November 13th, 2001, 05:07 PM
which windowmanager ??
As a long time windowmaker user and my current switch to the gnome/sawfish combination (this evenening actually) I was wondering what windowmanager you use.
Windowmaker ruled bigtime in it's stability and speed, but actually kinda looked like $#@% and sawfish is really fast, I didn't expect it actually and until now gnome seems to be quite stable (Unlike the slow kde) and it also looks pretty nice. I still have a lot to get used to , like missing the ALT #number combination to switch workspaces and all, I'll get used to it
So, the question, which windowmanager do you use and why ??
Marc van Duivenvoorde
November 13th, 2001, 05:24 PM
I use KDE because it's stable.
November 14th, 2001, 07:15 AM
I use twm.
Btw: this would have been a nice poll. Why haven't you started one?
November 15th, 2001, 12:02 AM
I used KDE up until a little while and now I use TWM because I only use the box as a router.
KDE is very slow and runs slower than windows98 on my machine. But if you are a newbie its the way to go
November 15th, 2001, 06:38 PM
very nice lot of weight to it but not a problem with the thunderbird
November 15th, 2001, 08:04 PM
If you only use the box as a router, why don't you just forget the gui altogether and boot to a console? All my linux boxes boot to a console first. You'd be a fool not to boot your servers to a console, I mean, how often do you actually interact with them beyond an ocassional ssh/rsync/scp session?
There's a lot of times when I don't start x for hours on even my workstations, and having the gui boot each time annoys me.
November 15th, 2001, 11:57 PM
Re: Re: Kde
Because I don't want to????
November 16th, 2001, 08:00 AM
Re: Re: Re: Kde
But what is the point of running any kind of UI on a router? You don't actually work on it (except via SSH etc., of course), do you?
November 16th, 2001, 09:05 AM
Re: Re: Re: Kde
Fair enough. It's just kind of a waste of memory / processor clicks. It's definitely better to use a super lightweight WM like twm than the heavier ones.
By the way, I use KDE when I use a desktop. I just think it's more useable than gnome. The newest koffice rocks, and I like the keyboard shortcuts in KDE better than gnome.
I just feel more productive in KDE, though gnome is prettier.
November 16th, 2001, 04:44 PM
gnome is productive I have to opposite the kde is more guess it depends on how the person produces
I set up the desktop for fast access to everything monitors whatever its
just great and with the enlightenment blend adds even more
does kde have eterm?
November 16th, 2001, 04:56 PM
I've never used gnome, but I think the kde equivalent to that eterm is the Konsole (just great, best kde program there is!). You can use most stuff "cross-window-manager" anyway.
November 16th, 2001, 05:30 PM
I just brought up eterm cause for myself it makes it easy and fast using console
November 17th, 2001, 09:19 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kde
Actually, why even use a standard distro for a router? Something like Smoothwall would work much better IMNSHO.
Yeah, KDE is slower than Win98 on most systems, sadly. But I would argue KDE is less geared towards the newbie than GNOME. After all, you have to know enough to WANT KDE on most distros. I've used both, but I always end back with KDE.
Is it just me or is it cold in here?
November 18th, 2001, 02:50 PM
Because when you install a minimal standard system you have more control on what you want to do with the machine...right now I have mandrake single network firewall running because our company maybe want to use it as a replacement for nt/proxy for some of our clients, but as a firewall it's nice but not what I want. I do not have the control over the system the way I would like to have.....better get my cable (pppoe) running with freebsd and use that as a router with natd and ipfilter.
btw, I couldn't get the cable running with Suse 7.2, which actually is my favo linux distro, a strong second is slackware, but for heavy duty servers and / or internet connected machines I almost only use freebsd, I don't exactly know why but somehow it seems to run faster, more stable and secure than linux boxes.
November 18th, 2001, 09:11 PM
1. Amen to FreeBSD. It's not your imagination. Just browse the uptime reports at NetCraft
2. Blackbox, Blackbox, Blackbox.
It's a perfect GUI to run on a server (again, only run it when you need it...). On a reasonably fast Pentium III, I guarantee you will get Blackbox to start up in almost the same time as it takes to start up a bare X session ("xinit"). In other words, it's almost a zero impact window manager.
And, on top of that, it looks darn cool. It uses only vectors and gradients, no bitmap rendering, but the range of themes you can get out of it are stunning. The menus are quick, and smooth-feeling. The only drawback is that all menu configuration is done by editing text files, but then again, maybe that's not a drawback...