the CLUE TRAIN.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[ichimunki]

Thanks for trolling.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[SN74S181]

Okay, bruiser. So tell me where I buy a fucking PPC motherboard that's ATX form factor.

There's no way in hell a lot of us are going to wander down proprietary lane and buy hardware from a company that is virulently and aggressively single-sourced.

We did that before.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

Thanks for trolling.

Thanks for that insightful reply!

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

Okay, bruiser. So tell me where I buy a fucking PPC motherboard that's ATX form factor. There's no way in hell a lot of us are going to wander down proprietary lane and buy hardware from a company that is virulently and aggressively single-sourced.

Take a deep breath and read. Its amazing that you post on Slashdot and can't do a simple google search. Sheesh!

We did that before.

I would consult a mental health professional. Referring to yourself in the third person is not healthy.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[archen]

emacs?

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[ichimunki]

No, thank you!

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

No, thank you!

You're welcome!

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[Anonymous Coward]

HE HE j00 rilly r smarter than toupsie full of good ideaZ! ATX rules and Mac dr00lz my friend told me that Macz are only good for retards who have no hands and for art faggots. Leenux rox!!!!! IO run LInux XP and it roxk!!! haha j/k i am still runng win 98 but my friend STEVEN is hoing to help me install Linuckz so 1 can B just as k00l as all the krad /. (ghet it haehaeheh) kids!!!

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[RevAaron]

Keep this up in Slashdot and someone is going to punch your ticket for the CLUE TRAIN.

No offense, but you're the one who needs to get your ticket punched. Not because what you're saying is wrong, but because you've not yet learned that logic doesn't work on Slashdot. You cannot win. Macs will be for l0serZ until RMS is CEO, OS X is entirely open source, Mac hardware is given away for free, and OS X is a royal pain in the ass to use or has a look and feel that mimics like Windows 95, whichever comes first.

(yes, I'm an ex-Linux user who jumped ship when I discovered that there was a platform on which I could just get work done rather than reconfiguring my system every 20 minutes)

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

No offense, but you're the one who needs to get your ticket punched

I should have known! :)

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[SN74S181]

FOAD, dude.

You just don't get it. Shiney things that are proprietary are BAD.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[SN74S181]

Wow, I can core out an old Macintosh and put the parts in a new case. Coolness.

Right.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

Wow, I can core out an old Macintosh and put the parts in a new case. Coolness.

Isn't that what x86 folks do? And the plans show how to use an ATX case.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[SN74S181]

No, the x86 folks have dozens, even hundreds of choices of motherboards to use. They don't have a single source motherboard they can strip out of it's vendor's case and put into a generic case.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

No, the x86 folks have dozens, even hundreds of choices of motherboards to use. They don't have a single source motherboard they can strip out of it's vendor's case and put into a generic case.

Yet none of them will allow you to run the best desktop version of UNIX. How sad...

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[SN74S181]

Wow. You've turned the whole issue around.

It isn't the vendors of the multiple sources of x86 hardware that prevent us from running 'the best desktop version of UNIX' (a dubious claim on several levels). It's Apple Computer.

Why am I even arguing with a Mac Head? It's a bloody religion.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

Wow. You've turned the whole issue around. It isn't the vendors of the multiple sources of x86 hardware that prevent us from running 'the best desktop version of UNIX' (a dubious claim on several levels). It's Apple Computer.

Apple is not preventing you from running "The Best Desktop Version of UNIX". They are more than happy to sell you a $1,000 Mac to run it on. And its not a dubious claim. There is not a better desktop version of UNIX on the Market. Remember, Linux is not UNIX. Its UNIX-Like. I run Tru64 and NetBSD as well and they do not come near the quality of Mac OS X on the Desktop.

Why am I even arguing with a Mac Head?

Dunno. Are you a masochist?

It's a bloody religion.

There has never been a Mac Jihad. So we are a bloodless religion. Would you like some of our literature?

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[SN74S181]

Well, cool. We've now completely changed the subject. We're no longer talking about running MacOS X on x86 clone hardware, nor about being able to acquire third party PPC motherboards to run it on.

We're talking about eagerly buying single sourced hardware from a single vendor in order to run the OS that the vendor deins to allow us to run the wonderful 'UNIX' on.

I wasn't aware the OS X had been branded a UNIX. Is that true? When did they get the formal testing to make said claim? Are they POSIX compliant too? When was the formal testing to get certification performed?

F you and the Mac you rode into town on.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[toupsie]

I wasn't aware the OS X had been branded a UNIX. Is that true? When did they get the formal testing to make said claim?

Why ask me? If you knew about UNIX, you would hop over to the Open Group and see for yourself.

F you and the Mac you rode into town on.

No thanks. I don't F anyone that can't afford a Mac.

Re:Window Manager without the bloat (PDF based!!!)

[SN74S181]

It was a rhetorical question.

Obviously, what happened was Apple gave up on producing their 'next generation OS' (Pink, what-not, all that buzzword stuff they spent millions on in the early to mid 90's that had the cute names). They bought NeXT and threw a modern destkop layer on NextSTEP. NextSTEP happens to have somewhat of a Unix heritage.

UNIX happens to be a fashionable thing at the moment, and Apple Computer has always reeked of fashion the way a cheap hooker reeks of perfume.

I've been able to afford a Mac since about the time they first came out. People like me have boycotted Apple hardware since about then. Jobs made a famous speech where he boasted that the Macintosh was a 'hacker proof' computer in a sealed plastic box. It was part of that 'for the rest of us' bull.

Fuck that. I am not 'the rest of us' and no self respecting geek wants to join that throng either.

Oh wow

[Apreche]

Yeah, that screen/ratpoison window manager he's got there, it's reeeealy useful. NOT. I know that many of you are linux guys who weild the CLI like a deadly katana. I know that using the CLI as opposed to a GUI is faster and more powerful. However, there is one large problem with it. It's hard. It requires a great deal of effort to learn all of the commands and how to use them effectively. Sure someone can learn ls, mv, cp, rm, really quick. But things like grep, awk, etc. Require a lot more.

As I see it the number 1 reason why windows/mac are still beating linux out is that in linux you can't avoid opening a shell and getting a CLI at some point. For me, if something isn't easy and graphical it's useless. In Windows I can install/update a driver in 5 or 6 clicks of the mouse. In linux it requires me to do all kinds of crazy kernel stuff. It would take me more time to learn how to install the driver in linux and actually make it work properly than it would take me to just install windows.

This window manager that he presents is useful, if you are a crazy CLI type of guy. I want a fully customizeable, pretty, and powerful GUI. I don't want to ever be presented with a CLI. It's unecessary. The GUI was invented for a reason, and it was successful for a reason. It gives the user visual cues as to the correct way to achieve their goals. The CLI gives you a prompt that require the user to know what to type in with absolutely no help whatsoever. Yeah, there are man pages, if you know about them!

I realize the CLI is powerful and if you know what you are doing, as I'm sure many of you do, that it is more efficient for you to have a simplified window manager like this. But for everyone else in the real world Windows/KDE/Gnome/Mac is the way to go. The option of a CLI is available in all of those, but you never have to go to it if you don't want to.

Rather than trying to get away from the desktop we should find ways to make it prettier, faster, more responsive, and more intuitive. I think that using something besides X is a good way to start, but I dont' see that happening any time soon. Sure a stripped down window manager might be more efficient for .01% of the population. And it's great, you've got what you want. But 99% of the people need a better, complete, window manager.

The biggest problem I've seen in the open source world is that the people writing the software write it for themselves. Big software companies like MS and Adobe write software for the least common denominator. I wonder why more people use their stuff??

Re:Oh wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You are what is wrong with the youth of today.

Re:Oh wow

[Vann_v2]

Right, well, this is for people who, quote, "Hate window managers." People who can't use grep, awk, sed, etc. wouldn't hate window managers. It's not like this article is trying to revolutionize the desktop world with its fantastic new paradigm, or something.

Re:Oh wow

[mccalli]

Rather than trying to get away from the desktop we should find ways to make it prettier, faster, more responsive, and more intuitive....

Err....we aren't doing anything. He is. He's found his way of making it faster, more responsive and more intuitive for him. That's one of the advantages of Linux - it can be set up more or less as you choose it to be.

For example, Linux is very heavily used in my house, yet both my desktop and laptop run XP. How is Linux used then? Well, in a co-lo Raq box that handles my web and email (web front-end), and also in a Tivo. Neither interface is 'standard' - the Raq has its own web front-end, and the Tivo's UI is totally geared around its PVR function. You'd expect nothing else.

What works for one may not work for another. With Linux, or more accurately OSs that seperate system management from GUI, everyone can be accomodated.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Oh wow

[Anonymous Coward]

is your VCR clock still blinking 12:00?

Re:Oh wow

[abulafia]

Rather than trying to get away from the desktop we should find ways to make it prettier, faster, more responsive, and more intuitive. I think that using something besides X is a good way to start, but I dont' see that happening any time soon. Sure a stripped down window manager might be more efficient for .01% of the population. And it's great, you've got what you want. But 99% of the people need a better, complete, window manager.

"What you mean 'we', white man?"

The biggest problem I've seen in the open source world is that the people writing the software write it for themselves. Big software companies like MS and Adobe write software for the least common denominator. I wonder why more people use their stuff??

If you want software written for the lowest common denominator, you are welcome to write it for yourself.

The difference between big software companies and people who want different software than that is, well, that big software companies want money, and people who want different software than that want different software than that.

Everything clear now?

-j

Re:Oh wow

[sir99]

The biggest problem I've seen in the open source world is that the people writing the software write it for themselves.

I don't consider that a problem. That's what makes OSS so good, to me. Obviously it's not so good for people who don't work the way I do. It seems to me that the people expressing my viewpoint are often lambasted as being elitists, but I think that's rarely the case.

I'm not one of those people who wants Linux to stay "1337," by keeping all the current non-users away. Instead, I simply find it irrelevant whether people use it or not. If they do, and it works for them, good. If it doesn't work for them, no loss.

Uncompassionate bastard that I am, I only see secondary benefits to Linux becoming more popular, namely that device and software manufacturers may be more willing to enable their products to be used on Linux. But I distrust non-OSS, and they are unlikely to make their products OSS, so I would probably find that benefit rather limited.

Re:Oh wow

[D_Gr8_BoB]

Sure someone can learn ls, mv, cp, rm, really quick. But things like grep, awk, etc. Require a lot more.

Er... if you say so. Personally, I'd think that anyone who can remember
cp <source> <destination>
can remember
grep <pattern> <files>.
Of course awk is going to take longer to learn, since it's a Turing complete programming language, but you can get a lot done with
<some command producing columns of output> |awk '{print $<which row of output>}'
It'll take a while to learn, sure, but it's worth it if you need that functionality.

The only excuses for not learning the command line are laziness or (misplaced) intimidation. Anyone willing to put forth a miniscule amount of effort can learn enough command line to accomplish certain tasks faster than with a GUI.

I'm not saying everyone should use a command line, because certainly GUIs are useful and have their place. But really anyone who considers himself a power user owes it to himself to learn some command line.

Re:Oh wow

[Anonymous Coward]

The only excuses for not learning the command line are laziness or (misplaced) intimidation.

There is one other reason: CLI-based documentation (man, info, etc.) written as terse references instead of how-to's. Having started back in the manual-memory-managed DOS days, I agree there's nothing conceptually difficult about the CLI and the more it's used the more a mouse feels slow and clumsy. Learning it from man pages is the hard part for those coming from the GUI world.

Re:Oh wow

[noewun]

The only excuses for not learning the command line are laziness or (misplaced) intimidation. Anyone willing to put forth a miniscule amount of effort can learn enough command line to accomplish certain tasks faster than with a GUI.

Bullshit.

The vast majority of computer users on the planet want nothing to do with CLIs, grep or awk. They want a computer which is easy to use, does what they want when they want, and doesn't give them too many headaches. For most of the computing world, Windows and Apple have provided this. The percentage of people who want to use grep, awk, mkdir or netstat is very small.

I am not debating the relative merits of Windows and OS9/X. I am, however, making a point about the myopic view of some Slashdotters. Most of the computing world plain doesn't care about the things which are the touchstone of much debate and argument here, because computers are no longer the privelege of an elite, technologically savvy clique but are commodities, like microwaves and refridgerators. Want to know why Linux has almost no desktop penetration? Cause it's a pain in the ass for Joe Average PC User.

This debate is akin to me saying that anyone who can't shift a straight cut racing gearbox without using the clutch is plain lazy. Although the fact that I can do this is probably indicative of the fact that I am a better driver than 95% of the people out there, but this helps me not one bit when I am stuck in 5 mph Manhattan traffic with the rest of the world.

Re:Oh wow

[D_Gr8_BoB]

The vast majority of computer users on the planet want nothing to do with CLIs, grep or awk. ...it's a pain in the ass for Joe Average PC User.

You are correct. Note I also said "anyone who considers himself a power user owes it to himself to learn some command line."

This debate is akin to me saying that anyone who can't shift a straight cut racing gearbox without using the clutch is plain lazy. Although the fact that I can do this is probably indicative of the fact that I am a better driver than 95% of the people out there, but this helps me not one bit when I am stuck in 5 mph Manhattan traffic with the rest of the world.

That's not a very fitting analogy. While it's true that many CLI benefits aren't useful for most people, I find a CLI very helpful even for day-to-day tasks, such as renaming large numbers of files. As for the last part, I would say that the fact you can shift without the clutch probably means you are a worse driver than 95% of the people out there.

Re:Oh wow

[D_Gr8_BoB]

I'm not necessarily saying that people have no excuse for not teaching themselves command line - it takes a certain kind of person to want to approach that kind of a challenge. But there are excellent resources out there for people who aren't so much into learning by doing.

Re:Oh wow

[noewun]

Try shifting without the clutch, and without abusing the gearbox, and get back to me.

As for renaming large numbers of files, we are in agreement.

Re:Oh wow

[alfaiomega]

The only excuses for not learning the command line are laziness or (misplaced) intimidation. Anyone willing to put forth a miniscule amount of effort can learn enough command line to accomplish certain tasks faster than with a GUI.

I would say that most of people I know who don't learn how to use command line interface refuse to learn it strictly because of laziness, while they should learn it because of Laziness, if you know what I mean.

time warp

[(trb001)]

You can do fancier split screens to make several applications visible at once:

Anyone else notice how his "screen split" looks amazingly like what Desqview did back in the day for BBS consoles?

Good gravy, we've advanced to the point of reverting to 10 year old technology

--trb

Re:time warp

[hey!]

It's not surprising that it looks retro.

I think part of the stuff that MS got from Apple was the idea of operlapping windows. Originally, Windows only had tiling. This is so taken for granted now it's hard to remember that at one time the idea was new. In fact, the idea is so old that it practically is new.

Overlapping windows get you two different things: (1) the ability to work with multiple documents within an application (early MacOS required you to switch between applications), and the ability to coordinate multiple applications. The problem with this approach is that applications are the wrong way to chunk the user experience. What would really be interesting is something like this with a component architecture. Each document would get an entire screen, but bits of functionality from various sources could be embedded in the document.

In that case, we'd forgo the ability to view multiple documents overlapping each other (which is really not so important if you can tile them) in return for less clutter. But we'd retain the ability to use multiple applications on a document.

Re:time warp

[symbolic]

If they're the kind of screen splits I remember, CICS, used on many corporate mainframes, had this function available say, 18 (+/-) years ago. I discovered the screen app about three months ago after a dire search for a linux-baed tool that would allow me to run multiple sessions in the same window. It saves a lot of time over switching back and forth between two windows, or two desktops. With or without a window manager, it's a great app. I'd go so far a to consider it a 'classic' piece of softare whose usefulness far outlives any attempt to obsolesce it based on its age - kind of like a classic work of literature.

Re:time warp

[plsuh]

Well, this really is a time warp -- Apple was looking at this before as well. This sort of experience was the intent of the OpenDoc system, which was a document-oriented way of running apps. You could embed documents within documents, based on a file structure called Bento, named after the Japanese-style stacking boxes. It was cross-platform (Mac and Windows) and you could even embed ActiveX content inside an OpenDoc container.

A definitely cool piece of technology, but it ended up on the cutting room floor when Apple was in dire financial straits. It was also too heavy-weight a technology for the personal computers of the day, since everything was basically a CORBA object, which are relatively slow even on honking big servers.

With MacOS X and the underlying Mach microkernel for message passing, OpenDoc or something like it starts to look more feasible for the desktop from a technological perspective. However, from a marketing standpoint, the companies that put together office software suites have a distinct incentive to make their products NOT interoperate in this fashion, since it helps to lock the user into a single suite.

--Paul

Re:time warp

[hey!]

OpenDoc was precisely what I had in mind.

And it really wasn't that slow. Cyberdog was very usable.

Re:time warp

[Anonymous Coward]

One step forward and two..err 10...steps back.

Ion is also good (not quite so extreme)

[davidmccabe]

I've been using Ion off-and-on recently, trying to decide if I want to switch. It is very great. I didn't like posion, because (a) it brakes my web browser, Konquerer, and (b) I find it akward to use.

Ion is similar. You can have multipal frames on the screen at a time (which is good), but the frames never overlap. One thing to note is that multipal clients can be in the same frame (one shows up at a time). Each frame (or the whole screen if you only have one) has a row of tabs at the top, one for each client. It's great.

Here lives Ion.

I'm not illiterate, I type proper engrish!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over it, engrish is teh linga franca of the interweb! All your base are belong to us!

slightly OT, screens question

[stratjakt]

I'd heard of screens, but never used it. I like the idea of being able to detach and reattach a session, but I want to do this in console mode for some of my boxes that don't "do windows".

Does anyone know of a console-land type of setup, a "getty"-ish app, perhaps, that would let me log in, start a task (say a big compile), detach, and then reattach later to 'check up on it'?

Re:slightly OT, screens question

[Phaid]

That IS what screen does. You run screen, type the commands you want or start the application you want or whatever, then hit ctrl-a d to detach, then you log out or start another screen or whatever you like. Then later you do screen -r and it will reconnect you with the first screen session.

man screen.

Re:slightly OT, screens question

[sql*kitten]

Does anyone know of a console-land type of setup, a "getty"-ish app, perhaps, that would let me log in, start a task (say a big compile), detach, and then reattach later to 'check up on it'?

That is exactly what screen does. CTRL-A d to "detach" from screen, then log off. When you log back in, do "screen -r" to reattatch, and everything will still be running.

On an X windows system, you can do the same thing with VNC or even Xvfb.

Re:slightly OT, screens question

[bytor4232]

Screen works in Console-land as well. You do not have to run it via xterm or similar app.

Re:slightly OT, screens question

[stratjakt]

OK, OK, my bad - I'd been confused into thinking screens was an x based thingy.

Thank y'all, now mod me down, I didn't want this stinkin karma in the first place.

Re:slightly OT, screens question

[Permission Denied]

Does anyone know of a console-land type of setup, a "getty"-ish app, perhaps, that would let me log in, start a task (say a big compile), detach, and then reattach later to 'check up on it'?

This is precisely what GNU screen allows you to do. You start some long task, detach from it, and re-attach later. Greatest thing is that you don't need to re-attach from the same machine - start that big compile at work and check on it from home (without having to run "script", or redirecting output, etc).

GNU screen has nothing to do with X11: you can start the compile on the console and check on it from an xterm (it takes care of differences between xterm and Linux/BSD consoles all by itself).

Wonderful little program. Learn it by starting screen and then typing control-A, question mark.

Re:slightly OT, screens question

[KieranElby]

> Does anyone know of a console-land type of setup, a "getty"-ish app, perhaps, that would let me log in, start a task (say a big compile), detach, and then reattach later to 'check up on it'?

Er, Ctrl-Z to detach, 'jobs' to find it again and fg [job] to reattach?

Should work under most *nix shells.

Re:slightly OT, screens question

[Wudbaer]

... until you happen to log out in the meantime. Screen would do that job... (as said before)

One pixel is too much

[Sloppy]

I dunno, I see a major advantage of this ratpoison over EvilWM. Consider the case where you have a GUI app running and you want to use the menus with a mouse (because you haven't memorized keyboard shortcuts or something). It looks like with ratpoison, you slam the mouse pointer up against the top of the screen and can start clicking, with all the efficiency of MacOS. From looking at EvilWM, it looks like if you were to do the same thing, you would overshoot the menu -- by a single lousy pixel. Ugh. So while EvilWM may look convenient, I get the impression that it might be just as inconvenient as Gnome or MS Windows.

(Disclaimer: I haven't used either one. I am analoquizing as usual.)

Re:One pixel is too much

[six809]

Well I just tried that by fullsizing Mozilla (easiest example to hand) using Ctrl+Alt+X, and whacking the mouse up to the top takes it outside of the click region on the menus anyway. Ho hum.

xmove

[Ari Rahikkala]

Someone on that thread asked about an X equivalent for screen, one that would allow you to detach an X program from one screen and run it on another. I don't have an account at Sourceforge and don't care to get one right now, so here goes:

I've tried xmove once but never got it to run without segfaulting. Which isn't really a big surprise, since the last release is from 1995. However, if it worked correctly, it would sit between your X server and clients (guzzling some performance and probably making DRI, DGA, XSHM and the like pretty hard to configure). Maybe it would be possible to upgrade xmove to modern X11 revisions, but I'm not up to the task...

OTOH, would it be possible to implement this in X servers and/or Xlib itself? As far as I can see, an X client could just store its state, close its connection to the X server and initiate a connection with another X server to move from one server to another. Doing changes only to servers, it could be implemented with a little stupid redirection even without doing any changes to clients at all, but that would cause a lot of connection overhead...

Re:xmove

[LordHunter317]

Its far more complex than that.

The problem is that the X client stores almost nothing about its state, the X server stores all that information. Because of buffering, network latency and the like, the information on the X client about the GUI state is usually never 100% accurate. The X server would have to transfer the information to the new X server, or another extension to the protocol has to be made.

Re:xmove

[cowens]

Take a look at dmx.sf.net. Basicly it can join together many machines into one desktop using xinerama and some BFM.

Re:xmove

[Ari Rahikkala]

What about just redrawing everything, then? Not many people will be moving their apps around so much that the overhead from that would be anything but negligible...

Re:xmove

[Permission Denied]

The problem is that the X client stores almost nothing about its state, the X server stores all that information.

I don't see how this could in any way be considered a problem. It's the reason why this could work. You cannot control client applications or how client applications "keep state", but you can control how the server keeps this state (bunch of pointers and structs) and encode that in some way. This should be transparent at the Xlib level, or it simply won't work with "legacy" applications (eg, all existing X client software).

He has a very good idea and I believe this is workable. There is no problem with buffering or network latency: just have "xmove" (or whatever you call the application) tell xlib to XFlush() for client Y; stop marshalling events for client Y; tell the X server that client Y is attached to (server 1) to encode the information; transfer that information from server 1 to server 2; tell Xlib that client Y is now connected to server 2; Xlib starts processing events again.

The problem would be some way to tell Xlib to flush and stop/start on the client side. Xlib is not re-entrant, so you can't make Xlib calls from a signal handler. If the application is still responding to X events, you could simply integrate a check for this in Xlib's event loop (XNextEvent()). If the client isn't responding to X events, you probably don't want to transfer it to another machine anyway :)

Other problems: the client application may keep some state, such as screen number, or it may peek into the Display pointer (very naughty), or it might have colormap indeces. I believe this could be solved by some indirection: Xlib translates colormap entry X into colormap entry Y before sending it to server 2 which has a different colormap setup from server 1. Things may get nasty if the servers are running at different depths or support different extensions.

This is very interesting and I believe it is indeed possible. I may look into implementing this, but right now I'm stealing ideas from ratpoison to add to my own window manager :)

Re:xmove

[Permission Denied]

As I was researching this idea, I just realized that this would not play nice with XSHM (which is quite unfortunate, since XSHM is so prevalent).

I just looked into how xmove works, and it does it by using a pseudo-server, just like VNC. This makes sense since the things it must do would touch all parts of the server if it were built-in. However, VNC still works with XSHM - there must some voodoo going on here, requires investigation.

Screen is great

[DustMagnet]

For those of you that do lots of work with the command line, give screen a try. It's great to just disconnect at work and then reconnect at home, right where I left off. I normally have five to ten consoles running under it. I started using it back when my 56K modem would disconnect me. With screen, I never lose my place.

if it's anti-desktop shouldn't it be called ...

[iamwoodyjones]

dada-desktop?

Footloose versus footlose

[Ride-My-Rocket]

One is an 80s Kevin Bacon movie; the other is something you don't want to do, unless you enjoy hobbling (different from hobbiting, btw) from one spot to the next.

John Clease could smell a bad deal!

[Anonymous Coward]

"He is an x-parrot!
If you hadn't nailed him to your penis, he'd be pushing up daiseys!"

Try pwm

[dh003i]

I recommend pwm. Its a graphical WM with tabbed windows. Supports windowmaker dockapps.

Unfortunately, it does not support iconification of programs...I'm trying to convince the developer to include that as an alternative to window shading.

Imo, PWM's the best light window manager, providing a good combination of a clean graphical interface with minimalism.

For a more heavy-duty WM, I recommend WindowMaker over GNOME or KDE. WindowMaker is fairly light-weight, and has a much cleaner appearance and feel. Another nice feature about WindowMaker is that it has a lot of the nice Apps that you see in OSX, like the mail program and the column-file navigator. Better, its easy to port an OSX program to WindowMaker if you have the source, as its based on OpenStep.

Re:Try pwm

[PotPieMan]

For a more heavy-duty WM, I recommend WindowMaker over GNOME or KDE. WindowMaker is fairly light-weight, and has a much cleaner appearance and feel. Another nice feature about WindowMaker is that it has a lot of the nice Apps that you see in OSX, like the mail program and the column-file navigator. Better, its easy to port an OSX program to WindowMaker if you have the source, as its based on OpenStep.

Window Maker is what I'm currently running at home. I used to use AfterStep, but got fed up with it for various reasons.

Contrary to what dh003i says, it is strictly a window manager - it doesn't have any applications associated with it, except for WPrefs.app). The applications like Mail.app (well, it's called GNUMail.app) and the "column-file navigator" (called GWorkspace.app) are part of GNUstep, not Window Maker.

Re:Try pwm

[kbielefe]

Gnome is not a window manager. Nor, I suspect, is KDE. You can run WindowMaker or almost any other window manager with Gnome instead of sawfish, which is only the default window manager for Gnome.

On a related note, I connect to Sun servers via exceed at work. I switched to a highly-customized version of fvwm95 and use exceed's multiple window mode so that I would have a more consistent user interface between the windows and unix sides. It's amazing how many unix programmers come up and ask me how I got our unix applications to run "in windows."

Re:Try pwm

[cowens]

I recommend pwm [cs.tut.fi]. Its a graphical WM with tabbed windows. Supports windowmaker dockapps.

Unfortunately, it does not support iconification of programs...I'm trying to convince the developer to include that as an alternative to window shading.

Imo, PWM's the best light window manager, providing a good combination of a clean graphical interface with minimalism.

Try fluxbox. Fluxbox is a BlackBox spinoff that looks and acts like pwm but has some advantages (like the ability to iconify windows). Not that there is anything wrong with pwm (I am using now because it's multihead support seems to be better).

Re:Try pwm

[PotPieMan]

I know; I was talking only about Window Maker. I ignored the fact that the original poster grouped Gnome and KDE as window managers.

Re:Try pwm

[kbielefe]

I apologize for replying to the wrong post. The original did not show up on my page for some reason.

Re:Try pwm

[dh003i]

Yea, I've seen fluxbox...but the proble mwith it is that it wastes alot of space compared to pwm.

It'd be nice if we could convince the people who do WindowMaker to include a tabbed-windowing system like pwm has, at the option of the user...so we could maximize screen space efficiency while easily being able to switch between tasks.

X's Multiple Personalities, and OS X

[Spencerian]

I love X Window's flexibility in adding window managers. I also hate it because I never, ever get the same convenience and experience in navigating an operating system as I do with Mac OS X and Windows. KDE and GNOME have gone through great changes to make this easier, but they are desktop managers, not window managers. Nowandays the distinction is subtle, but significant when you're trying to pawn off Linux to your mom.

That said, while Mac OS X (my choice) doesn't use X (but can with the XDarwin OSS project), a user can get quite minimalistic even with Apple's OS X interface. For instance, unlike previous versions of the Mac OS, you don't have to show one damned icon, or even the dock, in Mac OS X. To do it:

1) From the Apple menu, choose Dock-->Turn Hiding On. This hides the dock until you move the mouse towards the dock's hidden location.

2) Click on the Finder button in the dock (or click on the desktop) and choose Preferences from the Finder menu. Uncheck the options under "Show these items on the Desktop." That rids you of any hard drive, removable media, or network drive icons.

3) Move any other document icons (the only things that can be left) into a folder in your Home folder, or elsewhere.

4) Change your desktop background to something pleasant.

The only thing left on the desktop now will be the menu bar.

Users who prefer to navigate their applications in a menu-centric style can create an alias (shortcut/symlink) of their Applications and Documents folders and place them in the dock. From there, users can just click on the folder and, ala the Start button or typical window manager menu, navigate through to the item they need.

We need a good alternative to XFree86

[zaqattack911]

I think this idea is ok, but frankly I like the mouse :)

One of the things that makes window managers slow , and ugly IMO is XFree86 behind it. Ever wonder why the latest KDE/Distro runs slow on a 400mhz PC ?

Well yes it;s KDE's fault.. but XFree86 using it's "network" everytime you start an app doesn't help either. For the true desktop *nix user we need a nice, pretty, speedy alternative to XFree86 I think.

And not Aqua, because that also runs horribly slow on anything less than 600mhz.

--me

Re:We need a good alternative to XFree86

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow..are there even any smart trolls left in the world any more?

First of all, X doesn't make things "ugly." X provides a platform on which window managers are built that look ugly, sure. And you can talk about the fonts all you like, but the fact of the matter is that window managers could be providing better looking fonts themselves if they really wanted to. And in many cases they are; more distributions are now supporting antialiased fonts -by default-.

The 400MHz PC line is bullshit, too..of course, you could have been trying it on a piece of crap 400MHz with 64MB of RAM and no swap, for all I know. All our lab machines here are 400MHz systems with 256MB RAM, and they all load within a reasonable amount of time. Sure, KDE is more bloated than other window managers, but hey -- load up a lightweight window manager and it's all nice and fast again.

I love it how you stick "network" in quotes, too. Seems to me that you like using a lot of terms that you don't really have a definition for. What "network?" How is it not "nice," "pretty," or speedy? Do you have any concept of what you're talking about at all, or are you just a loudmouthed dick smirking behind the monitor of his mommy's brand new Windows machine?

I think what you meant to say was "for the true desktop *nix user, like myself, we need something that's exactly like Windows..because I'm not really a desktop *nix user anyway, and I just wanted to cause a bit of trouble here for a laugh without, you know, researching."

Re:We need a good alternative to XFree86

[Tackhead]

> I think this idea is ok, but frankly I like the mouse :)

Yeah, so do I.

Of course, I define "mouse" as "the thing I use to tell X which xterm I wanna type into", so YMMV.

Re:We need a good alternative to XFree86

[Anonymous Coward]

When the slowest (PC) processor being produced is more than three times as fast as what you're running, don't expect /new/ software to be speedy on it. If you want to use old hardware, use the old software that goes with it.

On a related note, I think we should lower the speed limit on the freeways because my Model T just can't keep up out there...

Re:We need a good alternative to XFree86

[SCHecklerX]

How do you explain 60+fps in quake3 on my Athlon at home then? KDE/Gnome == bloat. Windowmaker, otoh, is very snappy. Need drag/drop filemanager? Try out Rox-Filer. There is no reason for crap like nautilus to even exist. It's bloated useless crap.

Re:We need a good alternative to XFree86

[zaqattack911]

First, try and get over your anger issues.
This is a conversation about software. I didn't insult your mother, or slave your ancestors.

Instead of mocking what you think is "non intelligent", why not offer an explanation for the terms which I blurted out?

It seems clear to me who is the troll.

scwm

[rnd()]

Isn't this what scwm is for?

DVORAK

[Anonymous Coward]

Why use this DVORAK ? Maybe use ABCDEFG ?

Screen

[hands]

screen is the ORIGINAL window manaager.

you want minimalist? use screen!

man screen

Uhm.... Okay, But, You're Missing A Few Things...

[Bowie J. Poag]

This is a good editorial. Its always good to see people thinking differently about how to do the things we all do on a daily basis.

However..

The notion of using a text-based backdrop to GUI applications certainly isn't a new idea, and its not without merit -- The only problem is, what the editorial discusses can be replicated in X, and represents a set of personal preferences, not something that would be inherently better than what you or I would make for ourselves.

For example, the layout of my own GUI has been relatively unchanged in the past 10 years, since thats how I like things. A large work area, bordered by a few shells down below, and a single line of information at the top that reflects system conditions. Take AmigaDOS 3.1's desktop, for example. It tells me everything I need to know at any given time using a single slat of text that not only doubles but *triples* as an information display, a File/Edit/View/Options bar, and a grab point for moving the screen up and down to expose screens beneath. Best of all, it conveys the same information a Dock would, but doesn't waste real-estate like a Dock would.

The problem with a Dock is that it it offers very little *useful* information for the real estate it encompasses. It also offers a wealth of information that isn't particularly useful to anyone. Most screenshots of desktops with Docks confirm this -- A comparably large piece of real estate is taken away from other applications for the purposes of eye candy. Big mistake.

Not to dismiss this guy's editorial, however, but he fails to distinguish how his method is any better or any different than simply running an xterm in the root window and simply utilizing pre-existing keyboard shortcuts for his applications.. (*shrug*)

Cheers

Xfree86 isn't the problem.

[Christopher Thomas]

One of the things that makes window managers slow , and ugly IMO is XFree86 behind it. Ever wonder why the latest KDE/Distro runs slow on a 400mhz PC ?

Well yes it;s KDE's fault.. but XFree86 using it's "network" everytime you start an app doesn't help either.

Load twm, or fvwm, or any other light window manager. Notice how zippy things are?

Xfree86 isn't the problem. Features in window managers aren't free.

Re:Xfree86 isn't the problem.

[rhaig]

Amen. I've been an FVWM user for quite a while. Once in a while, I'll try out the default desktop for a new install, but I always end up back at my good old small memory footprint fvwm2.

Heliwm is my minimalist wm

[0-9a-zA-Z_. !*'()123]

While looking for a lightweight window manager to run on my small laptop screen, as well as something that would be (hopefully) smaller and more secure, I came across heliwm ("helium").

http://www.cc.rim.or.jp/~hok/heliwm/

No mouse controls, everything is controlled by keystroke, etc.

I then use xloadimage to add a pretty background image, and 9menu to allow me to lauch apps at random, and xsetroot to match the X cursor to my color scheme (cyan), with clear aterms w/ cyan foreground.

Works for me.

Here is a screenshot:
http://www.rocketsociety.org/mike/xwd .jpg

This is all under OpenBSD btw.

screen (the application) rocks!!

[QuietRiot]

screen is awesome. If you do any type of remote administration through ssh and you have not tried it - do so! You don't need to mess with job control, and you can have lynx/links/w3m/etc/ open in another "session" to look things up while you edit that config file, without having to open 2+ ssh sessions open at the same time. You can "disconnect" from the machine, "reconnect" from elsewhere, and have all your "windows" just as you left them - all through one ssh connection! Helpful even on your X desktop to reduce xterm clutter. You can even cut-and-paste between text sessions with ease.

Find the GNU page here. It's the VT100 equivalent of the "Antidesktop" -- check it out.

For the Love of God

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans cannot speak or write English either.

dont you mean nor?

Re:For the Love of God

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if they wanted an incredibly confusing sentence.
"Americans cannot speak nor write English either"
as opposed to
"Americans can neither speak nor write English"
I'm sure there should be a comma in there too...

Re:For the Love of God

[Nintendork]

"Cannot" is such an ugly word. How about, "Americans are unable to speak or write in English." The argument of or and nor is a trickier one.

Re:For the Love of God

[Anonymous Coward]

I read it in a coder style, like this:

Americans cannot (speak or write English)

Re:For the Love of God

[jmontana66]

I thought nor was only if you had a "neither" at the beginning, not an "either?"

Re:For the Love of God

[Anonymous Coward]

!(English.canSpeak(Americans)|| English.canWrite(Americans)) ?

PWM

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory "I prefer $windowmanager" message...

I use PWM. Small, can join windows on tabs and you can use the keyboard for everyting (in my case, ctrl+up=xterm, ctrl+down=menu, alt+g=window list, ctrl+alt+m=(un)maximise and so on).

I would reduce the size of the title bar a little and then it would be perfect (for me).

Perfect Sawfish theme

[F.O.Dobbs]

Lines is the perfect theme for me. I run Gnome/Sawfish with nothing but a single edge panel set to "tiny" for launching apps and keeping track of my desktops. Throw this in with Xinerama and I'm only wasting 24x1200 pixels out of 3200x1200. Key shortcuts are your friend.

F.O. Dobbs

Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point in yet another window manager - FVWM2 has been around for years, and is only slightly more resource intensive then TWM, yet it's got a lot more functionalilty.

Loads of people have tried to make a better FVWM, and a lot of them even based their window managers on FVWM, but at the end of the day, FVWM is something of a standard for a lightweight window manager. It's perfectly happy running on X on Linux in 16 Mb of RAM, and I personally find it runs happily in 8. It can run in 4 Mb of RAM, but then X is hardly useful in only 4 Mb of RAM.

Simple point - why re-invent the wheel? FVWM2 does what 99% of people who are looking for a simple window manager want, and it is very well known, and customisable. What is the point in yet another lightweight window manager.

Nice idea, but pointless.

Re:Pointless

[jgerman]

What is the point in yet another lightweight window manager

Before using it: The point is that someone works better with it, the point is that choice is good, the point is that different things work for different people.

After using it for an afternoon: The point is that it's faster than anything else out there. Once the key bindings are in your head you can burn through tasks faster than anyone who has to reach for a mouse. I personally don't like the point-and-grunt interface, it's slow and can be counter intuitive.

Will I use Ratpoison regularl, who knows, I have a weak spot for the aesthetics of a wm, but it is certainly allowing me to be efficient.

fvwm2

[wuchang]

loads like lightning

has a large library of modules

has a good number of available themes (even a windows one)

is highly configurable

http://www.fvwm.org/

Re:fvwm2

[Anonymous Coward]

But no tabbed windows yet. If that happens I'll convert back in an instant, until then it's fluxbox.

The guy doesn't know what he's talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

In a closing note, the author states:

Why not just Emacs, if you're not using its GUI mode anyway? I used to use VM to read mail, and there was a time when the then-current version of VM would run on XEmacs but not Emacs. I switched, enjoyed the color support on the console (not a feature of Emacs at the time), and just never got around to switching back.

This is incorrect. Emacs21 has color term support. He needs to better research the software noted in his article.

Re:The guy doesn't know what he's talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you research your own fucking post...

he says 'not a feature of Emacs at the time

when the choice was made there was no color support.. now there is... but as the quote you posted says he 'just never got around to switch back.'

Its sorta funny how stupid you look trying to pretend you are smart eh? Take a deep breath and read something before posting.

Nostalgia

[mst]

Ah, this reminds me of the Old Days, hacking Turbo C on my father's 286! At that time TSR (Terminate Stay Resident) applications whas the latest and greatest in "multitasking" on desktop computers. The most notable TSR application was Borland's Sidekick, a calendar application you switched to and from it with some (long forgotten) hot-key combination. I used it happily.

What is being done here with ratfish (and screen for that matter) is just the same, just with more processes and the added possibility of graphic applications ;-)

Oh, of course, there is a certain difference in operating systems too, now that I think of it...

Just rambling.

Another light window manager

[Viol8]

Its called PUG , not sure the author ever completed it but I tried it and it seems quite nice give or take a few minor bugs: http://www.ogham.demon.co.uk/zips/pug091.tgz

linux

[Anonymous Coward]

this is exactly the sort of thing that is wrong with some linux people, and that keeps microsoft from getting too worried. People who expend energy to avoid window managers are not capable of making the rational decisions which can advance a software platform. Whatever. I'm sure there were some cavemen who thought fire used too many resources, was inefficient, etc.

Re:linux

[Anonymous Coward]

GUI vs. command prompt/shell. Why can't we just get along? *sniff*

.sig: I have nothing against the American people..

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't hold it against the American people. Many of us want regime change, too.

Id like to see this guy

[brunes69]

...who "doesnt need a mouse" use Mozilla (or any other graphical web browser) for any length of time without the mouse, and be faster than anyone with one. While the keyboard certainly has its places, browsing the web certainly isn't one of them. There is a reason for all these insane web accessability standards everyone talks about yet no one follows, because navigating the web without a mouse is slow.

Re:Id like to see this guy

[Queuetue]

Try using tabbed navigation, type ahead find, and the search mechanism. I shocked a co-worker yesterday when my mouse fell off the desk and I didn't slow down.

Re:Id like to see this guy

[alue]

What the heck is "type ahead find?"

Re:Id like to see this guy

[alue]

Type ahead find... Interesting...

Re:Id like to see this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

You meant that you didn't slow do your web surfing, right? Your work continued on at normal pace (stopped).

Re:Id like to see this guy

[brunes69]

See how well your search mechanism works when you do a google search and up pops some 50 links with all the same words on them, whereupon you have to tab to each link to follow it.

Re:Id like to see this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, just get off your ass and pick up the mouse! =P

Re:Id like to see this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

They have this thing called the "page down" button on your keyboard. I use it to scroll through web pages quite quickly (faster than a scroll mouse, actually). Even Google search results.

The problem is pretty much the same with a mouse, too.

Re:Id like to see this guy

[jgerman]

Now you're changing your parameters, see how long it takes me to page down without moving my fingers from the keyboard and how long it takes you with a mouse. Watch how long it takes you to get a hand off of the mouse and to the keyboard to enter any text, I've got news for you, I'm done way before you even start typing. Watch as I search for the text around the link and jump right to it.

Forget web browsers, I've seen people using Word or Ultra edit to write code, it's a riot. Hands on the keyboard, hands off, hands on, hands off, scroll down, scroll up.

Re:Id like to see this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

as he said, wtf is type ahead find? that page explains a lot but doesnt explain anything at the same time.. Is this for the url bar , do you just type and it starts selecting text? wtf is it? I enabled it in mozilla but i dont see how to use it

Re:Id like to see this guy

[brunes69]

Ever heard of a scroll wheel? Or a scroll bar? Who in gods name takes their hands off a mouse to page down? And pray tell, how do you search for text "around" a link when you don't even know what that text is going to be? Also, the ratio of text entering to read only data while web browsing is probbaly like 1000 to 1, or higher.

Re:Id like to see this guy

[jgerman]

Who said anything about taking your hand off of the mouse to scroll down, not me. Keep your straw man arguments to yourself. As far as searching ahead, how do you click on a link when you don't know what text is around it? You don't, in order to follow a link, it is a pre-requisite that it's visible on screen, I would have thought that anyone who could figure out how to post would be able to understand that.

As far as a ratio, who gives a fuck. My ratio of web surfing to entering text on a system as a whole is much greater than 1000 to 1. And while we're on the subject of numbers, care to back that ratio up, or do you want to just continue making up numbers that attempt (unsuccessfully) to prove your point?

Re:Id like to see this guy

[NNKK]

If you'd read the first two lines of text on that page, you'd know exactly what it does.

"Type Ahead Find is a new feature introduced in Mozilla 1.2. It allows the user, by merely typing in the open window, to automatically search for links (or, even non-linked text) containing the typed text. This Emacs-style search allows the user to search without use of the mouse or difficult-to-remember key combinations."

Re:Id like to see this guy

[slim]

Ever heard of a scroll wheel? Or a scroll bar? Who in gods name takes their hands off a mouse to page down?

I do. It's far easier to hit pagedown than it is to mouse over to the scrollbar. Try it; race yourself.

My mouse at work doesn't have a scroll wheel, although I do love having one at home. However, hitting pagedown is still quicker if you're scanning text a page at a time.

And pray tell, how do you search for text "around" a link when you don't even know what that text is going to be? Also, the ratio of text entering to read only data while web browsing is probbaly like 1000 to 1, or higher.

OK, I'm searching for a reference to myself in Google, using Mozilla. Being a bit dense, I don't search for "John Hartnup", I just search for "Hartnup".

Page 1 of the search results doesn't include any reference to me (page down to manually browse). Type-ahead search to get the link to page 2: "2"

Page 2 is no good either. "3"

Page 3 has a mention of me, in a page called "The Gnuotes 1998-June Archive by Author". Type "Gnu" and I'm straight there.

"But what if all the links contained the same text", you ask. Not very likely; but I'll bite. As long as the summary contains something vaguely unique I'm OK. This one contains the word "Apache", so "/Apache", "shift-tab" to move to the previous link, "".

Yes, it takes a while to learn, but most really efficient interfaces do: vi for example.

Re:Id like to see this guy

[brunes69]

I'll tell you why page down is much slower. If I am using my scrollwheel or scrollbar, I scroll the page while I am reading it. Effectivly wasting 0 time at all since the page is moving as I read it. With page up / down, you have to stop reading, hit the hey, the page moves, wait for eyes to refocus, and start reading again. All this takes at least two seconds. Multiply that by the number of page downs it takes to read a page and you're up to several minutes by the time you hit the bottom. Even if you aren't reading a whole page, any pae that is unfamiliar is more difficult to navigate with page up / page down because of the fact that you don't know what is on the next page, and this refocus time.

Re:Id like to see this guy

[brunes69]

Do you really want me to back it up? If you do I could easily make a keystroke log vs a mouse odometer log for an hour of web surfing time for random users. If anything it will be much higher than 1000 to 1.

Re:Id like to see this guy

[slim]

I'll tell you why page down is much slower. If I am using my scrollwheel or scrollbar, I scroll the page while I am reading it.

This is a non-argument. You can do the same with the cursor keys.

Second, the example you made was browsing Google search results. You don't read through these documents, you scan them for results that jump out.

Thirdly, apart from the very last page, you know exactly how far PageDown will take you. There's no way refocussing takes 2 seconds, once you're used to it.

After typing startx, his desktop looks. . .

[kfg]

remarkably like I get mine to look by *failing* to type startx.

We are Devo, Dee Ee Vee Oh.

KFG

Me too.

[eyeball]

I just made a similar switch after using every combination of desktop/window manager made over the last 10 years.

I run a SunBlade 100 with two heads, and a SunPCi Intel coprocessor card (since I need to dip into our the company exchange server). I use the ion window manager, which gives not only split-screen windowing, but multiple tabs per window. Monitor one is usually debugging output or programming reference material on the left, emacs on the right, console and email at the bottom (a second full-screen workspace gives me Oracle GUI stuff). Monitor two is my windows (Outlook, instant messengers, etc..) Eventually I'm going to integrate some more Afterstep/WindowMaker type applets, but no rush.

Anyway, for you screenshot junkies, check it out:
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2

I can't say exactly what's caused my frustration with the overlapped windowing metaphor, but whatever it is, it's gone now. I urge people to try it out before dismissing it as a joke.

ion is available here: http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/

Re:Me too.

[AlgUSF]

Die temperature of 89C (from screenshot), those USIIe procs run hotter than my Athlon XP 2100+.

Re:Me too.

[josh crawley]

WHat's the deal with that window manager? It does look nice and all but does it randomly scribble out regions of your desktop like that.....

Re:Me too.

[eyeball]

I'm trying to boil water for some tea on my CPU.. so close...

Last I checked US's have dinky little heatsinks (I haven't really poked around this particular Sun though).

Minimalist??? Keyboard?

[philovivero]

I don't see this "ratpoison" WM as saving much in the way of keystrokes. In the way he uses it, he's got far more keystrokes to do than I do in my stock GNOME2.0 (Mandrake 9) environment. And GNOME2.0's WM is pretty lightweight (Metacity).

For example, I keep three "root" GTerm's on desktop 1 which is bound to "F1" -- yep, a single keypress and I'm on my first desktop. More GTerm's on 2, email & Galeon on 3, etc. I can get from app to app with single keypresses and occasionally an alt-tab if I want to "overload" a given desktop.

The biggest obstacle to eliminating the mouse in GUI land isn't the WM anymore. Metacity finally fixes the keyboard bindings for moving/resizing windows like -- [ahem] -- that other OS has had since 3.11.

What's the biggest obstacle then? The apps. Tell me, in Mozilla, how do you navigate a web page*? How, in Gimp, do you select a rectangular region? How, in Dia, do you create five objects? The theme? You use the mouse. You don't use the keyboard. You can't use the keyboard.

GNOME2.0 is addressing the problems. I'm not sure where and with what document, but every GNOME2.0 app I've seen thus far is so much more keyboard-compliant than any other Linux app I've seen to date, there must be some central document explaining in simple checkbox style what keyboard shortcuts apps must support.

* Yes, I know you CAN navigate a web page in Mozilla using the keyboard, but scroll down seven pages until you see a link you're interested in, press "TAB" and notice how it scrolls all the way back to the top where the first link is. F--king brain-dead. Useless.

Re:Minimalist??? Keyboard?

[alfaiomega]

The biggest obstacle to eliminating the mouse in GUI land isn't the WM anymore. Metacity finally fixes the keyboard bindings for moving/resizing windows like -- [ahem] -- that other OS has had since 3.11. What's the biggest obstacle then? The apps. Tell me, in Mozilla, how do you navigate a web page*? How, in Gimp, do you select a rectangular region?

Hell, using Gimp without a mouse I can't even draw a horse which doesn't look like a damn dog on steroids! Well, I maybe could draw one, but at least not as fast as I could with a mouse.

I've heard X-Windows complaints before...

[jaaron]

I've heard plenty of X-Windows complaints before, but I'm confused as to why no other solutions (that I know of) have been offered. X-Windows is pretty much the defacto windowing system for Unix/Linux/... if it's that bad, then why haven't more projects surfaced to solve the problems? Moreover, could someone with some real experience explain better what are the actual problems or drawbacks with X? I assume most of them are from a programmers perspective, so what are they?

Re:I've heard X-Windows complaints before...

[squidinkcalligraphy]

Well, there's directFB. Technically a library not a windowing system, but gtk+ can run atop it, so if u don't mind recompiling ...

The main problem with X is that it tries to do too much, and suffers as a result. But from my experience it does the job and I'm quite happy with it (particularly for running old SGI boxen as dumb X-terminals)

yeah. ncurses

[Anonymous Coward]

ncurses is all the 'window manager' i ever need

Sounds like Launchbar on OS X

[chigaze]

I use Launchbar on OS X and it gives me this functionality plus, without having to have everything on my desktop.

It indexes the contents of my drive including browser bookmarks, email addresses, preference panels, Watson tools, and documents. I can hit a hotkey, type the first few letters of what I'm looking for and am given a list of all the possible matches. I can then select the one I want. It remembers what my selections have been so the next time those selections are at the top of the list.

It can also function as an app switcher and a temporary shelf for moving files. As well I can drag documents to the selected app on the shelf to launch them with that app.

First shareware app I bought with an hour of using it.

i'm trying it out, and it's pretty cool so far

[terrified]

after reading the article a couple days ago, i thought i'd give these ideas a try. I'm a longtime screen user, and it's really changed the way i administrate and use *nix boxes. it's wonderful.

Once i got ratpoison going, i needed some other things to make it truly useful and comfortable:

• This guy's patch for adding dockapps to ratpoison. very nice. patched ratpoison-1.1.1 just fine.
• keylaunch, which allows arbitrary keystrokes to perform arbitrary commands (arbitrarily :)
• ratmenu, which i haven't put into use yet, but allows keyboard-navigable menus on the screen, created dynamically.

this setup definately has some advantages: i'm not obsessing over the right KDE theme and color, there's no clutter at all on the screen, and, as a screen junkie, it just feels right.

there's a lot of bashing these ideas going on (at least right now) in this discussion, but i'd advise you to try it out for a while, particularly if you're a screen-keyboardy kind of person.

I don't know if i'll keep this setup or not. next step for me is to stop using mozilla and play around with phoenix instead. but, with today's earlier story of the cool new stuff coming in KDE3.1 this experiment, though useful, might be short-lived.

For the sake of continuity (and gratuitous attempt at scoring a few karmasnacks), here's my setup:

My $HOME/.ratpoisonrc:

startup_message off
defbargravity sw
exec Esetroot -scale /home/eafarris/.kde/share/wallpapers/Horesh.jpg
e xec keylaunch
exec xscreensaver
exec gnome-terminal --hide-menubar -e="ssh kermit"
exec mozilla
exec wmCalClock -S -24
exec wmMoonClock -lat 39.7 -lon 78.9
exec wmmon
exec wmmemmon
exec wmnd -i etho -m wmnet
select 0

basic stuff, some dock apps, a ssh into another box (with a screen session on it), a pretty background, moz, no biggie.

My $HOME/.keylaunchrc:

# Format:
# key=...KeyName:Command
#
# ... No modifier
# *.. Shift
# .*. Ctrl
# ..* Alt

key=...XF86Back:ratpoison -c prev
key=...XF86Forward:ratpoison -c next
key=...XF86Standby:xscreensaver-command -lock

key=..*F1:ratpoison -c 'select 0'
key=..*F2:ratpoison -c 'select 1'
key=..*F3:ratpoison -c 'select 2'
key=..*F4:ratpoison -c 'select 3'
key=..*F5:ratpoison -c 'select 4'
key=..*F6:ratpoison -c 'select 5'

(i have a Microsoft Internet Keyboard, which has a bunch of extra keys). Right now i'm not remapping very many of these keys, i've only been playing around for two days. but you get the idea. A cool thing about ratpoison is that a command-line can control the wm (all that ratpoison -c stuff), so i get the flexibility and speed and power without the wm having so many "features."

What i have right now feels like gnu screen for X, which is a marvelous thing, right now, for me. My opinion will most likely change in the future, as i have yet to find the setup that's perfect. At least with X i have a choice. But so far, i'm optimistic. Not bad. Not bad at all.

a day without X ...

[Raiford]

... would be like a day without UNIX (or at least a UNIX-like OS). Even with all of its shortcomings (which I think are being exaggerated here) I still like the X-Windowing system. It is probably more of a sentimental thing than a technical preference.

No, we don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

> XFree86 using it's "network" everytime you start an app doesn't help

Then you'd better sit down. XFree86 uses its network every time anything happens on the screen, you type a character, or move the mouse. Not just when you start the app.

But, then, so do Windows and MACs. You see, you have an application and you have a running piece of software called Windows. Their "networks" are memory-to-memory -- but so is X when it and the application are both running on the same machine.

KDE just "sucks". I know, I'm the latest victim of its gawd awful bloat. A Dual 550/1GB machine should be incapable of pissing you off waiting for a simple login, well, I thought so until I tried KDE.

Gez, damn, right back to twm I went.

X is remarkable useful. It is rather fast, actually. Many have tried and nobody has done anything better to date. What, exactly, don't you like about it -- other than parroting the Anti-X propagandists?

Browser keyboard navigation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I know you CAN navigate a web page in Mozilla using the keyboard, but scroll down seven pages until you see a link you're interested in, press "TAB" and notice how it scrolls all the way back to the top where the first link is. F--king brain-dead. Useless.

Check out Phoenix's Type Ahead feature, which allows you to type the text of the URL you want to go to. It really makes you wonder why noone implemented it before.

(Type Ahead is disabled in Phoenix 0.3 for some reason; use 0.2 to try it out.)

Re:Browser keyboard navigation

[Fourier]

It really makes you wonder why noone implemented it before.

FYI: Type Ahead Find is inherited from Mozilla. Under Mozilla you need to activate it by editing a preferences file.

Re:Browser keyboard navigation

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: Type Ahead Find is inherited from Mozilla [mozilla.org].

Well, load me up and call me a platform! The Phoenix pages certainly could have been clearer on that point.

Under Mozilla you need to activate it by editing a preferences file.

Actually, it's enabled by default in the current Mozilla. Real cute, I'm almost considering ditching the responsiveness of Opera. Almost.

My thoughts along the same lines

[iabervon]

I'm using fvwm, because I actually want multiple things on the screen at once (since I want to watch for changes in one window while doing things in another window, or type notes on the things I'm reading in a different window; having overlapping windows is nice for this). I don't actually use the virtual desktops much (unless I find I want to do something totally different for a while, with an entirely separate set of windows). Fvwm, at least, can be controlled with keys and key combinations not normally used by other programs (rather than "^O"). I use mostly left-windows, shift-left-windows, alt-left-alt, alt-right-alt, shift-left-shift, and shift-right-shift; this leaves free every non-modifier key with every combination of modifiers on the traditional PC keyboard. This makes "left-windows 1" the X equivalent of "^A ^A". Fvwm is also good for mapping random keys and key combinations to scripts; I have the Pause/Break key start, pause, or resume the CD player.

Screen is, in fact, the coolest piece of software ever. I've been logged into my home server continuously since the morning of April 30th, when I installed a new version which wasn't happy with sessions from the old version. I've had sessions going nearly all the time since 1998. My .profile actually contains "screen; exit", so I never do anything on that machine outside of screen. The cool thing he didn't mention is that you can attach the same session multiple times, so that, if you want to see two of the virtual consoles, or even see a virtual console that's being shown on a different computer, you can do that.

I use emacs server mode with a chunk of elisp to make each new buffer invoked from the command line appear in a separate frame. This puts the file name in the title (which appears in fvwm's window list), and I then have icons and window list entries for all of the file I'm currently working on.

Other than windows for programs I'm running (which are generally xterms, emacs, and a web browser), I have a digital clock. I sometimes have a modern art moving background (kind of hyponotic and relaxing, sort of a white-noise generator).

Re:My thoughts along the same lines

[josh crawley]

-----I'm using fvwm, because I actually want multiple things on the screen at once (since I want to watch for changes in one window while doing things in another window, or type notes on the things I'm reading in a different window; having overlapping windows is nice for this). I don't actually use the virtual desktops much (unless I find I want to do something totally different for a while, with an entirely separate set of windows). Fvwm, at least, can be controlled with keys and key combinations not normally used by other programs (rather than "^O"). I use mostly left-windows, shift-left-windows, alt-left-alt, alt-right-alt, shift-left-shift, and shift-right-shift; this leaves free every non-modifier key with every combination of modifiers on the traditional PC keyboard. This makes "left-windows 1" the X equivalent of "^A ^A". Fvwm is also good for mapping random keys and key combinations to scripts; I have the Pause/Break key start, pause, or resume the CD player.

Ummm, yeah. I'm waiting for a comboH^H^H^H^H^keyboard command that I can enter up-down-up-down-left-right-left-right-a-b-select .

Can some keyboard manufacturer put Select on a keyboard? TNX

A tip to the fanatic

[CCRancor]

For a truly minimalistic GUI:

alias startx='killall -9 *tty*' ;)

Here's the low-down

[x mani x]

Well, people will chime in and tell you that the Display Postscript / Display PDF display technologies and accompanying API's are a GUI solution for UNIX. While both NeXTStep and MacOS X look great, their windowing systems come with a significant loss in features; in particular, they are not network transparent.

I think most criticisms for X stem from the following reasons:

+ Adding fonts to X is, simply put, an absolute nightmare. Last I checked, it involves copy files to a directory, manually editing a text file, restarting your "font server", and other crap. This is just not acceptable ... but I think there are projects out there trying to resolve this.

+ Back in the old days, writing apps for X was a nightmare. The low level drawing API that comes with X, called XLib, has more to do with drawing primitives like lines than with drawing and managing buttons, text fields, etc. AFAIK, the only decent API available for writing apps was Motif, which was only available commercially (note that many programmers will disagree with me that Motif is "decent" -- in fact, it is apparently a huge pain in the ass ... look at the source of any Motif-using app and you'll see). Although, nowadays with projects like gnome, kde, tcl/tk, perl's gui hooks, etc ... it is almost trivially easy to code complex UI's for X.

+ XFree86 is a nightmare to configure. While Redhat does all kinds of fancy stuff to autodetect your video card/monitor, I tried Debian a few days ago and gasped at how little has changed in configuring XFree86 since 7 years ago. With a nervous laugh, I noticed that same line in xfree86config where you have to input your vertical/horizontal frequency ranges, and it warns you about how it might destroy your monitor. Aahhhh, fond memories of that very same config step that struck the fear of God in me as I installed Slackware for the first time when I was just a little tyke.

Fortunately, most of the above is being worked on. Despite all that I've said, I am an ardent X supporter. Its out of the box network transparency is a massive, let me repeat that, massive feature for anyone but the strict home user who only uses a browser and a chat program or two. Academic, scientist, programmer, administrator, office worker -- millions of professionals rely on X's network transparency every single day. No need to use/buy expensive, bulky, slow VNC clients or proprietary terminal servers. This is precisely why X is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Re:Here's the low-down

[J. J. Ramsey]

"XFree86 is a nightmare to configure. While Redhat does all kinds of fancy stuff to autodetect your video card/monitor, I tried Debian a few days ago and gasped at how little has changed in configuring XFree86 since 7 years ago."

You realize that there is a bit of a contradiction in what you just wrote. First you note how "Redhat does all kinds of fancy stuff to autodetect your video card/monitor," then express surprise at "how little has changed in configuring XFree86 since 7 years ago." Obviously, what Red Hat has done has shown how *much* has changed since 7 years ago. If hardcore distros like Debian and Slack are "behind the times," that is a reflection on the distros, not the state of the art.

Re:Here's the low-down

[RevAaron]

While both NeXTStep and MacOS X look great, their windowing systems come with a significant loss in features; in particular, they are not network transparent.

Not quite, buster. :)

Apple screwed up with it's Quartz/DisplayPDF display system by not providing display redirection over the network. According to what was said at WWDC conferences, they didn't think it was an important enough feature to go to all the work to implement. While I wish I had it, I tend to agree. Most users don't use it all that often, especially regular desktop Mac users. I know why it can be extremely useful, but most people don't need it, so Apple didn't bother.

However, since the first version NeXTSTEP, which relied on DisplayPostScript. Along with the other OSes in this lineage that used DPS- OpenStep, Rhapsody, and Mac OS X Server (up to 1.2), NeXTSTEP had network transparency. It worked just like it does in X11. On the machine on which the app will be displayed, you can check a box to allow such-and-such a host to connect to your DisplayPostScript server. Telnet to the machine. Run the app with "/Apps/RenderMan.app/RenderMan -NSHost 192.168.0.1"

This switch changed to "-NXHost" with OpenStep 4.0 and later. With it, you could run a full NeXTSTEP/OpenStep/Mac OS X Server 1.2 session on a Windows machine running OpenStep for Windows- Dock, Workspace.app and all.

Also, there was a little GUI app included with NeXTSTEP called "Open Sesame" that automated this, just had to enter in the relevant information and click OK.

Yup, just like that. Because NeXTSTEP used PostScript to display its windows, this feature was pretty straightforward to implement. You don't have to figure out how to encode the data for streaming. Apple could easily do it for OS X, but they decided to dick us in stead.

Re:Here's the low-down

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post. But! X networking is a superb feature for "strict home users" as well -- I run my laptop when my brother or friends use my main machine for the Net, and fire up Mozilla and X-Chat on it over the network. Lovely to run such a big browser on a P75 :)

(And this is over a PLIP connection -- X is amazingly fast with good apps. Even over a 10k/sec SLIP connection, most progs run okay.)

Re:Here's the low-down

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, X networking is great for the "strict home user" as well! I run Mozilla et al. on my old P75 laptop when friends and family need the Net on my main box.

All over a PLIP connection! Huzzah!

Good post tho.

What a coincidence...

[leoboiko]

I just discovered ratpoison some days ago, and I'm *very* happy with it. It's very productive.

It is very scriptable too. For example, if you use micq, try this in your ~/.micq/micqrc :
receivescript ratpoison -c "echo incoming icq message"

Here goes some screenshots (if the server is down try again later).
This one is showing no windows (but root-tail is running).
This one is a split screen (just to show off, most of the time I just run everything maximized).

If you like screen, and you hate moving/resizing windows, try ratpoison.

splitvt

[tweek]

I'm surprised noone mentioned splitvt at all. I use this in combination with screen when I want to group logical windows on one screen(the program) screen.

You can check it out here.

It only has three keybindings and includes a ^O for command mode that allows you to resize the windows.

oh good, it's his fault...

[PirateKing]

Every application takes up the entire screen, and I can use large fonts to reduce eye strain. Mozilla has the full width and height of my screen, and if I have to scroll horizontally, it's the site author's fault, not mine.

It's ironic that on my web browser, even zoomed to the full screen, I have to scroll horizontally to read this document!

(Disclaimer: I am using Konqueror with 'large' fonts (min size is 18) Like he says, large fonts reduce eyestrain!)

"Massive" feature

[fireboy1919]

I'm not so sure...there are transparent solutions for the Windows desktop that use FAR less resources (I'm thinking of Citrix at the moment). There's no way to do that on X systems because X's primitives are drawings, not Windows functions. This is a PROBLEM! A huge one!

TightVNC is lower bandwidth (not bulky, and its free) than X over a network (with compression) because of this (even compared to lbxproxy).

Of course, a more feature Windowing library could be added as a extension to X and gradually grow to support all applications. Then we wouldn't have to use the bulk, and it would be useful (the best solution) transparently.

Re:"Massive" feature

[brokeninside]

...there are transparent solutions for the Windows desktop that use FAR less resources

Citrix and WTS may be less network intensive than X. However, both require much more of a hefty server than X requires at the client. (For all practical purposes X client/server terminology is backwards.)

TightVNC is lower bandwidth

And also solves a different problem. Not to mention that VNC refresh rates are abysmal compared to X. A spreadsheet (or drawing app or whatever) launched through X is much more responsive at the XServer than that same program hosted through VNC. (Citrix and WTS also suffer from this problem.)

I use both X programs and WTS programs every day. I grit my teeth and twiddle my thumbs (and sometimes go get coffee) when I start up the X programs. But once its launched, response is quite good (except for database reads, but that is a different problem). With the WTS (and VNC) programs, the launch is faster, but that wait is staggered over every button press and mouse click. I much prefer the network transparency of X.

Re:"Massive" feature

[fireboy1919]

Thats an interesting point about requiring a more hefty server. But computing power is much cheaper than bandwidth. It would cost you about $5,000 for a citrix mainframe that could serve 100 people and have them use your company's resources (probably the same machine) for dialup. Alternatively, they could all run X, and you could pay about ten times as much for the 4MB/sec for each person that would be necessary for a decent X connection. Option #1 is a couple of orders of magnitude cheaper initially, and the cost of the bandwidth continues even after the server is paid off.

Responsive? You must have some special X connection that's different from the one I've got.

First of all, I've never actually used WTS myself, but I have used Citrix and TightVNC.

I try X now and again, but I always have to twiddle my thumbs while the program loads, and every time I click on anything which opens another window, menu, or dialog box, which happens quite frequently. VNC CAN be horribly, horribly bad, if you use more than 256 colors, but my experience has been that if you do it right it is much more responsive than X even after X loads (with the notable exception of text-only applications, which take advantage of the font server).

Citrix blows this out of the water - it uses about 2kbps for full (indistinguishable from non-network use) responsiveness, and then the only question is latency. If you can get it down to under 100ms, you shouldn't notice the difference much from running stuff on your local machine.

Re:"Massive" feature

[brokeninside]

It would cost you about $5,000 for a citrix mainframe that could serve 100 people and have them use your company's resources (probably the same machine) for dialup.

Citrix licensing for 100 people would cost more than $5,000. Let alone the hardware capable of supporting 100 people. I find it doubtful that a $5,000 server would support 100 people using Citrix.

Alternatively, they could all run X, and you could pay about ten times as much for the 4MB/sec for each person that would be necessary for a decent X connection.

I think you mean 4Mb. Most networks handle this amount of traffic quite well. My site has hundreds of developers using X (a mix of X terminals and eXceed on Windows). Our broken ring network keeps up with the traffic quite well.

I try X now and again, but I always have to twiddle my thumbs while the program loads, and every time I click on anything which opens another window, menu, or dialog box, which happens quite frequently.

What exactly are you trying to do with X?

VNC CAN be horribly, horribly bad, if you use more than 256 colors

Most people greatly prefer to use more than 256 colors, myself included.

my experience has been that if you do it right it is much more responsive than X even after X loads (with the notable exception of text-only applications, which take advantage of the font server).

What comporable programs have you run in X and VNC to compare? Have you run spreadsheets in both? GUI text editors in both?

Citrix blows this out of the water - it uses about 2kbps for full (indistinguishable from non-network use) responsiveness, and then the only question is latency. If you can get it down to under 100ms, you shouldn't notice the difference much from running stuff on your local machine.

This ignores the question of how much iron you've got running the application server. If you've actually got 100 people running applications off of the server, you've invested in some serious hardware.

Like it or Not...

[theduck]

...that's what language is about. Language is constantly changing, exactly through the common usage/mistake mechanism you attribute to lack of education. A simple example is the evolution of a compound word. These start as two words (e.g. Web site), sometimes go through a hyphenated phase (e.g. Web-site), and end up as a single word (e.g. Website) frequently losing punctuation along the way (e.g. website).

Think of it as a capitalistic language marketplace, where many things are attempted but only the truly useful or convenient show any longevity. New words and meanings are constantly being created and discarded, typically by the young, who tend to be the language entrepreneurs since they are experimenting in ways to define themselves and have the greatest stake in being (or at least appearing) different.

If you're interested in more details about how this works, try a Google search on Etymology or Evolution of Language.

Re:Like it or Not...

[susano_otter]

By all means, let us embrace the transformation of our language by the young, since they have so much to gain by being (or appearing) different.

Change for the sake of change is generally the best reason to reject the old in favor of the new, after all.

Oh... wait a minute. How about this, instead: Let those who have made a study of communication propose changes to our methods of communication, and let those who have had long training and experience, and who desire nothing more than clear communication in their daily lives, consider these proposals and implement them as they see fit. Let the young, who often discard things of value simply for the sake of being different, be restrained from taking the lead in changing how we communicate.

"That's the way it works, deal with it", is strikingly unsatisfying, and incomplete, as a solution.

WM2

[pjwhite]

Does no one else use WM2? It's a simple, lightweight window manager. I use it on two different FreeBSD machines, and I've used it for about three years.

Re:WM2

[Anonymous Coward]

I used wmx a lot, but I changed to its derivate flwm (because of a feature which is prudent not to mention here -- sorry).

Workings are somewhat similar (in fact, wmx is better at dealing with multiple desktops, but I use only one now).

Oh my god!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

xmda - this is freaking great!! Thank you so much! I love it. (I know what I am doing for the rest of my afternoon) Ooo yeah!!

Re:Oh my god!!!

[xmda]

xmda - this is freaking great!! Thank you so much! I love it. (I know what I am doing for the rest of my afternoon) Ooo yeah!!

Hmm, was that very ironic or very sincere... Hmm...

Re:Oh my god!!!

[RevAaron]

Why? Because both X and MDA are drugs that induce love as well as something to do for an entire afternoon? ;P

Making it nice for everbody

[fireboy1919]

I have my system set up for my use...and everybody else's.

My Window manager, Sawfish/Gnome, is completely customizable, so I customized it. Gone is Nautilus! I just open up a terminal if I want to see files. I don't need to spend 25 megs for that. In its place is DFM, a mere 2MB investment, just in case someone I know prefers a graphical file manager.

All the apps that I start frequently are mapped to keystrokes starting with alt+letter. For example, to start my mail client, I use alt+m, for galeon alt+g, etc. Minimizing (equivalent to meta+m in Windows) is done with meta+m. Minimize/maximize toggle (like in Windows again) is done with meta+d. I can tile windows with meta+v for verticle, and meta+h for horizontal. That has REALLY come in handy. And of course, switching apps is really easy (tab key).

Not all my apps are keyboard powered, however. Some are like galeon. However, for the most part, I don't have to use the keyboard in galeon at all (except for posting, for example).

The upside of doing all this on a bigger Window manager is that I don't scare the crap out of anyone else who wants to see what Linux is all about. And the downside is that I had to pay roughly $8 for enough RAM to run the WM.

That's nothing!

[Anonymous Coward]

All I have to do is press Windows-D and Explorer.exe causes an error in user.exe, guaranteed, and in under 0.1 seconds!

BlackBox?

[LoudMusic]

There are plenty of window managers that aren't bloatware. BlackBox is one of my favorites.

Keep your console sessions in a different tty - or even open one full screen and throw it on a different desktop.

This guy is nuts.

Re:BlackBox?

[Ian Bicking]

It's not about bloatware in terms of resources (well, maybe for the author, but not for myself and many others) -- it's about visual bloat -- flexibility in the WM that doesn't serve any functional purpose. BlackBox and other traditional window managers are just as functionally bloated, even if they don't use more computational resources.

Re:BlackBox?

[LoudMusic]

I guess I don't really understand that then. What is "functional bloat"? Being able to do things that aren't necassary?

Well if it's not taking up resources or getting visually in your way, what difference does it make? Things that I concider bloat are dumb ass skins like Trillian uses - why doesn't it have an option to use Window's windows? Or OS X's visual bloat - who needs that damn genie effect? Animation in my window manager? No thanks.

Re:BlackBox?

[Ian Bicking]

In this case, the bloat is being able to arrange windows in ways that aren't functional. Specifically, I don't find partially overlapping windows useful -- either I want to see the whole window, or I don't want to see any of it. Tiling and tabs are useful -- but the full flexibility of pixel-level free movement of windows isn't useful (and that flexibility makes manual tiling more difficult).

Re:BlackBox?

[LoudMusic]

So basically you want the option to "auto-tile" windows in such a way that Windows has via the right-click taskbar menu? Oh even better example, the auto-tile in mIRC? That is actually a really nice feature ...

My problem with that, though, would be minimizing windows constantly inorder to have the windows I want to look at be large enough to see the contents. This is why I like to have windows overlapping. I can just click on any part of them to bring them to the top, and do nothing to send them out of the way.

But I understand where you're coming from - it's just a very small group of people that would want to use an environment that way.

loosing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"without loosing functionality"

That's good. I like tight functionality.

Re:loosing?

[RedWolves2]

Yeah I hate slutty programs. The last one I had was on 20 computers. That slut knows how to get around.

Apparently not just for the *ix crowd...

[theendlessnow]

Looks like the boyz from Redmond know a good thing when they see it!! (okay... it's not exactly the same thing... )
http://24.42.144.161/tsnet/dos.htm

Re:Apparently not just for the *ix crowd...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the boyz from Redmond know a good thing when they see it!! (okay... it's not exactly the same thing... )
http://24.42.144.161/tsnet/dos.htm

Sorry, but if you're going to sell a product, buy a domain and some webspace - running off your cable modem is no way to gain trust (neither is ripping off Apple's tab style).

Re:Apparently not just for the *ix crowd...

[vb.warrior]

He hasnt just ripped off the style he has just cropped the images from apples site itself!

Fuck pretty

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

Pretty's gotta go all the way down to the bottom, below "usable", "fast," and "capable". All of the most serious interface sins I have seen have all been committed in the holy name of prettiness.

I say this as a graphic designer- my job is to *make* the pretty. I don't feel an overriding urge to put the pretty on the desktop- and if I do want it, I don't want it built in. I want to stick my own prettiness on top of everything if I want it, and I want it to be consistent- and dismissible if it gets to be too much.

I am a major fiend for theming and customization, but *I* want to be the one doing it, and I don't want different applications having their own ridiculous ideas of how to "improve" the base appearance of the system.

Ratpoison WM is useless on large screens

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a 21" monitor. Running maximised windows is a pain on such large monitors. Especially when browsing for p0rn you want your windows as small and as discreet as possible. In this case ratpoison wm sucks.

But seriously imagine a maximised xterm with size 12 fonts on at least a 19" monitor which is so common these days, and you'll see why it won't work.

From Plan 9: 9wm

[sward]

If you folks want a really light-weight window manager, you should look at 9wm. Decorations? What are those? The same goes for most other sort of processing that's outside of what the apps themselves do. I've seen it used (personally, I like Window Maker) with a simple black background. The focused window has a black border, the other windows have white borders. And that's it.

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55

[Stephen King]

No, I'm not.

fluxbox is the only way

[sdjayna]

Fluxbox is the only window manager you need - as light and configurable as it gets...

Re:fluxbox is the only way

[Anonymous Coward]

Not. Fluxbox is a rediculous combination of Blackbox and PWM. It doesn't even do tabbing right.

The general rule of window managers is:
If it's based on aewm (i.e. evilwm, heliwm, alloywm, larswm, asdfwm) or plan9 (....9wm), it's not bloated.
If it's not based on either of those, and it uses fucking pictures to do theming, it's garbage and is probably bundled with KDE or GNOME.

no way

[GunFodder]

Why would a word get longer? I will always pick the spelling with fewer letters.

Re:X's Multiple Personalities, and Windows

[mblase]

I wanted the same thing with Windows 2000 at work, but it wouldn't let me. I came close by opening my Display control panel and, under the "Effects" tab, replaced all my desktop icons with the tiny shortcut arrow. (I suppose I could have found an icon file which was completely blank, but I haven't bothered yet.)

All that was left was the text and those tiny icons, which I arranged in a single row and gave a silver background color in the "Appearance" tab. I then set my desktop background image to a screengrab of my code editor.

Now, whenever the boss is coming while I'm busy playing "Bejeweled", I just hit Win-D to hide all open windows, and casual passers-by think I'm terribly busy working on something very difficult.

visual simplicity versus feature simplicity

[nuffle]

Trying to prefect a visually simple interface doesn't necessarily mean you don't like window managers or lots of features. For the sort of things I do, clicky clicking all over the screen is slow and annoying, so i use many great window manager features (I use fvwm2) to help me work the way I want. It may look like a console screen, but it's highly tweaked.

Everybody got used to clicking on the little monkey in the top right corner of the screen to make your window bigger, but I think my alt+insert works faster.

console garbles my screen

[Anonymous Coward]

I just tried console on FreeBSD. I login using cygwin, use console, and startup "mutt". Although the colors come through, it garbles the content.
Pity cuz this looked cool.

Wow

[RedWolves2]

I liked this program the first time it came out as DOS!

Ion WM rocks... is there a Windoz equivalent?

[ClarkEvans]

Just downloaded Ion on my FreeBSD box. It really is great... consider KDE upgraded. ;) Now, the other problem... I have Windoz on my portable since I have to do IE 6 testing for my applications. Is there a Ion like window manager for Win2K?

Re:Ion WM rocks... is there a Windoz equivalent?

[archen]

Not really. I'd ask if you just wanted to get rid of the bloat, but since your on Win2k, you aren't getting rid of it anyway. With tweakUI you can hide all the icons on the desktop. You can set up short-cut keys on everything on the start menu by right clicking (on a program in the start menu) and going to properties, and entering a shortcut key, [ctrl+alt+m] for mozilla for instance. The command line is instantly available by using [winkey+r] as well as windows explorer [winkey+e].

I also have NO clutter

[Anonymous Coward]

Enlightenment on XFree86 v4.x
All clutter removed.
Leftclick brings up a list of apps I use most.
Anything else I can start from a shell.

3 x 1280x1024 19" monitors, 3 x TNT2 video cards.
4 virtual desktops.
I never iconize anything, and avoid overlapping windows.

I use keyboard shortcuts where I want (which is most of the time)
and trackball where I want (for fine positioning, and for cut-and-paste)

ymmv

If you get nothing else from this article...

[Thomas A. Anderson]

At least check out screen. It's amazing software.

Re:If you get nothing else from this article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, moderators, have some decency!

This fellow may have posted an uninteresting comment, but it's surely on-topic.

My setup (fvwm)

[DaCool42]

I have been using a setup similar to this for quite some time, only mine is based on fvwm. I find fvwm works _very_ well because of its high amount of configurability. Most people don't realize the power that fvwm has. You can pretty much program in whatever behavior you want.

My window borders are 1 pixel wide, grey for inactive, red for active. I have 4 virtual screens which I switch between with either the keyboard or the mouse (edge flip resistance is toggled between 0 and infinity with a keystroke). Window manager commands are all bound to alt or ctrl + mouse buttons. For example, alt+left mouse button moves a window, alt+right resizes. Similar things go for maximize (vert, horiz, both), iconify, window list, etc.

Why do I like it this way you ask?
-low overhead, fvwm is stinkin' fast!
-efficient, everything can be done without having to go thru menus or fumble for shortcut keys, just one hand on mouse, one on keyb. (of course you can use just keyd too, but mouse is nicer for moving windows etc)
-screen space, 1 pixel borders and no menus/bars/etc save TONS of space. I have tried no borders at all, but that gets pretty confusing!
-looks nice, it does actually look cool. nice and efficient looking.

I haven't tried the WM refered to in the article, but I doubt it's as configurable as fvwm. Might be worth checking out if the fvwm config file scares you :)

just my 00000010 cents

don't get out much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, try a search for "loose", then observe how
many times it is used in a sentance where "lose" is
meant. I just did it, there was only 1 correct usage
in the first 10 results.

What's wrong with VTWM?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe he's complaining about the few pixels he loses to the title bar.

Here's my favourite window manager, which goes onto any machine that I have to sit at for more than a few hours.

Even Further OT

[uberdave]

There was a Wayne and Shuster skit about two baseball fans arguing about whether a hit was fair or foul. It was all done in Shakespearean style dialog. One of the lines was something like: "Why, so fair a foul I've not seen..."

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be interested in THIS

Re:spelt versus spelled

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you get creative with many words.

'Spelt' is triticum spelta, not the verb meaning to spell.

Do you have any other random and creative spellings
that we can make fun of?

Neo was there?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, he tends to say "Whoa!" and step back quite frequently.

There is no such thing as X-Windows!

[Anonymous Coward]

The software which is commonly refered to as 'X-Windows' is actually called 'X', 'X11', 'The X-Window System', 'R6', or 'X11R6'.

There is no such thing as 'X-Windows'.

Please, give it it's proper name!

Why doesn't the Slashdot design a window manager,

[Anonymous Coward]

and call it FPIABWCOTWM, (First Post Imagine A Beowulf Cluster Of Those Window Manager).

Please /. staff

[Anonymous Coward]

Increase the scale to +10 funny.

This one blew my fun-meter. :^P

I have some clutter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I have E with only one decoration. Keeping 12 VWM icons off on the left hand side. Then remapped the Alt-F1 throgh Alt-F12 keys to the twelve virtual windows. It was something I picked up from OLVWM and just cant live without any more.

On the right i recently added a Gnome pannel for volume control, clock, cpuload, palm sync, xlock, and logout. Ok, so that is a bit of waisted space, but does it realy matter at 1280x1024 or higher? yeah, gnome can do the VW, but not as well as Enlightenment, nor does it seam to do window memory to well.

Basicaly the only times I pick up my mouse are when the phone rings or im leaving my desk. Its not that WMs get in the way of anything, its more of weather or not the user is willing to set preferences that work for them. if you have to mix and match, then so be it, its YOUR option.

Evolution doesn't implie anything

[ACNiel]

Evolution doesn't imply anything of the sort. Whether or not we have appendecies isn't good or bad. If we can live without them, and someone is born without one, he doesn't die. He isn't better or worse than me. He impregnates a female with the same genetic trait, then their child doesn't have one, still not better or worse.

This goes on until appendices are no longer around, and the genetic freak is the odd 1 in a million that is born with one. Still not any better or worse than I am today.

You infer improvement because you don't fully understand evolution. It doesn't imply anything, and doesn't have any inherent meaning.

Re:Evolution doesn't implie anything

[peg0cjs]

Actually, I think you may also misunderstand evolution. In order for there to be an evolution, a mutation has to provide a distinct survival advantage. That's the other part of the equation (natural selection).

Just adding a new appendix (sic) to one particular genetic stream won't "contaminate" the global gene pool sufficiently to cause evolution unless that mutation gives members of that stream a competitive advantage (breed faster, eat more, expend less energy, etc, etc) over members of other genetic streams.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh! The guy has returned!

Ruuun!

Flee for your brains!

Mainframes Session Managers There First

[Mittermeyer]

There is a class of software that as far as I know only exists commercially on IBM mainframes. They are called Session Managers, and allow multiple sessions to multiple VTAM apps to one physical session with an optional centralized security authentication.

Each session can be swapped onto the screen as the primary Current session (sound familiar?), and the other sessions can be switched to at the touch of a button. One extra doodad we have even allows a list to be called up in the middle of ANY app and another session selected straight off that list.

In addition you can have instant messaging between any session manager sessions so authorized, cut-and-pasting between dissimilar apps, broadcast messages that can be targetted at different users on specific apps on different host machines, and all sorts of other spiffy things. Plus, to get really esoteric the Session Manager can be used as middleware (albeit kludgy).

Now mind you this is the well-defined very specific very character-only world of TN3270E as oppossed to X-GUI issues, so this is very much apples-and-microsofts, but the concept is well-defined and in production at mainframe sites all over, so any SCREEN fans ought to check them out.

The two primary products in this category are Multsess and Candle Supersession.

Re:Mainframes Session Managers There First

[spacefight]

Never heard of Candle Supersession (what a name!) but some of us have their multisession, I don't, 'cause I do not want go trough the hassle for ordering it as long as I can have PA2 (page down) or F9 for switching in my screens on the iron.

Re:Mainframes Session Managers There First

[Mittermeyer]

Fine if you live exclusively on TSO/ISPF or one app- we have 38+ possible selections, so multisessioning is beautiful.

Incidentally we use ESC for ATTN and swap through sessions, or PA3 back to the session menu.

Re:Mainframes Session Managers There First

[spacefight]

I've 16 possible selections, windowing possible on the TPF sessions of course. Well ESC == ATTN here too. And windows is coming as dev platform (well, it's already here).

Bind Keys to Switch Workspaces Instead

[KidSock]

X Windows Tip 151:
Bind F3 to "previous workspace" and F4 to "next workspace". This works with most window managers (certainly does with WindowMaker). Then have all your apps and terminal windows maximized or tiled vertically. It would be hard to find a more efficient use of space. Why limit yourself to only one when you can many depending on how much video memory you have? Do an e-mail, hit F4, F4 to move over 2 workspaces, edit a source file, hit F4 again and compile and run in a separate terminal, F3 to go back and edit, F4, F3, F3 F4, ...etc.

Screen has stupid default keys

[The OPTiCIAN]

(also posted -> slashdot.org)

I discovered screen about twelve months ago and it has completely changed the way I arrange my work, email, and private projects. I also shared your nomadic unhappiness with window managers on linux, which have never been good enough not to destroy usability.

I see decent hotkey support as being the biggest obstacle to the linux desktop. The two things that are required are:
- hot keys must work
- the must be consistent
- they must be easily configurable

The latest gnome release is almost there, but the windows keys can't be bound which means you can't do windows+r which I would like. I'm too impatient to spend a day screwing around with configuration files.

To screen: I see the biggest obstacles to it being widely liked
- stupid default hotkey in ctrl-A
- difficult to configure

The configuration file is not as simple as it could be, and most people (including me originally) are put off by the fact that ctrl+a is the emacs binding for go to start of line. I use vim, but I use that ctrl+a by habbit in the command line all the time, and until I could work out screen's stupid configuration file and how to rebind that escape character I found that all very annoying. I now have it bound to tick and it's fantastic.

Put
"""
escape ``
"""

as a line in /etc/screenrc or ~/.screenrc to use it.

Nice work on the article. Ratpoison looks excellent and I look forward to installing it at home with macforlinux et all a *lot*.

In related news...

[Perdition]

We're removing the steering wheels and accelerator pedals from all the Tauruses. We're hoping that leaning into turns and shouts of "Giddyap!" will effect the same results, but without the bloat of steering wheels, which cut down the view of your fuel meter and accelerator pedals which just look dirty all the time.

Bill Ford Junior

Honestly, how are we EVER gonna get to HAL 9000 if DIY dorks like this one keep drop-kicking computer interfacing back to the punchcard era in the interest of "efficiency" and "privacy". If you mass up all the time I spend slogging through this GUI you'd get about eight minutes a week. Wow, THERE'S a decent visit to the john shot. The bulk of time people waste at the desktop is reading. Now, if we could design an interface that slams ideas into your head at mach five, we're onto something. As for privacy, who CARES what some carpal-tunnel farmhand thinks or does? "Oh, but we don't want our geek-friends coming over and changing the screen resolution..." So beat them up EVERY time they do it!

Point Click... it's like one step too long of a procedure, and I'm torn on which one to remove!

He went to a lot of trouble to get a mostly black screen. I get the same results with the power button on my monitor.

Ugh, should have previewed

[slim]

So I used to mean "hit enter", and /. didn't escape the angle brackets.

So, it's "1{enter}2{enter}3{enter}Gnu{enter}" for the first example, or "1{enter}2{enter}3{enter}/Apache{shift-tab}{enter} " for the second.

Re:Evolution doesn't imply anything

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Exactly. I think what he described is just plain old mutation. :)

Mutation != evolution.

Me too...

[jotaeleemeese]

I also like your wife's curves!

Ah, DesqView!

[reallocate]

Sure did. Used to run DesqView on a 386 Toshiba laptop: Brief (sigh...) in one window, Lotus Magellan (sigh...) in another, and a tiny command prompt in the third window. Need to go online? A couple keystrokes and you're there, in a new window.

Eventually, I installed the MKS ToolKit set of Unix tools for DOS -- KSH, vi, and clones of the usual GNU stuff. Very nice under DesqView.

Good in the interim

[psicE]

I'm using this configuration on my desktop right now; desktop background set to In-The-Shade-2, transparent gnome-terminal, ratpoison, ogg123 playing Soma Tribute on Peercast, links and galeon for webbrowsing.

But even better, in the long-term, is to use the framebuffer. Ever used links-graphical? Yes; believe it or not, some versions of links come compiled with framebuffer/svgalib support, and can display very well-drawn web pages graphically, with keyboard and mouse support, yet with no X and no bloat. Type "links -g www.google.com", and see it in action. mpg321/ogg123 can play media, and especially well with streaming; there's other players that work great with music file libraries. There's a console Python jabber program that someone made, and the author suggested a console proprietary-IM network. And the combination of mutt/joe, or any other editor for that matter, is a better mail client than you'll find anywhere.

There's only one thing that I still need X for - a desktop background. My computerusing experience is made that much more pleasant by being able to stare at tiled Propaganda (the Bowie J, Poag kind) all day. My console is already using the framebuffer... so isn't there a way that I can put a background on, and be free of the GUI forever?

Last Post!

[alpg]

Do people like check the Debian website every 5 minutes to check it hasn't morphed into another one?
Not that I'm one to talk, but some people seriously need to get a life
-- james on #Debian

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...