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

Groups > comp.windows.x > #155 > unrolled thread

Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3

Back to article view | Back to comp.windows.x

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-09 19:34 +0000
    Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2014-03-10 20:53 +0000
    Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-03-10 21:24 +0000
      Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-14 19:42 +0000
        Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-03-15 06:45 +0000
        X window managers Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2014-03-20 10:09 +0000
    Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 unixb4coffee <unixb4coffee@gmail.com> - 2014-03-20 11:11 -0700
      Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2014-03-20 14:08 -0500
        Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-20 20:25 +0100
          Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2014-03-20 21:21 -0500
          Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 unixb4coffee <unixb4coffee@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 10:54 -0700
            Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2014-03-22 14:13 -0500
        Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3 Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> - 2014-06-25 10:26 +0200

#155 — Re: Memory comparison of Linux light desktops, pt 3

On 2014-02-26, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:
> From the "swapity-swapity-swap" department:
> Title: A Memory Comparison of Light Linux Desktops  - Part 3

I had a look at this article and it was better than I'd expected.  I was
expecting a KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE vs LXDE article, but these guys went
way lower than that, which was interesting.  Here is some cut-n-paste.
I also liked the list of links at the bottom - a reminder of how much
diversity there is in WMs on *nix systems.

   TinyWM

   If you are into "less memory is better", you definitely need to check
out TinyWM. Written by Nick Welch in about 50 lines of C code, TinyWM is
a "ridiculously tiny window manager", used to serve as a basic WM
programming example. You might also want to check on developer's webpage
the Python version, Lisp version, and Ada version.  TinyWM will move,
resize, focus, and raise your windows. There are no window decorations,
it looks just like regular X. On Debian/Ubuntu install TinyWM as apt-get
install tinywm. Start it as tinywm. It runs in less than 0.2MB of
memory.

   miwm

   From tiny we move to microscopic. miwm (Microscopic Window Manager)
implements a small, versatile set of core window management functions,
with the goal of keeping the window manager as clean as possible. You
would need to supply your own launcher, taskbar and menus using external
programs.  On Debian/Ubuntu install miwm as apt-get install miwm. Start
it as miwm. It runs in 0.5MB of memory.

   olvwm

   Around 1.2 MB things get shiny. OPEN LOOK Window Manager was the
default window manager in SunOS and Solaris. The open-source version is
olvwm (OPEN LOOK Virtual Window Manager), developed by Scott Oaks. It
implements a root window with dimensions greater than those of the video
display, and it works on any X11R5 or X11R6 systems.  Install olvwm in
Debian/Ubuntu as apt-get install olvwm. Start it as olvwm. It runs in
1.2MB memory.

   Sawfish

   As more and more features are added, the memory increases. This time
we look at Sawfish, a themable window manager using a Lisp-based
scripting language. Providing only window manager capabilities and
nothing else, Sawfish is usually combined with other programs such as
wbar or LXPanel.  On Debian/Ubuntu install sawfish as apt-get install
sawfish (yum install sawfish on Fedora). Start it as sawfish. It runs in
3.1MB of memory.

   IceWM

   4.5MB of memory later we have a window manager with taskbar, menus,
network and CPU meters, mail check and clock. This is IceWM, a fast and
simple window manager. It comes with a number of themes that allows it
to imitate Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows 7, OS/2, and Motif.  On
Debian/Ubuntu install IceWM as apt-get install icewm (yum install icewm
on Fedora). Start it as icewm. It runs in 4.5MB of memory.


   PekWM

   PekWM (The Pek Window Manager) is a window manager based on aewm++.
It supports window grouping, auto properties, xinerama, keygrabber,
keychains, and much more.  On Debian/Ubuntu install PekWM as apt-get
install pekwm (yum install pekwm on Fedora). Start it as pekwm. It runs
in 5.3MB of memory.


   Mutter

   Mutter (Metacity Clutter) is the current Gnome 3 window manager.
Based on Clutter library, Mutter supports OpenGL and a large number of
visual effects. Today, Mutter is in the process of becoming a Wayland
compositor.  Mutter is an excellent choice for building Gnome-like
desktops. Give it a try if you are into Gnome 3 look and feel, but you
don't like the functionality Gnome Shell has to offer.  On Debian/Ubuntu
install Mutter as apt-get install mutter (yum install mutter on Fedora).
This will bringing in over 50MB of various Gnome-specific packages on
your hard disk. Start it as dbus-launch -exit-with-session mutter. It
runs in 18.6MB - I've tested it on a Nvidia card running Nouveau driver.

   Conclusion

     * In 2MB of memory you get tiling window managers suitable for
       power users and vi experts.
     * Around 10MB you have a bunch of themable window managers with
       taskbars and menus. For many users this is enough,
       although we are still in power user territory.
     * OpenGL-enabled window managers start around 20MB and bring in
       shadows, transparency and lots of cool visual effects.  From 40MB
       up we have the classic lightweight desktop environments. These
       DEs are becoming more and more popular as
       computer hardware update cycles lengthen.
     * The latest and greatest cutting-edge desktop features can be
       found starting from 150MB.

   Links:

   TinyWM, 9wm, miwm, wm2, dwm, Ratpoison, TWM, xmonad, JWM, i3,
Blackbox, Sawfish, IceWM, PekWM, Openbox, Window Maker, awesome, FVWM,
Fluxbox, Mutter, E17, LXDE, KWin, MATE, Trinity, XFCE, Cinnamon,
Razor-qt, Gnome 3, Unity, KDE

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#156

In comp.windows.x, RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-26, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:
> > From the "swapity-swapity-swap" department:
> > Title: A Memory Comparison of Light Linux Desktops  - Part 3
> I had a look at this article and it was better than I'd expected.  I was
> expecting a KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE vs LXDE article, but these guys went
> way lower than that, which was interesting.  Here is some cut-n-paste.
> I also liked the list of links at the bottom - a reminder of how much
> diversity there is in WMs on *nix systems.
...
>    Sawfish
> 
>    As more and more features are added, the memory increases. This time
> we look at Sawfish, a themable window manager using a Lisp-based
> scripting language. Providing only window manager capabilities and
> nothing else, Sawfish is usually combined with other programs such as
> wbar or LXPanel.  On Debian/Ubuntu install sawfish as apt-get install
> sawfish (yum install sawfish on Fedora). Start it as sawfish. It runs in
> 3.1MB of memory.

Sawfish, being Lisp, is probably more of a win for the emacs power users
than the vi ones mentioned in the conclusion. I used it for several years
and recall it was a bit more memory intensive than that.

>    IceWM
> 
>    4.5MB of memory later we have a window manager with taskbar, menus,
> network and CPU meters, mail check and clock. This is IceWM, a fast and
> simple window manager. It comes with a number of themes that allows it
> to imitate Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows 7, OS/2, and Motif.  On
> Debian/Ubuntu install IceWM as apt-get install icewm (yum install icewm
> on Fedora). Start it as icewm. It runs in 4.5MB of memory.

This is the one I use now. When I was using an eee netbook, I re-jiggered
one of the existing themes to use 10 pixel scale window decorations (down
from 20 pixel scale) and reorder the buttons as I like them. I've since
reused that theme all over the place. I like window decoration, but I also
like to have it out of the way. I've been pretty happy with IceWM. I
installed from source for my current Slackware based system.

>    Conclusion
> 
>      * In 2MB of memory you get tiling window managers suitable for
>        power users and vi experts.

Elijah
------
also uses xterms with small fonts

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

#157

On 2014-03-09, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-02-26, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> From the "swapity-swapity-swap" department:
>> Title: A Memory Comparison of Light Linux Desktops  - Part 3

I switched from XFCE to xmonad about a year ago, and haven't looked
back.  I'm hooked on tiling window managers for sure, and xmonad has
terrific support for multiple monitors.

I haven't uninstalled XFCE just in case I come across something that
doesn't play well with a tiling WM.  At some point, I'll get around
to replacing XFCE with one of these really tiny ones, but I don't
even start a second X display anymore.

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

#159

On 2014-03-10, Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-03-09, RS Wood wrote:
>> On 2014-02-26, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> From the "swapity-swapity-swap" department:
>>> Title: A Memory Comparison of Light Linux Desktops  - Part 3
>
> I switched from XFCE to xmonad about a year ago, and haven't looked
> back.  I'm hooked on tiling window managers for sure, and xmonad has
> terrific support for multiple monitors.
>
> I haven't uninstalled XFCE just in case I come across something that
> doesn't play well with a tiling WM.  At some point, I'll get around
> to replacing XFCE with one of these really tiny ones, but I don't
> even start a second X display anymore.

I prefer Windowmaker on a desktop and E17 on my netbook, both pretty
heavyweight systems by the standards of things like xmonad.  But someone
mentioned an old twm derivative by the name of vtwm on a Slashdot post
earlier this year or late last year.  So I compiled it and have had
playing around with it.  

My conclusion is that most of what I use a window manager for is already
present in this early, lightweight stuff.  So where do the extra GBs go? 

I also rediscovered how much I like the viewport concept to windowmakers
(FVWM also uses it).  It's more intuitive to me than virtual desktops,
and way more intuitive than KDE4's Workspaces, which only seem to annoy
me.

http://vtwm.org if you're curious.  

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

#161

On 2014-03-14, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-03-10, Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I switched from XFCE to xmonad about a year ago, and haven't looked
>> back.  I'm hooked on tiling window managers for sure, and xmonad has
>> terrific support for multiple monitors.
>>
>> I haven't uninstalled XFCE just in case I come across something that
>> doesn't play well with a tiling WM.  At some point, I'll get around
>> to replacing XFCE with one of these really tiny ones, but I don't
>> even start a second X display anymore.
>
> I prefer Windowmaker on a desktop and E17 on my netbook, both pretty
> heavyweight systems by the standards of things like xmonad.  But someone
> mentioned an old twm derivative by the name of vtwm on a Slashdot post
> earlier this year or late last year.  So I compiled it and have had
> playing around with it.  
>
> My conclusion is that most of what I use a window manager for is already
> present in this early, lightweight stuff.  So where do the extra GBs go? 
>
> I also rediscovered how much I like the viewport concept to windowmakers
> (FVWM also uses it).  It's more intuitive to me than virtual desktops,
> and way more intuitive than KDE4's Workspaces, which only seem to annoy
> me.
>
> http://vtwm.org if you're curious.  

Interesting, I've never used a window manager that scrolls over a
larger root window.  I never even used virtual workspaces with my
previous window managers, except when I'd lose a window and spend
five minutes figuring out where it went :P

Nowadays, xmonad gives me 9 virtual workspaces, and I make good use
of them.  I keep a GUI browser on screen 1, and the rest are usually
each a pair of terminal windows.  I never really have to resize or
move any windows, because I just hop over to the next screen and use
a different terminal.

When I'm using an external monitor, I can have each physical screen
viewing a different virtual workspace. Differing resolutions and
notions of being "right of" or "left of" the main screen don't have
any significance, which makes me much happier.

I might play around with one of these soon, though.  It's nice to be
able to put my computer into a mode where other people can use it.
There are just so many different WMs out there, I have trouble
differentiating between them.

BTW, that links needs a www: http://www.vtwm.org

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

#162 — X window managers

>>>>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2014-03-10, Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:

 >> I haven't uninstalled XFCE just in case I come across something that
 >> doesn't play well with a tiling WM.  At some point, I'll get around
 >> to replacing XFCE with one of these really tiny ones, but I don't
 >> even start a second X display anymore.

 > I prefer Windowmaker on a desktop and E17 on my netbook, both pretty
 > heavyweight systems by the standards of things like xmonad.  But
 > someone mentioned an old twm derivative by the name of vtwm on a
 > Slashdot post earlier this year or late last year.  So I compiled it
 > and have had playing around with it.

 > My conclusion is that most of what I use a window manager for is
 > already present in this early, lightweight stuff.  So where do the
 > extra GBs go?

	And it still left me wonder why no one has mentioned Openbox
	yet?  The pro's of Openbox is that it's really lightweight
	(comparable to TWM, if not better than the latter) and also a
	"traditional" (as in: non-tiling, workspace-able) window
	manager, with customizable controls allowing for
	keyboard-focused interaction.  Frankly, I could hardly see a
	reason to prefer either XFCE WM, or good old TWM, over Openbox.

	As for the drawback that bothers me personally, Openbox allows a
	window to either belong to a single workspace, or be "stuck" to
	all of the workspaces at once.  Alas, there's no option for the
	window to only appear on certain workspaces but not the rest,
	which I think I'd find convenient.

	When it comes to the tiling thing, I have to admit that I see
	little use for it.  The majority of X applications I use are set
	to use the whole screen for their "main" windows.  I see no need
	for applications to share screen with one another.  (But then, I
	rarely use the GNU Screen's "split-screen" option, either.)

[...]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

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

#163

On 03/09/2014 12:34 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-02-26, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>  From the "swapity-swapity-swap" department:
>> Title: A Memory Comparison of Light Linux Desktops  - Part 3
>
> I had a look at this article and it was better than I'd expected.  I was
> expecting a KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE vs LXDE article, but these guys went
> way lower than that, which was interesting.  Here is some cut-n-paste.
> I also liked the list of links at the bottom - a reminder of how much
> diversity there is in WMs on *nix systems.
>
>     TinyWM
>
>     If you are into "less memory is better", you definitely need to check
> out TinyWM. Written by Nick Welch in about 50 lines of C code, TinyWM is
> a "ridiculously tiny window manager", used to serve as a basic WM
> programming example. You might also want to check on developer's webpage
> the Python version, Lisp version, and Ada version.  TinyWM will move,
> resize, focus, and raise your windows. There are no window decorations,
> it looks just like regular X. On Debian/Ubuntu install TinyWM as apt-get
> install tinywm. Start it as tinywm. It runs in less than 0.2MB of
> memory.
>
>     miwm
>
>     From tiny we move to microscopic. miwm (Microscopic Window Manager)
> implements a small, versatile set of core window management functions,
> with the goal of keeping the window manager as clean as possible. You
> would need to supply your own launcher, taskbar and menus using external
> programs.  On Debian/Ubuntu install miwm as apt-get install miwm. Start
> it as miwm. It runs in 0.5MB of memory.
>
>     olvwm
>
>     Around 1.2 MB things get shiny. OPEN LOOK Window Manager was the
> default window manager in SunOS and Solaris. The open-source version is
> olvwm (OPEN LOOK Virtual Window Manager), developed by Scott Oaks. It
> implements a root window with dimensions greater than those of the video
> display, and it works on any X11R5 or X11R6 systems.  Install olvwm in
> Debian/Ubuntu as apt-get install olvwm. Start it as olvwm. It runs in
> 1.2MB memory.
>
>     Sawfish
>
>     As more and more features are added, the memory increases. This time
> we look at Sawfish, a themable window manager using a Lisp-based
> scripting language. Providing only window manager capabilities and
> nothing else, Sawfish is usually combined with other programs such as
> wbar or LXPanel.  On Debian/Ubuntu install sawfish as apt-get install
> sawfish (yum install sawfish on Fedora). Start it as sawfish. It runs in
> 3.1MB of memory.
>
>     IceWM
>
>     4.5MB of memory later we have a window manager with taskbar, menus,
> network and CPU meters, mail check and clock. This is IceWM, a fast and
> simple window manager. It comes with a number of themes that allows it
> to imitate Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows 7, OS/2, and Motif.  On
> Debian/Ubuntu install IceWM as apt-get install icewm (yum install icewm
> on Fedora). Start it as icewm. It runs in 4.5MB of memory.
>
>
>     PekWM
>
>     PekWM (The Pek Window Manager) is a window manager based on aewm++.
> It supports window grouping, auto properties, xinerama, keygrabber,
> keychains, and much more.  On Debian/Ubuntu install PekWM as apt-get
> install pekwm (yum install pekwm on Fedora). Start it as pekwm. It runs
> in 5.3MB of memory.
>
>
>     Mutter
>
>     Mutter (Metacity Clutter) is the current Gnome 3 window manager.
> Based on Clutter library, Mutter supports OpenGL and a large number of
> visual effects. Today, Mutter is in the process of becoming a Wayland
> compositor.  Mutter is an excellent choice for building Gnome-like
> desktops. Give it a try if you are into Gnome 3 look and feel, but you
> don't like the functionality Gnome Shell has to offer.  On Debian/Ubuntu
> install Mutter as apt-get install mutter (yum install mutter on Fedora).
> This will bringing in over 50MB of various Gnome-specific packages on
> your hard disk. Start it as dbus-launch -exit-with-session mutter. It
> runs in 18.6MB - I've tested it on a Nvidia card running Nouveau driver.
>
>     Conclusion
>
>       * In 2MB of memory you get tiling window managers suitable for
>         power users and vi experts.
>       * Around 10MB you have a bunch of themable window managers with
>         taskbars and menus. For many users this is enough,
>         although we are still in power user territory.
>       * OpenGL-enabled window managers start around 20MB and bring in
>         shadows, transparency and lots of cool visual effects.  From 40MB
>         up we have the classic lightweight desktop environments. These
>         DEs are becoming more and more popular as
>         computer hardware update cycles lengthen.
>       * The latest and greatest cutting-edge desktop features can be
>         found starting from 150MB.
>
>     Links:
>
>     TinyWM, 9wm, miwm, wm2, dwm, Ratpoison, TWM, xmonad, JWM, i3,
> Blackbox, Sawfish, IceWM, PekWM, Openbox, Window Maker, awesome, FVWM,
> Fluxbox, Mutter, E17, LXDE, KWin, MATE, Trinity, XFCE, Cinnamon,
> Razor-qt, Gnome 3, Unity, KDE
>

Mwm, the window manager that comes with the OpenMotif libraries, is very 
light on memory (I've only looked at the memory usage occasionally with 
top).  The display is crystal clear and rock-steady, and very easy to 
look at.  It's very basic, but easy to add things like desk accessories 
and outboard compositing managers to.

The olwm - olvwm window managers are similar.  There was yet another WM 
version that was the default with new user accounts on Solaris, IIRC.

Out of the box, it doesn't have most of the features of the 
post-UNIX-Linux WMs, like, there's no embedded language, so you need to 
re-learn xrdb if you want any desktop accessories.  Also no workspaces 
or virtual root, and uses standard size icons.

OpenMotif isn't GPL'd so it's not normally available as a Linux package, 
but you can download the source at http://www.openmotif.org/.


-- 
Ctalk - An Object Oriented Language for C Programmers
Download:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/ctalk/files
Wiki:      http://sourceforge.net/projects/ctalk/Wiki/home

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

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

#164

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:11:57 -0700, unixb4coffee wrote:

> OpenMotif isn't GPL'd so it's not normally available as a Linux package,
> but you can download the source at http://www.openmotif.org/.

OpenMotif is now licensed under the LGPL. I was not able to get to the 
openmotif.org site, but the following appears to work: http://
motif.ics.com/ .





-- 
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Please support my work: https://www.gittip.com/arcfide/

לֵ֤ב חֲכָמִים֙ בְּבֵ֣ית אֵ֔בֶל וְלֵ֥ב כְּסִילִ֖ים בְּבֵ֥ית שִׂמְחָֽה׃

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

#165

On Thursday 20 March 2014 20:08, Aaron W. Hsu conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:11:57 -0700, unixb4coffee wrote:
> 
>> OpenMotif isn't GPL'd so it's not normally available as a Linux
>> package, but you can download the source at
>> http://www.openmotif.org/.
> 
> OpenMotif is now licensed under the LGPL. I was not able to get to the
> openmotif.org site, but the following appears to work: http://
> motif.ics.com/ .

And there is - or at least was, as I'm not up to date on its development 
status - also GNU lesstif.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

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

#166

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:25:06 +0100, Aragorn wrote:

> And there is - or at least was, as I'm not up to date on its development
> status - also GNU lesstif.

Lesstif is useful, but my general experience is that for any real Motif 
applications, you can detect subtle but tangible bugs when using it. In 
my case, using Xpdf with lesstif certainly seems less fun than Openmotif. 

I'm curious to know if anyone still champions lesstif over the LGPL 
version of Motif. I haven't kept up with everything lately, so I'm a bit 
behind the times. 

-- 
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Please support my work: https://www.gittip.com/arcfide/

לֵ֤ב חֲכָמִים֙ בְּבֵ֣ית אֵ֔בֶל וְלֵ֥ב כְּסִילִ֖ים בְּבֵ֥ית שִׂמְחָֽה׃

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

#167

On 03/20/2014 12:25 PM, Aragorn wrote:
> On Thursday 20 March 2014 20:08, Aaron W. Hsu conveyed the following to
> comp.misc...
>
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:11:57 -0700, unixb4coffee wrote:
>>
>>> OpenMotif isn't GPL'd so it's not normally available as a Linux
>>> package, but you can download the source at
>>> http://www.openmotif.org/.
>>
>> OpenMotif is now licensed under the LGPL. I was not able to get to the
>> openmotif.org site, but the following appears to work: http://
>> motif.ics.com/ .

Yipes, my bad.  It was good to see OpenMotif being upgraded again.

> And there is - or at least was, as I'm not up to date on its development
> status - also GNU lesstif.

I haven't looked at lesstif in a while.  There were some good tutorials 
about how to use the Motif X resources.  There was one I liked that was 
called, "MoTeeth." (seriously.)  Any idea where these references went?
That's in addition, I guess, to trying to find the original Motif 
library references, which back then were huge and quite expensive, if I 
remember correctly.


-- 
Ctalk - An Object Oriented Language for C Programmers
Download:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/ctalk/files
Wiki:      http://sourceforge.net/projects/ctalk/Wiki/home

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

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

#168

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:54:03 -0700, unixb4coffee wrote:

> That's in addition, I guess, to trying to find the original Motif
> library references, which back then were huge and quite expensive, if I
> remember correctly.

I believe that ICS or the OpenCDE project has made access to some of the 
original manuals and references available online. I think IST also 
provides some of them. 

-- 
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Please support my work: https://www.gittip.com/arcfide/

לֵ֤ב חֲכָמִים֙ בְּבֵ֣ית אֵ֔בֶל וְלֵ֥ב כְּסִילִ֖ים בְּבֵ֥ית שִׂמְחָֽה׃

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

#179

Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> wrote:

> OpenMotif is now licensed under the LGPL.

Motif too (installed it on Slackware via pkgsrc). Not sure what the
difference is between OpenMotif and Motif, at this point.

Mwm is my all-time favourite, that's the WM I always end up going back
to.

-- 
> cat /etc/slackware-version && uname -mprs
Slackware 14.0
Linux 3.12.0-dn i686 AMD Turion(tm) 64 Mobile Technology MK-36

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.windows.x

csiph-web