Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2426 > unrolled thread

Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-18 14:16 +0000
    Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-04-25 00:12 -0300
    Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-25 05:16 +0000
      Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-28 15:14 +0000
        Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-28 18:19 +0300
          Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-04-28 16:51 +0000
          Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-04-28 18:23 -0300
          Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2014-04-28 17:41 -0700
          Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 04:07 +0000
            Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-29 07:25 +0300
              Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-04-29 10:15 -0400
                Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-29 17:25 +0000
                  Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-04-29 15:51 -0400
                    Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2014-04-30 09:30 +0000
                      Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-04-30 10:13 -0400
                        Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-04-30 20:26 +0000
                          Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-04-30 22:33 -0400
                            Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-05-01 02:52 +0000
                            Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-05-01 08:06 +0100
                              Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-05-01 19:44 +0100
                            Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Andreas Karrer <ak-4a@gmx.ch> - 2014-05-01 09:23 +0000
                              Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-01 16:38 +0300
                              Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-01 12:26 -0400
        Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2014-04-28 15:47 +0000
          Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-04-29 01:10 -0300
        Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-04-28 16:50 +0000
        Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 04:06 +0000
          Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-04-30 21:19 +0000
            Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-05-01 19:54 +0100
        Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-04-29 16:44 +0300
    Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-01 21:06 +0000
      Re: Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2014-05-02 01:49 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2426 — Gnome 3: it's time to let go of the past

From the «pardon me while I reach for my flamethrower» department:
Title: GNOME 3: It’s time to let go of the past
Author: bob@lxer.com
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:45:37 -0400
Link: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/ext_link.php?rid=201087

GNOME 3 has gotten lots of criticism from some users, but it's time to accept
it for what it is and let go of the past.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2464

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:16:41 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
<rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

>From the «pardon me while I reach for my flamethrower» department:
>Title: GNOME 3: It’s time to let go of the past
>Author: bob@lxer.com
>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:45:37 -0400
>Link: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/ext_link.php?rid=201087
>
>GNOME 3 has gotten lots of criticism from some users, but it's time to accept
>it for what it is and let go of the past.

	I agree. People have accepted it for what it and Unity are.
Which is why Mate, Cinnamon, LXDE, Xfce etc have become popular
alternatives .... 
	;)
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2469

In message <lirc49$t9k$1@solani.org> 
  RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> GNOME 3 has gotten lots of criticism from some users, but it's time to accept
> it for what it is and let go of the past.

Yes, an utter pile of crap.

-- 
'I cannot! He has been kindness itself to me!' 'And you can be Death
itself to him.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2496

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:16:14 +0000 (UTC)
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <lirc49$t9k$1@solani.org> 
>   RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> > GNOME 3 has gotten lots of criticism from some users, but it's time to accept
> > it for what it is and let go of the past.
> 
> Yes, an utter pile of crap.


I happen to agree - I love 'new' or 'interesting' interfaces, but have
so far avoided this one like a tornado full of syphilitic sharks.  So:

Which interface would you recommend or do you enjoy on a daily basis,
and why?  I use KDE4 reluctantly, but my heart is still with KDE3,
Windowmaker, and for almost all routine stuff now, the CLI.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2497

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:

> Which interface would you recommend or do you enjoy on a daily basis,

LXDE

> and why?

I know how to use it. It doesn't hog the resources of the computer.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2501

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:19:15 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
> 
>> Which interface would you recommend or do you enjoy on a daily basis,
> 
> LXDE
> 
>> and why?
> 
> I know how to use it. It doesn't hog the resources of the computer.

+1




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2510

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:19:15 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net>
wrote:

>RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
>
>> Which interface would you recommend or do you enjoy on a daily basis,
>
>LXDE
>
>> and why?
>
>I know how to use it. It doesn't hog the resources of the computer.


	+1 Debian wheezy + LXDE. Light on my prehistoric > 7 year old
PC.
	I'd go MATE if it was more of a mate. But it betrays you with
a lot of little bugs.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2511

Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> RS Wood:
>
>> Which interface would you recommend or do you enjoy on a daily basis,
>
> LXDE
>
>> and why?
>
> I know how to use it. It doesn't hog the resources of the computer.

For those who are less familiar with LXDE, this is a very useful guide^1 
by Doug Willett, who also posts a number of useful lxde advice on such 
as lxde forum as seppalta.

The lxlinux.com site also has some useful pages which aren't linked from 
the front page, such as the one for LXLE, a nice lxde distro.

^1 http://lxlinux.com/  Guide To Setting Up LXDE, The Lightweight Champion

Recently the everyday linux user Gary Newell wrote an opinion piece^2 on 
his recommended replacement for XP being PC Linux OS (the Mate v.) as 
opposed to Ubuntu and a couple of bloggers and podcasters took him to 
task^3 for not choosing Mint (which LTS v. based on Ub 14.04 isn't going 
to be ready for another month or so).

I found myself wondering why, if he were going to go the PCLOS route 
(which has the advantage of being rolling which Linux Mint isn't), why 
he chose the MATE v. instead of the LXDE v.


^2 
http://www.everydaylinuxuser.com/2014/02/5-reasons-why-pclinuxos-is-better-for.html 
5 Reasons Why PCLinuxOS Is Better For Windows XP Users Than Ubuntu

^3 http://www.everydaylinuxuser.com/2014/04/does-linux-mint-exist.html 
The PCLinuxOS article was discussed by the Mintcast team in episode 193 
of the podcast
-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2514

In message <87ppk15vnw.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> 
  Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:

>> Which interface would you recommend or do you enjoy on a daily basis,

> LXDE

It just looks too much like it wants to be Windows.

-- 
There is NO Rule six!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2516

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>:

> In message <87ppk15vnw.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> 
>   Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> LXDE
>
> It just looks too much like it wants to be Windows.

The windowing idioms of LXDE are older than Windows (and LXDE).
Furthermore, Windows no longer wants to look like that.

Granted, the window close button on the right was a Windows 95
"innovation." In my LXDE setup, I have moved it to the left with:

<openbox_config xmlns="http://openbox.org/3.4/rc">
  :     :     :
  <theme>
    :     :     :
    <titleLayout>NSCLIM</titleLayout>

(~/.config/openbox/lxde-rc.xml)


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2521

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> writes:

> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>:
>
>> In message <87ppk15vnw.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> 
>>   Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>> LXDE
>>
>> It just looks too much like it wants to be Windows.
>
> The windowing idioms of LXDE are older than Windows (and LXDE).
> Furthermore, Windows no longer wants to look like that.
>
> Granted, the window close button on the right was a Windows 95
> "innovation." In my LXDE setup, I have moved it to the left with:
>
> <openbox_config xmlns="http://openbox.org/3.4/rc">
>   :     :     :
>   <theme>
>     :     :     :
>     <titleLayout>NSCLIM</titleLayout>

I suppose those letters indicate title bar button functions?
Is that 3 on the left, 3 on the right?

With Fvwm2 you get a bit more control.
Up to 10 buttons, images, vectors, mini-icons, etc for each
button.  Different appearance for 4 states.

Then the action you bind to each button can be just about
anything and can vary depending on the mouse button you click with,
and separate actions for single/double/triple click.

A single letter would never do.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2526

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:15:44 -0400
despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) wrote:

> With Fvwm2 you get a bit more control.
> Up to 10 buttons, images, vectors, mini-icons, etc for each
> button.  Different appearance for 4 states.
> 
> Then the action you bind to each button can be just about
> anything and can vary depending on the mouse button you click with,
> and separate actions for single/double/triple click.
> 
> A single letter would never do.
> 
> -- 
> Dan Espen


You just reminded me of something: I was experimenting with vtwm one
day, and was googling around for some good examples of twmrc files,
which led me to fvwmrc files, which took me to your web page. (or the
web page of some other guy with your name who also seems to like
fvwm) :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2530

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:15:44 -0400
> despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) wrote:
>
>> With Fvwm2 you get a bit more control.
>> Up to 10 buttons, images, vectors, mini-icons, etc for each
>> button.  Different appearance for 4 states.
>> 
>> Then the action you bind to each button can be just about
>> anything and can vary depending on the mouse button you click with,
>> and separate actions for single/double/triple click.
>> 
>> A single letter would never do.
>
> You just reminded me of something: I was experimenting with vtwm one
> day, and was googling around for some good examples of twmrc files,
> which led me to fvwmrc files, which took me to your web page. (or the
> web page of some other guy with your name who also seems to like
> fvwm) :)

I started with vtwm.

I've been doing little bits of fvwm development for years.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2534

In article <icfvkvoqxi.fsf@home.home>, Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:15:44 -0400
>> despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) wrote:
>>
>>> With Fvwm2 you get a bit more control.
>>> Up to 10 buttons, images, vectors, mini-icons, etc for each
>>> button.  Different appearance for 4 states.
>>> 
>>> Then the action you bind to each button can be just about
>>> anything and can vary depending on the mouse button you click with,
>>> and separate actions for single/double/triple click.
>>> 
>>> A single letter would never do.
>>
>> You just reminded me of something: I was experimenting with vtwm one
>> day, and was googling around for some good examples of twmrc files,
>> which led me to fvwmrc files, which took me to your web page. (or the
>> web page of some other guy with your name who also seems to like
>> fvwm) :)
>
>I started with vtwm.
>
>I've been doing little bits of fvwm development for years.

I used fvwm on Sun Sparcstations early/mid 90's, then under Linux for a
very long time, then fvwm2 - never really changing anything much. Then
an upgrade or 2 ago, fvwm2 seemed "broken" under Debian, so I moved
to xfce4...

Recently I gave Gnome3 a go under Debian - The main reason being that
wifey wanted something that wasn't xfce4 - she wanted some nicer eye
candy and things that "just worked" in a better "just work" sort of way -
so Gnome3 it was.

It's far from perfect though - I'm considering going back to xfce4 or even
back to super whizzy fast, low memory fvwm2 as Gnome 3 frequently needs
restarting, occasionally crashes and has so much bloat attached into it,
it's no-longer the nice little understandable Linux system I used to have.
(But I feel I need to support my wife and stop her going to the horrors
of Win 8 which I'm sure would frustrate her even more)

Youngsters tell me I'm living in the past, but now reading that the
next Gnome3 requires systemd and that Debian will have it in too, I'm
starting to wonder. 4GB of RAM doesn't seem enough for a desktop system
anymore - one that just does programming (in xterms using makefiles)
some email (using alpine) and web browsing (firefox)

#getoffmylawn

As I understand they say on twitter ;-)

Gordon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2542

Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> writes:

> In article <icfvkvoqxi.fsf@home.home>, Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:15:44 -0400
>>> despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) wrote:
>>>
>>>> With Fvwm2 you get a bit more control.
>>>> Up to 10 buttons, images, vectors, mini-icons, etc for each
>>>> button.  Different appearance for 4 states.
>>>> 
>>>> Then the action you bind to each button can be just about
>>>> anything and can vary depending on the mouse button you click with,
>>>> and separate actions for single/double/triple click.
>>>> 
>>>> A single letter would never do.
>>>
>>> You just reminded me of something: I was experimenting with vtwm one
>>> day, and was googling around for some good examples of twmrc files,
>>> which led me to fvwmrc files, which took me to your web page. (or the
>>> web page of some other guy with your name who also seems to like
>>> fvwm) :)
>>
>>I started with vtwm.
>>
>>I've been doing little bits of fvwm development for years.
>
> I used fvwm on Sun Sparcstations early/mid 90's, then under Linux for a
> very long time, then fvwm2 - never really changing anything much. Then
> an upgrade or 2 ago, fvwm2 seemed "broken" under Debian, so I moved
> to xfce4...

Switched from fvwm to fvwm2 as soon as fvwm2 became available.
There was a buggy fvwm2 in circulation for a while longer than normal
while we tracked down the problem.  Current versions should be okay now. 

> Recently I gave Gnome3 a go under Debian - The main reason being that
> wifey wanted something that wasn't xfce4 - she wanted some nicer eye
> candy and things that "just worked" in a better "just work" sort of way -
> so Gnome3 it was.
>
> It's far from perfect though - I'm considering going back to xfce4 or even
> back to super whizzy fast, low memory fvwm2 as Gnome 3 frequently needs
> restarting, occasionally crashes and has so much bloat attached into it,
> it's no-longer the nice little understandable Linux system I used to have.
> (But I feel I need to support my wife and stop her going to the horrors
> of Win 8 which I'm sure would frustrate her even more)
>
> Youngsters tell me I'm living in the past, but now reading that the
> next Gnome3 requires systemd and that Debian will have it in too, I'm
> starting to wonder. 4GB of RAM doesn't seem enough for a desktop system
> anymore - one that just does programming (in xterms using makefiles)
> some email (using alpine) and web browsing (firefox)

Got 2GB in here now.  Way more than I need.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2547

Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

Re fvwm2:

> Got 2GB in here now.  Way more than I need.

I've still got one box with 512meg.  Fvwm2 works just fine on it.  In
fact, I run only fvwm2 on all my boxes.

I used to have (a few years back) a Thinkpad T22 with only 256meg. 
Fvwm2 worked great there as well.

On the laptop I'm typing this on (only 768meg) top reports Fvwm2's
"Virt" size as 5,300kbyte.

Resident is only 1,576 kbyte (according to top).

Fvwm2 is wonderful for low resource usage and just doing its job and
otherwise getting out of your way.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2554

Rich <rich@example.com> writes:

> Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Re fvwm2:
>
>> Got 2GB in here now.  Way more than I need.
>
> I've still got one box with 512meg.  Fvwm2 works just fine on it.  In
> fact, I run only fvwm2 on all my boxes.
>
> I used to have (a few years back) a Thinkpad T22 with only 256meg. 
> Fvwm2 worked great there as well.
>
> On the laptop I'm typing this on (only 768meg) top reports Fvwm2's
> "Virt" size as 5,300kbyte.
>
> Resident is only 1,576 kbyte (according to top).
>
> Fvwm2 is wonderful for low resource usage and just doing its job and
> otherwise getting out of your way.  

Yep.  One Fvwm2 principle is to keep the non-core stuff in modules.
If you don't want a button bar or icon box, then don't start
the module.

One of my goals is to have as little as possible from the WM visible.
No pager, no launchers.  Just a lot of keystroke customizations.
For many windows, like Emacs, I dispense with the title bar.
There's nothing in it that does anything for emacs, so I just leave
the frame.

I recently had to bump my box from 1G to 2G but it was all Firefox's
fault.  Well Firefox and I think whatever was handling the videos.

I first used Fvwm2 on a Sparc1+.  Can't remember how much memory.
I'd guess 256M.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2556

Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.com> writes:

> > Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > Re fvwm2:
> >
> >> Got 2GB in here now.  Way more than I need.
> >
> > I've still got one box with 512meg.  Fvwm2 works just fine on it.  In
> > fact, I run only fvwm2 on all my boxes.
> >
> > I used to have (a few years back) a Thinkpad T22 with only 256meg. 
> > Fvwm2 worked great there as well.
> >
> > On the laptop I'm typing this on (only 768meg) top reports Fvwm2's
> > "Virt" size as 5,300kbyte.
> >
> > Resident is only 1,576 kbyte (according to top).
> >
> > Fvwm2 is wonderful for low resource usage and just doing its job and
> > otherwise getting out of your way.  

> Yep.  One Fvwm2 principle is to keep the non-core stuff in modules.
> If you don't want a button bar or icon box, then don't start
> the module.

And a fine principal that is.  I usually run the pager myself.  But not
having to also have all the other stuff loaded just to get a basic
pager is wonderful.

> I first used Fvwm2 on a Sparc1+.  Can't remember how much memory.
> I'd guess 256M.

My first contact with "fvwm" was fvwm1 from back in the days when Rob
Nation was the one and only author.  That was on a SparcStation10
multiuser machine running SunOS.  I can't remember the ram, but in
reality it couldn't have been more than about 256M or so.  This was the
same timeframe (92-94) when having 4M in one's dos system was huge, and
one got to play games with QEMM settings to try to squeeze as much out
of it as possible, in order to run DesqView efficiently.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2558

On 01/05/14 03:33, Dan.Espen wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.com> writes:
>
>> Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Re fvwm2:
>>
>>> Got 2GB in here now.  Way more than I need.
>>
>> I've still got one box with 512meg.  Fvwm2 works just fine on it.  In
>> fact, I run only fvwm2 on all my boxes.
>>
>> I used to have (a few years back) a Thinkpad T22 with only 256meg.
>> Fvwm2 worked great there as well.
>>
>> On the laptop I'm typing this on (only 768meg) top reports Fvwm2's
>> "Virt" size as 5,300kbyte.
>>
>> Resident is only 1,576 kbyte (according to top).
>>
>> Fvwm2 is wonderful for low resource usage and just doing its job and
>> otherwise getting out of your way.
>
> Yep.  One Fvwm2 principle is to keep the non-core stuff in modules.
> If you don't want a button bar or icon box, then don't start
> the module.
>
> One of my goals is to have as little as possible from the WM visible.
> No pager, no launchers.  Just a lot of keystroke customizations.
> For many windows, like Emacs, I dispense with the title bar.
> There's nothing in it that does anything for emacs, so I just leave
> the frame.
>
> I recently had to bump my box from 1G to 2G but it was all Firefox's
> fault.  Well Firefox and I think whatever was handling the videos.
>
> I first used Fvwm2 on a Sparc1+.  Can't remember how much memory.
> I'd guess 256M.
>

All I want from the WM are pretty window frames and a nicely 
customisable panel (yes I realise they don't have to come from the same 
stable).

I like my panel thin, menu, very few favourite icons, a clock and a few 
status icons like Wifi, battery power.

Other than that, nothing - so xfce4 suits me well.


Somehow I think when I saw Windows95, the utility and simplicity of the 
desktop layout stuck. I've hated everything MS ever did after that (so 
use ClassicShell on later WinOSes) and on linux I hate "bubblegum" 
pretty icons and panels and I cannot live without any decent panel - so 
Awesome (which it's not!), RatPoison and *twm are all out for me.


Clearly there is no right answer which is why there are so many desktops 
with Linux (and I presume *BSD).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2575

On Thu, 01 May 2014 08:06:53 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
wrote:

>On 01/05/14 03:33, Dan.Espen wrote:
>> Rich <rich@example.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Re fvwm2:
>>>
>>>> Got 2GB in here now.  Way more than I need.
>>>
>>> I've still got one box with 512meg.  Fvwm2 works just fine on it.  In
>>> fact, I run only fvwm2 on all my boxes.
>>>
>>> I used to have (a few years back) a Thinkpad T22 with only 256meg.
>>> Fvwm2 worked great there as well.
>>>
>>> On the laptop I'm typing this on (only 768meg) top reports Fvwm2's
>>> "Virt" size as 5,300kbyte.
>>>
>>> Resident is only 1,576 kbyte (according to top).
>>>
>>> Fvwm2 is wonderful for low resource usage and just doing its job and
>>> otherwise getting out of your way.
>>
>> Yep.  One Fvwm2 principle is to keep the non-core stuff in modules.
>> If you don't want a button bar or icon box, then don't start
>> the module.
>>
>> One of my goals is to have as little as possible from the WM visible.
>> No pager, no launchers.  Just a lot of keystroke customizations.
>> For many windows, like Emacs, I dispense with the title bar.
>> There's nothing in it that does anything for emacs, so I just leave
>> the frame.
>>
>> I recently had to bump my box from 1G to 2G but it was all Firefox's
>> fault.  Well Firefox and I think whatever was handling the videos.
>>
>> I first used Fvwm2 on a Sparc1+.  Can't remember how much memory.
>> I'd guess 256M.
>>
>
>All I want from the WM are pretty window frames and a nicely 
>customisable panel (yes I realise they don't have to come from the same 
>stable).
>
>I like my panel thin, menu, very few favourite icons, a clock and a few 
>status icons like Wifi, battery power.
>
>Other than that, nothing - so xfce4 suits me well.
>
>
>Somehow I think when I saw Windows95, the utility and simplicity of the 
>desktop layout stuck. I've hated everything MS ever did after that 

 I'm guessing you gave windows 2000 a miss then. You'd have loved its
desktop, virtually identical to the win95 one plus, when folder view
was set to open each folder in its own window, an intelligent window
sizing algorithm which they lobomised out of its successor, winXP.

>(so use ClassicShell on later WinOSes) and on linux I hate "bubblegum" 
>pretty icons and panels and I cannot live without any decent panel - so 
>Awesome (which it's not!), RatPoison and *twm are all out for me.
>
 The nicest *nix desktop I ever experienced was the KDE one that was
setup in the Knoppix LiveCD versions 4 to 5.3 (sadly, installing it on
the hard drive lost this to the Debian default one). Mint15 comes a
close second though.

>Clearly there is no right answer which is why there are so many desktops 
>with Linux (and I presume *BSD).

 You can use the name *nix to save all that typing next time you need
to be so inclusive. :-)

-- 
Regards, J B Good

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web