Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
___ www.lingo24.com Language and translation solutions - online
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??
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
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.
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.
" 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.
bona-fide sludgesicle man,
pub
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.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
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'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...
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.
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
Bowie J. Poag
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
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
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.
If you want graphical, mouse-driven web browsing even with anti-aliased fonts and JavaScript, backgroundable downloads - use Links.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
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.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!