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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Alien Being]

either "lose" or "loose."

Their spelling rules are as lose as a gose.

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

[reallocate]

Editor??

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

[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

[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.]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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".

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]

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...

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

[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."

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

[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. +)

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[RevAaron]

Sounds like fun!

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.

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 ...

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

[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/

Great

[ksw2]

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

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..."?

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.......

[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...

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.

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!!!)

[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!!!)

[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!!!)

[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!!!)

[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!!!)

[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]

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!!!)

[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!!!)

[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!!!)

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

Re:way OT, but Karma is cheap

[DeadSea]

But what about in the sentence:

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

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.

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.

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

[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.

scwm

[rnd()]

Isn't this what scwm is for?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

A tip to the fanatic

[CCRancor]

For a truly minimalistic GUI:

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

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.

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.

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.

"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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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. :)

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.

Wow

[RedWolves2]

I liked this program the first time it came out as DOS!

Re:language evolves over time

[diesel_jackass]

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

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].

If you get nothing else from this article...

[Thomas A. Anderson]

At least check out screen. It's amazing software.

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: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.

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: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: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.

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

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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?