[Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

MoonSwan · 2011-09-03 19:06:28

Hi, I'm not trying to start any flamewars with this thread. With that out of the way, I'll continue.

I have wondered quite often why there are always some (or more than some in this community!) people in every linux community that prefer to run a very minimalist setup. I will find no shortage of people who have i5/i7's with 8GB of Ram and gods know what else in their hardware. However, these same people insist on running a WM that would be just as happy on a 386Mhz with 128MB of ram and using a coloured Hercules, or Trident, video card.* Why do that to your super-fast-with-gobs-of-ram-and-cpu-power-computer ? What is the rationale behind doing so?

I subscribe to the philosophy that unspent/cached ram is wasted resources/ram. I've seen others say the same thing and that question is never really answered or rebutted (no, I'm not asking for a rebuttal, just pointing out my observations). And this begets the next question about other computer habits a lot of people have, such as trying to squeeze out as much power as their system can use but they still use a blank wallpaper and wonder how else they can "optimize" their setup. I don't get it.

As I'm Canadian, I'll issue a blanket apology in advance to any people I've offended and/or people whos goldfish is in emotional torment due to this thread.

*To anyone too young to remember these things, feel free to look them up on Wikipedia, or the like, and see how the old guard used to do computing. You'll be fascinated or horrified; guaranteed either one of those emotional states will show up when you start the reading frenzy on Wikipedia.

Last edited by MoonSwan (2011-09-04 00:42:18)

Durden · 2011-09-03 19:10:41

Some people dislike cluttered UI's, others dislike wasted resourced on special graphical effects. Others have other work on their computer going on and dislike the resources spent needlessly on a UI.

Other people prefer the minimal desktop environments for stability reasons. The heavy effects on the new desktop environments come at a cost of stability sometimes.

There are a myriad of reasons why people like the environments they do. Sometimes it's an environment they have used for 10 years or more and are just comfortable using it, so they stick with it even if their computer can "do more" now.

I have come across some who think it's a penis measuring contest to have the most minimal setup possible. I've seen the reverse also where they load their system up with as much junk as they can.

Choice is a wonderful thing isn't it?

karol · 2011-09-03 19:14:19

Why do you think they can't use all 8 GB RAM? Maybe they're running a bunch of VMs or something?
I can run my apps from the commandline, I don't need a fancy menu. If I want a menu, dmenu (or a variant of it) will do nicely. I simply don't want things getting in my way.
Some people report problems w/ e.g. KDE on every major update - I'm using dwm and it's rock stable (comparing apples to oranges but still 'P ).

Lone_Wolf · 2011-09-03 19:15:47

for me the main question is :
is my computer power used for things I FIND IMPORTANT ?

everyone should answer that question for themselves, but for me the WM/DE is just a tool to manage/start things i find important , like applications.

That translates to the following groundrule :
WM/DE should not get in the way of my applications.

ataraxia · 2011-09-03 19:21:12

- Stability, both of the "does not have bugs" and the "does not change much" definitions.
- Transparency. I know what my environment is doing and how to change it if need be.
- Saving resources for huge apps.

(I'm an openbox / tint2 / gmrun / urxvt user.)

dhave · 2011-09-03 19:22:29

I tend to go through a cycle. Not long after getting a new, more powerful machine, I'll go with KDE or, more recently, Gnome 3, because these otherwise-cumbersome DEs always run better on new hardware. I'll enjoy the bells and whistles for a few weeks or months, then I'll install Openbox or XFCE for old times' sake.

As soon as I log in to Openbox or XFCE, I'll think, man, this thing is responding *instantly*. I really, really like that. Apps launch in a snap. Windows spring open in a nanosecond. A terminal instance shows up even before my finger releases the key.

So, my enjoyment of special effects gives way to the keener pleasure of seeing a powerful computer do my bidding in the blink of an eye. I stick with a lighter DE or WM until the next time I upgrade my hardware. Then, once again, I'll go and check out what kind of fancy tricks the big boys have come up with.

Last edited by dhave (2011-09-03 19:36:52)

caligo · 2011-09-03 19:41:30

I can think of quite a few reasons for using something minimalist on powerful hardware. Some of the more obvious are:

- Consistency. One might use several computers, some of which are quite powerful and some of which aren't (like a netbook, for example). Having those machines use the same lightweight setup makes all kinds of sense.

- Simplicity. Although editing text files might not seem that straightforward to everyone, to some people it is the simplest and fastest way to configure a system. For someone who knows lua, for example, configuring and tweaking Awesome is probably easier than configuring e.g. Gnome or KDE to their liking. Also, a simpler system is less likely to break and easier to fix.

- Functionality. Many lightweight setups (DWM, Awesome, Subtle, WMFS etc.) use tiling and tagging, functionality not provided by e.g. Gnome and KDE (at least not to nearly the same extent). Openbox has tools such as pipe-menus that are quite flexible and powerful. The lightweight setups often provide solutions that more resource heavy desktop environments don't, and they are often more tweakable.

- RAM not spent running your basic setup means more RAM for other things. The memory footprint of SubtleWM might not be that significant, but if i process a series of huge RAW file in Rawtherapee I'm still going to want a lot of RAM. Not using a resource hungry desktop environment does not imply one does not run any resource heavy programs.

EDIT: Darn, others beat me to some of my points ;-)

Last edited by caligo (2011-09-03 19:42:56)

olive · 2011-09-03 19:43:42

I use a minimalist desktop: icewm. The whole system need only to use a little more than 30Mb (but you need extra RAM to be able to run applications, 128Mb would not be enough for Firefox).

1) I do not like the idea of these environment like Gnome or KDE that try to provide every needed software. I like to choose the software I use myself. I like the (old) unix philosophy: do one thing, do it well.

2) I work a lot with the command line (I usually prefer it to a file manager). Once you know it, it is usually much faster to perform a task than with a GUI. Moreover command lines program are scriptable.

3) Using light applications is faster and more responsive, even on a powerfull computer (but it is true that my computer is not powerfull). The animations and visual effects just purposely slow down what you want to do. If I want to minimize a window, I want it minimized immediately not after an animation.

4) For me these desktop waste not only the resource of my computer but my own resources. There is a lot of thing you can do / click on. That is just a distraction for me. A minimalist window manager let me concentrate on the things I want to. I simply do not like all these visual effects. I want to concentrate on the applications I need with the Desktop/window manager doing the least possible.

bohoomil · 2011-09-03 19:44:42

There are many ways of doing computer related stuff. A typical Mac / Win / Gnome / KDE desktop is only one of them. It's all about choosing the way you wish to go -- just as you choose a jacket against a T-shirt (or neatly combine both into your unique dress style). And the excessive PC resources can always be donated to some noble project. ; )

jasonwryan · 2011-09-03 19:48:40

Because I only want to use, support and encourage lightweight, well engineered software.

Installing bloated crap just encourages people to write more of it...

examon · 2011-09-03 19:52:53

I own ~900eur laptop, which is kinda 'fast' but I still use as much lightweight apps as I can. Why??

-much faster
-stable
-more customizable
-I don't like huge GUI apps
-CLI is just more efficiently
-I can spend my saved resources somewhere else
-elegant (my point of view)

ewaller · 2011-09-03 21:03:44

Moving to Arch Discussion

ethail · 2011-09-03 21:29:12

[trolling] I go minimal just for flamewars' sake. [/trolling]

In the WM/DE world I've used from KDE to awesome going through gnome, lxfce, lxde and openbox. Awesome is the one that made me feel comfortable, that fits me.

In the apps side, however, I'm more selective by functionality and ease of use for me. Sometimes, however, installing something that pulls 300MB+ of deps makes me think twice.

ANOKNUSA · 2011-09-03 21:37:08

First off, let me just say that as an American I find the entire idea of Canada vulgar, blasphemous and inconsiderate of my feelings.

Second, to answer your question: I'm actually getting a new Thinkpad next week with the works: i7 quad-core, high-def monitor with dedicated Nvidia graphics card, mSata 40-gig SSD along with a 750-gig HDD--the only thing in it that's "standard" is the 4 gigs of RAM. And still, I'll be using Awesome with it (though I'll probably try out KDE with it just for curiosity's sake, just like dhave said in his post above). Most of the reasons here have been covered, but I'll chime in anyway:

- Have you ever noticed that with certain apps (e.g. music players, backup programs, bittorrent clients) you actually spend more time monitoring them than interacting with them? It's nice to have all those windows neatly arranged and available at a single key-press, rather than needing to jerk my wrist around every two seconds just to see something.

- Most minimal WMs offer users finer control over their working environment and, since they aren't updated too frequently, usually provide a stable environment that only needs to be configured once in a great while.

- Newer, more powerful hardware + bloated software = wasted money, really. If the only advantage that GNOME or KDE have to offer is making the things I do throughout the day look fancy, then I feel like I've been cheated in a way. Spending $1200 USD on a new laptop which, in a couple of years, won't run KDE any better than my current one does now doesn't seem like a sound investment. Running a light-weight environment on that same hardware will guarantee that it runs faster than what I have now, and will stay that way for years. Really, the definition of "software bloat," in a practical sense, is essentially "Software which over time requires greater resource expenditure to accomplish the same basic tasks of its predecessor," which fits both of the big DEs. I should also point out that I use several KDE apps and enjoy doing so; it's Plasma and KWin that eat up more than their share of resources and bog my system down.

- Frankly, the more control you wish to exercise over your own setup, the less practical the big DEs seem. If I wish to control package management, network utilities, system monitoring, disc burning, and music playing from a terminal--while using a graphical file manager, bittorrent client, feed reader and web browser of my choice, as well and things like GIMP occasionally--then all a DE really ends up providing that I can't get elsewhere is a window decorator and a panel. Of course, in some cases the DE's equivalents of the utilities I mentioned end up getting installed anyway, so they just eat up hard drive space without getting used (we're privileged enough to largely avoid this problem in Arch--thanks, devs!).

Really, it's a matter of personal taste; I largely agree with your view on RAM, although I don't like using anything that simply eats it up for no good reason. I like to reserve RAM for things like web browsing, /tmp and preloading app files.

keenerd · 2011-09-03 22:33:42

A point no one has mentioned yet, probably because it is relatively minor: Small apps have smaller, more understandable code bases and are fairly welcoming of patches. They are much easier to hack on.

MoonSwan · 2011-09-04 00:41:59

Thanks for the opinions! I think ANOKNUSA summed all the relevant points others also contributed. Frankly I think all of this has made me aware of aspects of this subject that I never would of come up with on my own. Once more: Thank all of you

I think keenerd's observation is something that I worked out on my own by using openbox since a year ago. I have zero coding skills but some of the configs in OB (and elsewhere) do allow me to do some minimal coding. Without the simpler config files things like KDE, my previous choice for a DE, it would be impossible for me to even try to understand.

I have to admit that the observation of the WM's being much stabler than the DE's is one point that I sort of knew already but whoever first said it drove that home. I think this topics run its course and I'm glad to see that. I'll try not to open a bigger can of worms next time I post, though.

Edit: I forgot to mention that jasonwryan's post made me laugh while reading it! Well done and I agree with your point (now) entirely. Dang my opinions easy to sway. I wonder if that's good or bad.

Last edited by MoonSwan (2011-09-04 00:46:17)

dhave · 2011-09-04 17:19:51

MoonSwan wrote:

Edit: I forgot to mention that jasonwryan's post made me laugh while reading it! Well done and I agree with your point (now) entirely. Dang my opinions easy to sway. I wonder if that's good or bad.

Good.

No, on second thought, bad.

Inxsible · 2011-09-04 17:42:10

I am quite late to this party, but as proof of Jason's post

I had a P3- 1Ghz 256MB ram laptop -- which I bought back in 2001. When I first installed linux on it (2003), gnome (ubuntu) ran quite well on it. Over time it couldn't so I moved to xfce in hopes of better computing experience. Fantastic for some time. Then that proved to be to heavy eventually.

Long story short, I eventually moved to *box, then tiling with dwm and i3. Felt very comfortable with them and stuck with i3. Then I was planning on buying a thinkpad (i3 processor 6GB RAM) and had already paid for it online, when I found a Core 2 Duo desktop with 4GB RAM for 100 bucks on craigslist. I thought it would do me just fine, so I canceled my thinkpad order and am happy with the $50 US I spent on this desktop. Yes I bargained even though it was only $100 Saved my self $823 USD since I didn't buy the laptop.

since I was comfortable with i3, i stuck to it. Now I use the remaining processing power of the computer to run eclipse and tomcat servers and mysql databases for things that I do. On my 10 year old laptop, I couldn't even imagine running eclipse and tomcat servers.

MoonSwan · 2011-09-04 17:50:20

Wow very cool Inxsible! Yes I can see your point very well. I've been considering using a tiling wm on my netbook but I'm easily overwhelmed by the simple fact that whenever I load one up, and when I get to the desktop, I can't figure out how to use the dang thing! I tried ScrotWM for example, and I can get to having it load but then what do I do? I tried to read its man page too but it's tough going.

I'll happily take advice on this issue (probably best to start a new thread). My only solution has been to try Pytyler (spelling?) from BurntSushi but I'm not sure that that is much of a solution.

Inxsible · 2011-09-04 17:58:32

MoonSwan wrote:

but I'm easily overwhelmed by the simple fact that whenever I load one up, and when I get to the desktop, I can't figure out how to use the dang thing!

HAHA !! Been there done that !

When I first started awesome, I couldn't figure out how the hell to do anything, so I went to another tty logged in changed xinitrc to load openbox (which was what I was using at the time) and never tried awesome after that. Keep at it, eventually you will find something that you like and is simple enough.

I would say before starting one up, have a look at its default config file to see if anything makes sense to you. For awesome or xmonad, things might be difficult if you don't have any clue about lua or haskell. Start with some txt based configuration tiler. i3, dwm or any of the others. at least see how you can start a terminal for eg. Once you can get the terminal up and running, you can do pretty much anything.

pogeymanz · 2011-09-04 21:06:42

For me, personally, it's the speed and not the RAM that limits me and my choices.

I have a core i3 and 4GB RAM, but KDE still just runs slower than Openbox. I like the added features and shininess of KDE, but I just wont tolerate how long it takes to log me in and even the menu takes a second to appear (even after setting the animations to instant).

Others might just argue that they rather their RAM be used to cache applications rather than their WM.

nicoooo · 2011-09-05 05:58:04

Those 8GBs of RAM are a lot slower than the few megabytes of cache you find on an i5 CPU. So application size (probably) makes a big difference when it comes to performance.

I use ratpoison on my netbook since it pretty much needs to run everything fullscreen. OTOH, I can't run tiling WMs on my desktop; I need some empty space between windows. So I use fvwm without panels or icons or system trays that just get in my way.

Brcher · 2011-09-07 14:21:48

I find I only use a handful of applications: web browser, ssh, compiler, aterm. With i3 wm, I hit alt+enter to get aterm or alt+v for dmenu and then only have to remember the name of the application I want (only part of the name, in the case of dmenu!)

Almost always, the correct bash commands to solve a problem are on google, so I tend to solve my problems faster when using aterm than when looking for buttons in gnome. I guess the distinction here is that as soon as you get a terminal up, there's almost no learning curve moving from one WM/DE to another. The task of a WM/DE, then, is to get out of my way when I'm looking for a terminal (and allow applications that require xorg, like most web browsers). If they made a prettier i3 that ate more resources, I'd probably use it. I usually have compiz running in the background for transparency. But for some reason, the people who write lightweight stuff seem to know better than others that the primary task is to get out of the way. Hooray for that!

TaylanUB · 2011-09-08 18:21:46

I also use minimal hardware as much as I can. Heh.

thatnewyorker · 2011-09-14 17:53:22

I'm actually one of those people you describe. I've got myself an i7 950, GTX 580 and 6gb of 1600Mhz ram yet I run either Openbox or Awesome WM depending on how I'm feeling. It just feels better. I like how simple it all is compared to the Gnome and KDE. Those two have too many services running and doing GNU knows what and in my experience at least, KDE has a service or two that never seems to quite work.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-09-03 19:06:28

[Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#2 2011-09-03 19:10:41

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#3 2011-09-03 19:14:19

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#4 2011-09-03 19:15:47

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#5 2011-09-03 19:21:12

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#6 2011-09-03 19:22:29

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#7 2011-09-03 19:41:30

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#8 2011-09-03 19:43:42

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#9 2011-09-03 19:44:42

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#10 2011-09-03 19:48:40

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#11 2011-09-03 19:52:53

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#12 2011-09-03 21:03:44

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#13 2011-09-03 21:29:12

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#14 2011-09-03 21:37:08

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#15 2011-09-03 22:33:42

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#16 2011-09-04 00:41:59

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#17 2011-09-04 17:19:51

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#18 2011-09-04 17:42:10

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#19 2011-09-04 17:50:20

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#20 2011-09-04 17:58:32

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#21 2011-09-04 21:06:42

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#22 2011-09-05 05:58:04

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#23 2011-09-07 14:21:48

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#24 2011-09-08 18:21:46

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

#25 2011-09-14 17:53:22

Re: [Resolved] Minimal WM environments and modern computing power

Board footer