Do we really need a perfect window manager?

ozar · 2005-06-27 15:40:39

Dusty wrote:

I'm starting to think maybe window management just isn't as important as we think. I get by with XP all right at work, and that's the worst window manager around!
Dusty

You may be right, Dusty - I've begun to wonder if my own constant search for the perfect WM/DE comes from getting bored easily more than anything else. When I find one I really like it's great for a few weeks, then I'm ready for something else. :?

Dusty · 2005-06-27 16:02:19

I split this topic because I knew I'd be taking it waaaaaay off course. ;-)

I think everybody has this same experience. I've used KDE and been comfortable with it, but then I want a change. Now that I'm using Fvwm, I've used everything. If I use it for more than a month, I'll have used everything but Afterstep and WindowMaker for at least a month. None of the window managers seems to suit. Tiling seems quite a bit more intelligent, but the tiling window managers can't handle all types of windowed apps. Those window managers that allow floating windows above tiling ones (WMI and WMII are the only ones I know of) seem to be the most useful. In fact, I'd stick with WMI if it weren't for the fact that Java windows sometimes blank out or refuse to close in it.

I think perhaps the problem is not that 'An adequate (let us not use the word perfect!) window manager does not exist yet', nor is it 'I haven't found an adequate window manager'.

I think the problem, the root of the problem is in the concept of windowing itself. I *know* the console isn't the best tool for all jobs. Even console based apps for a lot of common applications use console based windowing paradigms. Even something as 'simple' as vim allows the view to be split. The text-based web browsers use the full screen. and so on. So console isn't the answer either.

This is the idea I've followed in Ensmer, that windows suck and objects are cool. Since EnsmerMail isn't exactly prime time, I can't say for sure whether a more object based paradigm will work or not. Another advantage of Ensmer is that you can move your view about the objects, rather than having to try to fit all the windows in one screen.

This advantage can be taken to the desktop. I've experimented with setting up windows such that they never overlap, and I move my screen about to see them all. It doesn't seem to work. I don't know why. But I think it is a step in the right direction. I'm considering now that perhaps the mouse cursor should be 'fixed' to the centre of the screen and when you move it, the whole screen moves, a window onto the desktops.

I guess what I'm saying is that our problem is *not* a lack of screen real estate, which various window managers try to solve, and various bigger and bigger monitors or dual-head systems try to solve. The problem is that the windowing paradigm demands that we manage screen real estate at all!

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-06-27 16:13:59

Dusty wrote:

I'm considering now that perhaps the mouse cursor should be 'fixed' to the centre of the screen and when you move it, the whole screen moves, a window onto the desktops.

Just a tad OT... I'd do something like moveing the mouse moves the cursor, but right-click drag will move the viewport - it's an interface alot of people are familiar with

deft · 2005-06-27 16:14:17

I primarily use Fluxbox at the moment, although I've got Arch installs variously contaning PekWM, Flux, Black, KDE, ICE...... I don't tend to get too hooked into any particular one though.

All good

Dusty · 2005-06-27 16:16:26

phrakture wrote:

Just a tad OT... I'd do something like moveing the mouse moves the cursor, but right-click drag will move the viewport - it's an interface alot of people are familiar with

How so is this familiar? Is it a window management function I don't know about? :-D

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-06-27 16:18:53

Well, considering my travels in the "phrak's window manager" space, I can tell you this much:
a simple WM is easy to make. Add in some "standards" compliance and you get alot more code, but nothing complex.

I mean seriously, just messing around, I made a WM to do click-focus, alt+click for move/resize, and bound "Hyper+R" to pop up a lame "run" dialog (just a prompt) - it was one file and probably about 300-400 lines (counting whitespace)

Gullible Jones · 2005-06-27 16:58:12

We don't need a perfect WM; we need (and have) a variety of different WMs. Remember, one of the strengths of an open source OS is configurability...

phrakture · 2005-06-27 17:03:29

Dusty wrote:

phrakture wrote:
Just a tad OT... I'd do something like moveing the mouse moves the cursor, but right-click drag will move the viewport - it's an interface alot of people are familiar with
How so is this familiar? Is it a window management function I don't know about? :-D
Dusty

no, but it's a 3D interface commonality - most video games do it this way

Dusty · 2005-06-27 17:09:10

ok, that would explain why I've missed it. BUT video games are designed to be easy to use, so there is something to be learned from them...

Dusty

grandmouse · 2005-06-27 17:58:46

Some ideas to reduce mousepushing:

-Leftclick rootwindow to show tasks and middleclick to show Programs. Obsoletes taskbars which require screen estate and mousepushing.
With shaped titlebars maximized windows do not cover the rootwindow fully.

-Scrollwheel on border/title moves window to next/previous workspace.

-Rightclick rootwindow warps the mousepointer to the titlebar of the focused window. If the window was offscreen placement is corrected.

-Rightclick border/title warps cursor to titlebar of next window, which is raised and focused. Again bad placement is corrected.

All implemented in wmx. Be warned, wmx is configured by a headerfile. It is fun indeed after some fiddling and recompiling. 8)

sweiss · 2005-06-27 18:00:59

You can't just find a perfect WM. You just need to find the one which comes the closest and try to configure the one thing that bothers you. The problem with FVWM is that you have to start from scratch - there isn't a good default you can start messing with.

Most DEs have an API for them, a development framework. That's a good thing, this way you can tweak your DE/WM. Just take a look at kde-apps.org's "KDE Improvements" section.

rasat · 2005-06-29 05:39:17

Dusty wrote:

I split this topic because I knew I'd be taking it waaaaaay off course. ;-)

I think you missed the point when believing a perfect WM is a ready made package included with everyone's linking and preferences. Such WM is not the Arch Way.

Read more in the original thread:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=13301&start=15

Pechorin · 2005-06-29 07:48:50

Tell me about it... I messed about with right about every WM available, and got back to full blown gnome yesterday. I realized that I can do just about anything with every decent window manager, but that each one lacked at least one important feature or type of behaviour that I need So, I got back to Gnome simply because I used it since 1.0 and it's kind of a tradition...

I also put http://happypenguin.org/ in my bookmark - so that I will do for fun from now on

Arch Linux

#1 2005-06-27 15:40:39

Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#2 2005-06-27 16:02:19

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#3 2005-06-27 16:13:59

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#4 2005-06-27 16:14:17

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#5 2005-06-27 16:16:26

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#6 2005-06-27 16:18:53

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#7 2005-06-27 16:58:12

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#8 2005-06-27 17:03:29

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#9 2005-06-27 17:09:10

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#10 2005-06-27 17:58:46

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#11 2005-06-27 18:00:59

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#12 2005-06-29 05:39:17

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

#13 2005-06-29 07:48:50

Re: Do we really need a perfect window manager?

Board footer