What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

Murray_B · 2008-11-04 14:23:35

Hi!

I always see people telling which wm/de they use (and that this one is the only right one *g*) When I look into the screenshot-section of this
forum, most of the screenshots are mainly different in the background-picture... What are the reasons why you choose a special wm or de?
I just start this thread to show you, what I mean.

I want the following things:
- display, move, maximize, minimize windows
- stay on top
- support for freedesktop-standards (EWMH, clipboard, .desktop-files, systemtray, ...)
- keyboard-controllable

In addition to the plain windowmanager I also want an bar for task and systray and a clock and a start-menu would be nice.
But except for the standards, nearly every wm/de is able to do things like that! So why am I using KDE? Simple answer:
just because of the apps. Especially the kdepim-apps are really good - I don't know another organizer for linux which is
as good as korganizer. So I am installing the apps and already have a wm with them, so why should I install another one?
I could use gnome, xfce4, openbox too, but it only needs more diskspace, so I don't do it . But I tried them, but could not
see any advantages, so I switched back in favour of a small system.

Okay, some wm's/de's are more or less easy to configure, but I think that doesn't really matter, because you do it only once.
So what are the reasons to choose a special wm/de for you, just tell me! And please, no flames like "my wm is better than
yours!", thanks.

I am waiting for your postings!

Thomas

nirvanix · 2008-11-04 14:54:12

What I insist upon is being able to customize the desktop. It's my computer and I want it to do what I want it to do. That's why I loved KDE 3.5.9. You could make it look and feel like Windows, you could make it look and feel like OS X, you could make it look and feel like Gnome. I'm on KDE 4 now, not sure if I like it as much.

Also, as an amateur astronomer I love KSTARS! It's better than any commercial version. The rest of the apps I'm indifferent about. I use Firefox, Mplayer, Xmms, OpenOffice, Gimp which run well on any linux desktop.

Redroar · 2008-11-04 14:57:24

Well, let's see. First, I used Gnome, but somehow Gnome never stuck with me. I found it near impossible to configure to any detail. Then, I moved to KDE3.5, and really loved it. Great apps, great customizability....and to this day I'll use KDE on a multi-user computer, though I don't think it has especially good keyboard support.

Then I started trying out WMs. First up was Fluxbox, which drove me crazy since I couldn't stand the panel, nor the look of 99% of the themes. I loved the config files, though. Then Openbox, which I stayed with for a good while, and really enjoyed using. I used it with BMPanel, which if you've never used is probably the most feature complete themeable panel out there. Though I have to admit, I never really configure OB that much since everytime I got into that godawful XML config file, I wanted to pull my fingernails out.

After that I took a test drive through several tiling WMs (dwm, wmii, awesome, and xmonad), and sort of liked the idea, but I don't think I use the terminal enough for it. One time when I had 3 terms open working on configuring a program, it was great. 1 Term had the man page open, 1 had Vim on the config file, and the third I used to start and restart the app looking for errors. Very, very nice. But besides that I felt that the tiling window managers were obtuse, and God help any poor family/friend of mine who tried to use it.

Just a couple of days ago I started using PekWM...it feels like what Openbox should be. Clean, clear config files (though perhaps a little extra commenting would help), a wee bit faster than OB, and even more powerful keyboard support (at least in the default config...but again, I never really configured OB so much since using XML like that just hurts me). It's a little harder to find a good theme, and from what I've heard it's slightly less stable. I haven't had any issues with it so far, but again, it's only a couple of days.

So, my wants/needs:
-Floating window management (except for terminals, but I'll live)
-Good compatibility
-Easy to configure
-Entirely keyboard controllable
-Good looking
-Intuitive
-Fast

Openbox fits all of these except easy to configure, and so far it seems PekWM fits all of these period.

Tiling window managers have their pluses, but I could never really get my head around them for anything but terminals.

For a full DE, I'd use nothing but KDE...3.5 until they get a really clean 4.x release (my guess: 4.3).

Ghost1227 · 2008-11-04 15:10:24

It's all really a matter of opinion, and the best way to decide is to try for yourself! However, you can narrow it down based on what you do{, not} need. So lets take a look at a few of the options you have...

KDE: Intended to be an attractive, easy to use DE. Good if you are switching from windows or like things that are pretty. Uses the QT toolkit. Takes ~210MB for a base install. Many people consider this to be too much unnecessary bloat.

GNOME: Also intended to be an attractive, easy to use DE. Relatively easy to learn even if you are new to linux. Uses the GTK toolkit. Takes ~180MB for a base install.

XFCE: Designed as a lightweight alternative to GNOME/KDE. Appearance is similar to GNOME by default and is easily customizable. Allows a user to keep a full DE while having a smaller memory footprint. Uses the GTK toolkit. Takes ~15MB for a base install.

Enlightenment: Built around an advanced graphics library, Enlightenment is designed to be pretty, although not as simple as GNOME. Slow release cycle is sometimes seen as a downside although Enlightenment has a dedicated fanbase. Uses the EFL toolkit. There are two versions available: E16 takes ~3MB for a base install. E17 takes ~15MB for a base install.

Blackbox/Fluxbox/Openbox: Designed to be ultralight, *box WMs come with no extra software installed (ie: no configuration utilities, no office software, some don't include a panel, etc). *box WMs have the advantage of having no dependencies and vary little memory consumption. Base install size varies between ~350KB - ~800KB depending on variation selected. Some people dislike *box because of the need to manually configure everything.

Tiling WMs (ION, ratpoison, dwm, awesome, etc): Ultra-minimalistic, these WMs have no fancy graphics and minimal, if any, window decoration. Virtually no memory consumption make these efficient, however configuring them is not easy for beginners and may require knowledge of Lua, Haskell, or Lisp. Most tiling WMs are less than 90KB.

Now that I've given you an unbiased overview of WM/DEs, it's up to you to figure out what you need and try the options for yourself. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to let me know. Good luck!

Murray_B · 2008-11-04 19:15:27

Well, I don't need another WM, I am just interested in the reasons why you decide for a WM. For me it seems to be equal if I use one wm or another, it is mainly for starting applications and moving around the windows. So I am interested in the the reasons for you.

Ghost1227 · 2008-11-04 19:22:20

Well in that case, I use openbox because it's simple, lightweight, doesn't add a lot of crap to my system that I don't need, and I like the way it looks

Zeist · 2008-11-04 19:42:45

To me three things are really important:

1. Possible to control (almost) entirely by keyboard.
2. Possible to tile windows, I've found this essential for me to get as much as possible done in as short time as possible
3. Configurable enough to let me change anything that may annoy me

Vintendo · 2008-11-04 19:42:58

A list of things I want

- Simplicity(as in not 3 million dependencies)
- No built in panel, I want to choose my own
- Workspaces that can go from one screen to the other (only applies to tiling window managers)
- Configured through a readable config file.

I use XMonad now, altough it doesn't really aply to all my demands, and I came up with demand three by XMonad. XMonad is the only window manager that does that. Awesome has a set of workspaces per screen, floating window managers have workspaces spread over the two screens. XMonad has the huge ghc as dependency, and the config file needs some getting used to but i don't want anything als anymore, on a dual screen.

//Edit, i also agree with Zeists last two demands!

Last edited by Vintendo (2008-11-04 19:43:53)

fflarex · 2008-11-04 20:05:10

My requirements are: simple, configurable (and ease of configuration), and total keyboard control. Currently using dwm, but openbox also mostly meets these criteria.

fuscia · 2008-11-04 20:06:57

when it comes to a window manager, i guess i think managing the windows is the prime consideration. (i don't think tossing a bunch of apps in big pile in the middle of the desktop qualifies as management. how's that for obnoxious?) access to my apps is also key. i only use five gui apps (opera, gimp, gcolor2, k3b and gtk-chtheme) and i use them seldomly. i mostly use terminal apps. a key combo to open terminals and dmenu make dwm great for me. it makes the most sense to me, if one prefers terminal apps, to have them tiled from the outset. i like the panel, and i prefer the only other decoration to be wallpapers i chose, or make.

shazeal · 2008-11-04 20:29:39

I use Gnome, and Compiz Fusion Standalone. Gnome when Im just browsing the web, or playing games. Compiz when I want a nice clean screen (no panels or any other decorations at all), for doing work in blender or doing some programming. For me Compiz is better for this due to all its fancy window movement/desktop switching tools as I cant afford a second monitor at the moment

smakked · 2008-11-04 22:36:12

For me it just has to work, install and use and tahts it idont want to mess with config as it defeats the puropose of enjoying computing.
I tried openbox but to much hassle to configure , altho it was easy to do. Icewm was nice but still looks sorta ugly, KDE is to slow at present but looks nice. Tile WM dont do it for me, but i can see advantages if you are a developer. SO im Back to good old trusty Gnome. Install and use is they way it should be in this day and age, after all we are not computing in the 80's no more.

Ranguvar · 2008-11-04 23:18:10

Err? Isn't one of the main goals of Arch to provide as much choice and configuration as possible? Hell, choice/configuration is at the core of Linux itself!

And, for most people, a few minutes congiruing here pays off in spades later. I've gotten most of my PC configured completely to match me. It feels like an extension of me - it behaves EXACTLY how I want it, not how some dev somewhere decided it should act. Sorry, got a little Gnome hate in me... Gnome seems scared to death of offering choice... (check out the Pidgin - Funpidgin (now Carrier) fork for an example)

Anyways, my main argument is, a little work now pays off later. It's fine if you aren't willing to do that.

chilebiker · 2008-11-04 23:33:49

I use Openbox because I can make it work exactly as I want it to. It's lightweight and not hard to configure ...and its 1337! Hehehe...
I have to admit that the older I get the more I like all those lightweight apps.

fuscia · 2008-11-05 05:44:04

Ranguvar wrote:

Gnome seems scared to death of offering choice...

i've seen a few comments comparing the gconf-editor to the windows registery. i've never been able to make any sense of how either was set up. i think kde4 is going in the direction of less choice, which is sad to see.

Murray_B · 2008-11-05 06:51:58

chilebiker wrote:

I have to admit that the older I get the more I like all those lightweight apps.

Yes, it is the same here. One of the biggest reason not to take a really lightweight WM is my girlfriend,
which should be able to use my computer, too ;-) Something like KDE, Gnome or XFCE is so much
windows-like that she (and other visitors) could use it easily. Don't know if something like openbox
would be acceptable for them... But maybe I don't care about it in the future.

Xiong Chiamiov · 2008-11-05 07:35:10

I want two very simple things:
1. customizability
2. organization

I used to be a KDE user until 4, which doesn't allow me to have an easily adjustable transparent panel or have a right-click on the desktop open my applications menu. I really like the KDE4 apps, though, and having both 3.5 and 4 installed lead to too many problems, so I left 3.5 behind.

I tried fluxbox for a bit, since it is (afaik) the only way to have window tabbing other than compiz. There are many who consider window tabs to be a poor replacement for application tabs, but they don't understand how much I like to separate things. For instance, I rarely have more than 5 tabs open in a firefox window; that way, I can easily change tabs without having to look too much for what I want. While using compiz, I would regularly tab related windows together to conserve screen space. For instance, I'd have one window with my email, the issue tracker main page, issues assigned to me, and the issue I was currently working on, and another window with all the pages I was testing locally. The only other thing I'd have on that desktop would be my editor, so I could easily alt+tab between komodo and firefox, and win+z between my firefox windows.

I tried out awesome a few weeks ago, and I must say I was very excited. I've had to adjust my work flow a bit, but it's very powerful, and the ability to see all of my windows at one time is extremely helpful. And, it's very configurable, although I haven't had the time to quite figure it all out yet.

Zeist · 2008-11-05 08:21:40

smakked wrote:

Install and use is they way it should be in this day and age, after all we are not computing in the 80's no more.

Umm... didn't both Microsoft and Apple OS:es more or less work that way in the 80's? Heck, don't they still more or less work that way and don't really allow you to change much.

I prefer being able to change everything over not having to configure anything. This since I like to have an environment that is perfect for me and my purposes. I do not just accept little annoyances in how something works, I want do something about them. I find that making your computer feel just right and like an extension of your mind is quite rewarding... and being able to do so is the essence of Linux since being able to change things you don't like is the core of open source.

nirvanix · 2008-11-05 15:27:02

Xiong Chiamiov wrote:

I want two very simple things:
1. customizability
2. organization
I used to be a KDE user until 4, which doesn't allow me to have an easily adjustable transparent panel or have a right-click on the desktop open my applications menu. I really like the KDE4 apps, though, and having both 3.5 and 4 installed lead to too many problems, so I left 3.5 behind.
I tried fluxbox for a bit, since it is (afaik) the only way to have window tabbing other than compiz. There are many who consider window tabs to be a poor replacement for application tabs, but they don't understand how much I like to separate things. For instance, I rarely have more than 5 tabs open in a firefox window; that way, I can easily change tabs without having to look too much for what I want. While using compiz, I would regularly tab related windows together to conserve screen space. For instance, I'd have one window with my email, the issue tracker main page, issues assigned to me, and the issue I was currently working on, and another window with all the pages I was testing locally. The only other thing I'd have on that desktop would be my editor, so I could easily alt+tab between komodo and firefox, and win+z between my firefox windows.
I tried out awesome a few weeks ago, and I must say I was very excited. I've had to adjust my work flow a bit, but it's very powerful, and the ability to see all of my windows at one time is extremely helpful. And, it's very configurable, although I haven't had the time to quite figure it all out yet.

Hi Xiong, if you install the "Glassified" theme for KDE4, it gives you the transparent panel - that's what I'm using. KDE 4 will get better over time, I just hope that they allow lots of configurability.

fuscia · 2008-11-05 16:35:12

nirvanix wrote:

KDE 4 will get better over time, I just hope that they allow lots of configurability.

with 4, kde seems to have taken a big step in the direction of being less configurable. they also seem to have become more interested in look and less interested in function. it's almost as if kcontrol died and left everything in his will to superkaramba.

nirvanix · 2008-11-05 23:39:34

fuscia wrote:

nirvanix wrote:
KDE 4 will get better over time, I just hope that they allow lots of configurability.
with 4, kde seems to have taken a big step in the direction of being less configurable. they also seem to have become more interested in look and less interested in function. it's almost as if kcontrol died and left everything in his will to superkaramba.

I agree, we just have to nag at them more to make it more configurable.

iBertus · 2008-11-05 23:45:40

I've been using GNOME because of habit and also because I've never liked the way KDE was developed. I tried awesome and fluxbox, but I always come back to GNOME for it's associated apps (evolution, evince, and even nautilus). Of course, I do find compiz much better than metacity.

Xiong Chiamiov · 2008-11-06 00:44:49

nirvanix wrote:

Hi Xiong, if you install the "Glassified" theme for KDE4, it gives you the transparent panel - that's what I'm using. KDE 4 will get better over time, I just hope that they allow lots of configurability.

Yes, I have used that. However, it does not allow complete transparency, nor can I change the color or the amount of translucency without creating a new image, which I will not do.

nirvanix wrote:

I agree, we just have to nag at them more to make it more configurable.

It seems to me that none of the KDE devs have ever read Machiavelli. If you give people something they didn't have before, they'll love you, but *never* take something away they're used to, or they'll throw a hissy fit - one of the reasons the government keeps getting larger.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-11-04 14:23:35

What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#2 2008-11-04 14:54:12

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#3 2008-11-04 14:57:24

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#4 2008-11-04 15:10:24

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#5 2008-11-04 19:15:27

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#6 2008-11-04 19:22:20

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#7 2008-11-04 19:42:45

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#8 2008-11-04 19:42:58

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#9 2008-11-04 20:05:10

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#10 2008-11-04 20:06:57

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#11 2008-11-04 20:29:39

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#12 2008-11-04 22:36:12

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#13 2008-11-04 23:18:10

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#14 2008-11-04 23:33:49

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#15 2008-11-05 05:44:04

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#16 2008-11-05 06:51:58

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#17 2008-11-05 07:35:10

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#18 2008-11-05 08:21:40

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#19 2008-11-05 15:27:02

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#20 2008-11-05 16:35:12

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#21 2008-11-05 23:39:34

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#22 2008-11-05 23:45:40

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

#23 2008-11-06 00:44:49

Re: What is important if you choose a windowmanager/DE?

Board footer