enorbet2

I am wondering how many different window managers people here have tried. Here's my list:

KDE
Dropline Gnome
Blackbox (ultimate speed)
Fluxbox
Xfce4
Enlightenment (super eye candy)
FVWM
FVM95
WindowMaker (cool icons)
IceWM

Watcha Got?
Jimmy

silentrhythm

well, after trying all those what's your favorite, or what are you using now?

i've stuck to the basics, just kde, gnome, xfce4, fluxbox. i can't quite get into kde4, it's still to rough around the edges. i just switched to using gnome primarily after being a long-time kde fan. gnome is very nice right now, simple and polished, and a fine level of bloat for me on this system. openbox does look intersting, i will have to check it out when i get a chance.

ps: amarok2 is awesome, i'm loving the integrated internet services. they did a pretty good job of sifting through the crap for you and giving you a decent selection of free music. i like that they integrate the magnatune store as well, but magnatune is spotty for my tastes. i usually put it on in the background when i'm studying or whatnot.

boydyboyd

From best to worst that i've tried (imo)

Openbox (difficult to configure)
Gnome (what's to say, it's just gnome)
KDE (ok, great applets for on-screen, just very bulky)
XFCE (made me want to vomit, it's damn ugly)

__________________

: The Song of the week this week is: The Prodigy - Voodoo People :

My Last.fm Page.

Portable Audio: 120Gb iPod (320kbs MP3) --> CMOy Portable Amp --> AKG K581 DJs
Audio Setup: Q9 Ogg Vorbis --> E-MU 0202 DAC --> Arcam D90 Phono Amp --> Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro (250 Ω)

enorbet2

Before I explain what I use as a window manager (maybe I should include a screenie) allow me please to explain a little background. I frequent a very small linux channel on IRC on the Freenet server called #linuxsphere. I have met some truly outrageous linux geeks there (all manner of distros) but especially alphageek, C4, and the moderator, amrit. All these guys mix and match in their wm's. Alphageek blew me away since his desktop is built on Blackbox, the most austere manager next to multiple consoles, but it looks as complex and beautiful as any KDE or Enlightenment system I've ever seen. Somehow, and way beyond my coding skills, he has applets from 3 wm's, icons from WindowManager and FVVM, and it still has an insignificant footprint. He also has a great website on dyndns.org.

So while we all are influnced by people we meet, we are also creatures of habit and seek that with which we've become familiar. Because I started with DOS, a file manager is just essential to me and I tend to prefer the "detailed view" that emphasizes text over objects. So I have a difficult time liking gnome because I don't like the Nautilus file manager. That goes as least as much for all the others, even though some have moderate KDE support where I can run "kfmclient", my favorite file manager. However I do really like some features of Enlightenment, the simplest but really good looking and useful being Eterm. I'm not hip enough, yet, to mix and match on the level that alphageek does, so I switch between two, fluxbox for gaming, and KDE with a fair bit of customization for everything else which in my case includes music and video authoring and editing.

My main desktop then is KDE, with a full screen width (but only 10 lines tall) Eterm permanently on display above the launchbar, with XMMS taking only one line in minimized mode but with EQ and Playlist each taking 1/3 of screen width. Being an avid overclocker and hardware obssessed, I have GKrellm along one side from top to bottom monitoring voltages, fan speed, temps, cpu, userspace, memory and swap, disk usage, wireless and LAN activity (tied in to Tripwire), amd also radio buttons for mounting/unmounting optical and flash drives and a few other controls.

I also think Amarok is an awesome app but for me it does some things like organizing a la picasa that I don't like and lacks some function imprtant to me such as compatibility with LADSPA plugins. So I tend to use Aqualung which isn't as polished looking but allows killer plugins like a great semi parametric EQ and Tube Warmth which I have adjusted for my speakers and sound card and is on all the time. I build drum and beat tracks with Hydrogen and edit with Audacity and especially Ardour. I disable some default KDE functions to keep the footprint small enough to still be snappy. However to be honest the config has become habit more than required since it was snappy on a Celeron II with half a gig of ram. With 2 Gigs of OC'd OCZ ram and this cpu, even switching to Fluxbox for modern games may be more peace of mind than based in need.

I was fortunate in timing in that the only way I got to be solid with Linux is to commit to not rebooting to XP every day and when I did this Quake 3 Arena, UT, abd a number of decent Loki ported games were fairly current so it was easy to resist the reboot for games. I wrestled with Steam a long time to get HalfLife 2 working but I am unsatisfied with the results graphically and I can't yet get latest GTA working well (although GTA 3 does run fine) so I'm back to rebooting sometimes but I am so much happier in Linux for everything else that going back to XP so often angers me with all the stuff going on behind the scenes and stupid messages and screw ups, not to mention speed, that I am still happiest (and most productive) in Linux with my modded KDE. Maybe I should consider an XBox or PS3 because I hate where windows is headed so much I won't even *pirate* Vista, let alone Windows 7.

Redmist

Get a PS3.

I have Ubuntu set up on PS3 and it's pretty cool. Set up the Sixaxis with a SNES emulator. Really easy too. Plus it's very easy to go back to the PS3 game OS.

__________________

enorbet2

Hey Guys
Check this out. Rock solid and free

http://www.xenserver5.com/landing/linux/

Enjoy

thiussat

KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, XFCE are not window managers. They are desktop environments. Window managers are defined merely by the decorations around your windows. Enlightenment, Emerald, and Kwin are examples of window managers.

__________________

Secure Your Network With Tomato Linux Vs. Windows Security Think You Can Brute Force Long Passwords? Linux File Permissions HOWTO Secure Ubuntu With AppArmor

"I can't bring myself to try Linux Mint because they keep naming the OS after ex-girlfriends or women I've had bad run ins with. Cassandra was a sexual harassing shift manager. And Felicia was a stalker who knew how to turn a good day into a hellish experience in 0-60." -- Anub1s from BBR forums

enorbet2

Thanks for the textbook definition but I contend that this is no longer accurate since they are evolving whether officially or by individuals. In short, the lones have blurred.

Here's just two wikis, one for FVWM which although seemingly losing official support still manages to be described thusly

< The F Virtual Window Manager (The F currently has no official meaning[1]) is a virtual window manager for the X Window system. Originally a twm derivative, FVWM has evolved into a powerful and highly configurable environment for UNIX systems. >

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FVWM

and Enlightenment is described

<Enlightenment, also known simply as E, is a free software window manager for the X Window System which can be used alone or in conjunction with a desktop environment such as GNOME or KDE. Enlightenment is often used as a substitute for a full desktop environment.>

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlight...window_manager)

Just as at one time a terminal, or console, could have been described as strictly a single user environment, and that is no longer completely accurate, so are the strict lines between window managers and desktop environments blurred. Similarly all shells have evolved far beyond their original limitations. It depends today and in the future on just how rigid you need your definitions of what become nebulous terms over time to be. I like the Open part of "Open Source" and the many levels on which it evolves, or dies out.

thiussat

No, the lines have not blurred since they are different things to begin with. Gnome and KDE are much more than mere window managers. They are the entire desktop. I don't think most people would ever confuse Gnome with Enlightenment.

Terminals as single user environments? I'm not sure what that means. Yes, more than one user can be logged into a terminal session on a single machine at once. But this has been the case (for Unix), for at least 30 years. And I'm not sure the analogy is a good one.

This whole paragraph gave me a *** moment.

__________________

Secure Your Network With Tomato Linux Vs. Windows Security Think You Can Brute Force Long Passwords? Linux File Permissions HOWTO Secure Ubuntu With AppArmor

"I can't bring myself to try Linux Mint because they keep naming the OS after ex-girlfriends or women I've had bad run ins with. Cassandra was a sexual harassing shift manager. And Felicia was a stalker who knew how to turn a good day into a hellish experience in 0-60." -- Anub1s from BBR forums

enorbet2

Since I don't wish to extend this disagreement ad infintum when there is so little to be gained even if a definitive resolution was possible and since I stipulated "at one time" so 30 tears is irrelevant to the point that it did indeed evolve to greater complexity and since I actually quoted supporting evidence and you did not it appears we have an impasse of opinion and interpretation of terms.

Since there is absolutely no doubt that window managers and desktop environments are not static and have in fact evolved and will likely continue to, apparently all we can do is disagree. I do agree that at one time there was a distinct difference between the two, after all and probably like you, I have read at least a dozen different O'Reilly books, some of which described them so ten years ago (and some of which have yet to be updated to newer editions, despite their overall excellent quality) so I do understand the original difference.

Just because there were still otherwise good astronomy books being printed 50 years ago assuming the Milky Way was the whole Universe didn't make it so and people who read and could think for themselves recognized the change and the change there was about an essentially static fact, at least at anything less than Deep Time, as it was only human perception and tools that changed. Shortly after Hubble discovered other galaxies he also discovered they were flying away from each other and the idea of the infinite static Universe died out with the exception of a few fringe holdouts, mostly religious zealots. In the "desltop/wm" argument even the subject is in flux.

I don't know what your agenda is that refuses to accept change but if that is your opinion, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. On this, I'll quote the HAL 9000 "There is no point in further discussion"
Daisy, Daisy give mmmeeee......
L8z