fvwm Turns Ten

Some Old Dude writes "fvwm, F* Virtual Window Manager, is celebrating its 10th birthday in a few days. This is the window manager I used when cutting my Linux teeth back in the last millennium, and the one I still use today (after trying many newer ones). If it's been a while since you've seen what fvwm can do, check out its features and screenshots."

Comments

Why FVWM matters

[crucini]

A lot of folks seem to think that Windows represents the pinnacle of GUI aesthetics, and that everything else (except Apple) should try to copy it. These folks look down on fvwm as "not even as good as Windows 3.1".

I don't agree. I like the Unix desktop at its most Unixy - clean, efficient andminimal. No need to waste pixels catering for an idiot when this desktop is the interface for a computer professional. But if I wanted to waste some pixels, and I have in the past, I'd waste them on stuff that looks cool to my aesthetic, not what looks reassuring to some marketer trying to soothe the average user.

If you want to understand the "real" window managers, like fvwm, Afterstep, etc., realize three things:

1. They aren't trying to be "as good as Windows 3.1". They're in a totally different space. Just because they run on PC hardware now doesn't mean they partake of the PC mentality. These WM's can be configured from minimal to maximal, but at maximal they express a strong aesthetic that's quite different from consumer OS's.
   
2. Forget about "user friendliness". Real WM's are delicately balanced between aesthetics and efficiency, leaving little room for user-friendliness, which means accomodation to beginners. Let beginners use Gnome/KDE if they're unwilling to learn, or learn the real stuff if they're willing. More importantly, real user friendliness requires the WM to know things about applications, the machine, etc. I prefer my WM ignorant and agnostic - a mere conduit for my actions.
   
3. Don't judge them by how they "look". They don't look like anything - they're quite user-tunable, which is half the fun. The screenshots only give hints of the scope of customization. The feeling of running a desktop that you built is completely different from the feeling you get looking at someone else's desktop.
   

I don't like CDE very much, but CDE is clean and technical-looking in a way that Windows isn't. Almost everyone would happily go from CDE to KDE or Gnome, but I'd feel some loss of Unix flavor.

(I've ignored the fact that fvwm works with Gnome - you could have the fvwm coolness and the Gnome user-friendliness, I guess.)

I'm currently running fluxbox at work and AfterStep at home. I like a lot of what I see in the fvwm release - it seems the good window managers are converging and adopting the best features.

I know there will always be a small group that thinks as I do, but I'm afraid we're not communicating very well. Tons of newcomers are pouring into Linux, and most of them have only seen Microsoft Windows. Therefore they're inclined to view the desktop through a Microsoft lens, even as they criticize Microsoft.

I don't like Microsoft software. I find it disgusting from concept to execution, from GUI aesthetics to file formats. I don't want anything on my machines to look like that.

Sorry, thanks for playing

[appleLaserWriter]

80386 DX was a full 32 bit chip
80386 SX was a 386 DX with 24 bit memory bus and maybe a 16 bit data bus

For faster time to market, the 80386DX could work with an 80287 *or* 80387 math-co. There never was a 386 with built in FPU.

When Intel introduced the 486, everything changed:
80486DX had a built in FPU
80486SX had a built in FPU but was disabled (maybe due to poor QA rating)
80487 was an 80486DX with alternate pinout to fit in the "487" slot. Upon insertion, the 80486SX is disabled
80486SL was an 80486SX with some power saving features and lower clock speeds
80486SLC was a cyrix chip that had 16 bit data bus, 24 bit memory addresses, and no math co. It performed somewhat better than a 386SX but was cheap and drew little power. It was popular for notebook computers.

80486DX2 was the first clock doubling CPU
80486DX50 was a rare 50 MHz cpu with no clock doubling
80486DX2-66 / DX2-50 were clock doubling CPUs
80486DX4 were clock trippling CPUs

Then there were a bunch of pentia.