the perfect wm

cactus · 2005-03-24 22:12:39

El Guapo wrote:

I was looking around for Litestep and came across this. I downloaded it on my Windows box and it isn't too bad at all. I just started with it so I don't know the in's and out's but so far so good. Here is the link if you are still interested:
http://beyondconvention.net/ohussain/lsinstaller/

I had a pretty cool theme for it. Back when I still used winderz, that is what I used.
I had a nice screenshot of the modified theme I used, but it is lost somewhere in the annals of time. I still have the theme if you are interested..

phrakture · 2005-03-25 15:58:30

I found an old version of litestep which was OSS... I think the last known version was like 2.7, and you can download the source for 2.4
However, it's pure win32 with no abstraction... so it doesn't help when talking about X... but it's still a nice "read"

jellywerker · 2005-04-04 01:57:50

I always like the easy python scripting of kahaika (sp?) too bad the project stalled.

phrakture · 2005-04-04 14:54:13

jellywerker wrote:

I always like the easy python scripting of kahaika (sp?) too bad the project stalled.

yeah, one of the devs of that worked on something called spookwm, which died because he decided c/c++ wasn't extensible enough to do what he wanted.... so now he's writing something in python...

he's the one who wrote tinywm, which I posted in another thread... it's a 53 line WM... and it's functional

miqorz · 2005-04-04 17:03:27

I'm in love with Openbox3.

It has the nicest themes around and has pipe-menus for whatever language you want.

It's very fast and not based on Blackbox. It's great.

jellywerker · 2005-04-04 18:55:14

hehe, tinywm might make a good code base!

phrakture · 2005-04-04 18:56:46

jellywerker wrote:

hehe, tinywm might make a good code base!

heh, there's not enough code to make it a "base" - problem with it is is that it's not configurable... and there's really not much to work with... it binds mouse clicks and F1, that's it...

droog · 2005-04-05 16:47:36

I'm suprised no one has mentioned fvwm, its totally modular. there are modules for everything, you can make it act like any other wm and its easy to write scripts for. Maybe you should have a look at their code for some ideas.

phrakture · 2005-04-05 17:07:44

yeah fvwm is very cool and has a similar philosophy as to what I'd like - I don't, however, like the way the modularity interacts and how alot of the configuration isn't modular... fvwm is still pretty cool though

SavageMessiah · 2005-04-08 16:48:28

Sorry if someone already posted this, I didn't read the whole thing, but litestep isn't dead. In fact it's starting to revive itself. Litestep.net lost its server a while back and will eventually be returning. lmcuts is starting to work on litestep again, and there's a decent community popping up at www.ls-universe.info.

phrakture · 2005-04-19 04:32:00

Ok, so I've discovered a few tidbits about litestep (basically, what I'm using as an idea base) - what makes litestep so cool is not really that it's modular and all that - but that they basically created a scripting language...

my syntax may be off for the litestep part, but to illustrate:

litestep pseudo-rc script

LoadModule xPopup
*Popup !New !MyPopup
... some menu based stuff goes here...
*Popup ~New

python pseudo-code

import xpopup
p=popup("MyPopup")
p.add(...same menu stuff...)

so that's the key to it... now it's "clicked" in my head...

so the advanced event handling stuff I have been working on isn't needed... the "bang" commands simply accept a list of params as strings... which is easy...
hmmm... ok this opens up alot of new stuff...

shadowhand · 2005-04-19 08:20:39

You put in a way that made a lot of sense. I never really thought of the config files as using a scripting language, but I guess it is.

I hope you get this worked, it would be extremely sweet to have something like Litestep on Linux.

phrakture · 2005-04-19 14:52:48

So ok, now I'd pose this question:
Would it make sense to any litestep users to replace the normal rc syntax with, say python/lua/ruby? It makes sense from a technical perspective (no parser to write).

Dusty · 2005-04-19 16:50:30

We're all coders here, Phrakture. ;-)

Keep in mind that a lot of wms already use script syntax (meaning you gotta be careful not to reinvent the tire). Also, I believe the litestep syntax is based on nextStep or something like that, meaning it is some kind of standard.

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-04-19 17:13:04

Maybe I'll start with a litestep parser... try to emulate a given litestep theme in linux, then extend from there... *shrug*

shadowhand · 2005-04-19 18:31:56

phrakture wrote:

Maybe I'll start with a litestep parser... try to emulate a given litestep theme in linux, then extend from there... *shrug*

You mean... Writing a Litestep compatable WM for Linux?! :shock: You're my new hero. I would love to be able to use LS themes on Linux.... Axios!

phrakture · 2005-04-19 18:42:29

shadowhand wrote:

phrakture wrote:
Maybe I'll start with a litestep parser... try to emulate a given litestep theme in linux, then extend from there... *shrug*
You mean... Writing a Litestep compatable WM for Linux?! :shock: You're my new hero. I would love to be able to use LS themes on Linux.... Axios!

well, it'd be a start - the problem is all the modules would have to be "ported" (rewritten)... so, I could implement the parser pretty easy... but then the modules would be a hassle...

Anyway, my focus isn't really on litestep per se, it's just that I'm using it as an idea-base (can't really use it as a code-base, it's riddled with windows api calls... I have other things for code references...). If I went with the "duplicate, then extend" philosophy, I could start shooting for a compatible config system.... I still have to give it *some* thought... but I try not to make a big freaking huge design right up front.

Still, this will probably take a while, so don't hold your breath.... I'm mainly doing it as a hobby (and to get a better grasp on the inner workings of WM coding)

phrakture · 2005-05-10 19:38:13

2 things:
a) I lost some prelim code for what I was doing - but it's all up here *taps head* (when restoring my system after my hacking fiasco, busybox kludged some stuff - note: do not move dirs with busybox's mv command, it tries to move "." and ".." as well, and fails due to recursion, but it still removes the files from the source point first.... sigh)

b) fvwm uses litestep "syntax" - I can honestly say that I've never used fvwm, but I'm going to look at it. It appears that fvwm is very very close to litstep... so for all those interested in litestep+linux, take a look at fvwm...

Legout · 2005-05-11 07:52:42

I looked at this thread today and i have to say that i like your ideas to creat a perfect wm. Especially the modular structure that you think about.

But all the time i read this, i thought something like that:" hmmm sounds like FVWM,....!!!";)

You know what i mean? Fvwm is in my eyes he perfect wm for Linux. There are modules, there´s fvwm scripting and there´s a cool community in some nice forums. So you could build a wm that behaves and looks exactly the way you want it.

But keep on rocking. Your ideas are creat. And i think your wm will be creat too. All i wanna say is, have a look at FVMW.

shadowhand · 2005-05-11 08:00:40

The problem with FVWM is that you have to hand build each part of the interface. Litestep just loads modules for new parts of the interface, but uses a theme across the whole thing that doesn't need to be changed every time the modules change.

FVWM style themes are good, but some of the stuff that is done by hand should be automated.

droog · 2005-05-11 21:11:26

droog wrote:

I'm suprised no one has mentioned fvwm, its totally modular. there are modules for everything, you can make it act like any other wm and its easy to write scripts for. Maybe you should have a look at their code for some ideas.

I thought the same thing when i read this thread awhile ago, but phrakture has alot of his own ideas and like shadowhand said, loading prebuilt modules will save alot of time, be alot faster to set up and get the way you want it. I'm sure alot of us fvwm junkies will be using it. i know i will.

eyolf · 2006-02-21 11:28:17

I just stumbled upon this thread, and it piqued my interest. How is the project going? When can i do

pacman -S phrakwm

:-)

Snowman · 2006-02-21 19:00:48

AFAIK, the project is dead. Phrakture lost interest in it.

phrakture · 2006-03-11 22:12:08

Meh, not really lost interest, just lost time - I'm still interested in this whole thing, but maybe not as a litestep compatible WM, but in general - I'm always interested in WM stuff in general.

mackstann · 2007-03-20 05:34:11

Interesting thread.. I'm digging it up from the dead. Hope nobody minds a non-Arch user. I'm the guy that wrote tinywm (and spookwm, and worked on kahakai). So nowadays I've been working on a wm in Python and it is going a lot better than Spook did. It's not exactly ready to replace Gnome, but key/mouse bindings are reasonably robust and viewports are working, even with full EWMH compliance (I think)!

There are some ugly hacks in the code just because I have been in a flurry of coding lately, so don't mind the mess if you decide to look. (there's still cool stuff in there too)

phrakture wrote:

It would be priority based so that you can have multiple modules assign to the same event, and fire off in a prioritized order (perhaps with the ability to "cancel" others down the chain, if needed).

This has been one of my big unsolved problems. It's kind of a messy situation, trying to figure out how to fire event handlers in a specific (necessary) order, without the event handlers either 1. needing to know about each other, or 2. some other piece of code knowing about every event handler and what order they need to be in to not break things. At that point you almost need some sort of intelligent dependency resolution system, and that just seems overly complicated. I think I may have a new idea now actually... it's funny how writing about your problems can result in coming up with new ideas.

Arch Linux

#51 2005-03-24 22:12:39

Re: the perfect wm

#52 2005-03-25 15:58:30

Re: the perfect wm

#53 2005-04-04 01:57:50

Re: the perfect wm

#54 2005-04-04 14:54:13

Re: the perfect wm

#55 2005-04-04 17:03:27

Re: the perfect wm

#56 2005-04-04 18:55:14

Re: the perfect wm

#57 2005-04-04 18:56:46

Re: the perfect wm

#58 2005-04-05 16:47:36

Re: the perfect wm

#59 2005-04-05 17:07:44

Re: the perfect wm

#60 2005-04-08 16:48:28

Re: the perfect wm

#61 2005-04-19 04:32:00

Re: the perfect wm

#62 2005-04-19 08:20:39

Re: the perfect wm

#63 2005-04-19 14:52:48

Re: the perfect wm

#64 2005-04-19 16:50:30

Re: the perfect wm

#65 2005-04-19 17:13:04

Re: the perfect wm

#66 2005-04-19 18:31:56

Re: the perfect wm

#67 2005-04-19 18:42:29

Re: the perfect wm

#68 2005-05-10 19:38:13

Re: the perfect wm

#69 2005-05-11 07:52:42

Re: the perfect wm

#70 2005-05-11 08:00:40

Re: the perfect wm

#71 2005-05-11 21:11:26

Re: the perfect wm

#72 2006-02-21 11:28:17

Re: the perfect wm

#73 2006-02-21 19:00:48

Re: the perfect wm

#74 2006-03-11 22:12:08

Re: the perfect wm

#75 2007-03-20 05:34:11

Re: the perfect wm

Board footer