LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Desktop
User Name
Password
Linux - Desktop This forum is for the discussion of all Linux Software used in a desktop context.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-25-2013, 12:18 AM   #1
Ubunoob001
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: New Orleans, LA
Distribution: Mint 16 RC, Elementary OS Luna, Crunchbang
Posts: 166

Rep: Reputation: 16
Smile consistency of configuration and extenability of Window Managers?


So... I have been using linux for a few years (ubuntu, mint, crunchbang,Fedora, Slackware (albeit briefly - i confess). Being a mathematician I suppose, on some level, consistency and structure are often more of a lure than ease or 'candy'. Having used gnome2/3,mate,cinn,K4.8+,E17(briefly) and Openbox, I am curious on the opinion of users here:

Question: while not strictly easiest or most configurable (or the reverse), which WM/DE do you find most consistent, most configurable withing a specified framework/philosophy, and which (you feel) has a potential longevity, or 'forkability' which will allow, if not its reincarnation, at least its transmogrification?


Thanks in advance.

Last edited by Ubunoob001; 02-25-2013 at 12:28 AM.
 
Old 02-25-2013, 08:41 AM   #2
RockDoctor
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Minnesota, US
Distribution: Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 1,242

Rep: Reputation: 252Reputation: 252Reputation: 252
Although I decided to pursue my other major in graduate school, I do have a BS in mathematics, which, I believe, gives me some appreciation for your search for what I would term "elegance" in your WM/DE. I started with GNOME-1.4 with sawfish as the WM, and have moved through many DEs and WMs over the years. No DE/WM stays current forever. Toolkits change, philosophies change, features required to use modern software change. All GPL software is forkable, but I have no desire to fork any of the ancient DEs or WMs I've used over the years. I currently like and use LXDE (Fedora-18, Lubuntu-12.10) and Cinnamon (Mint-14). YMMV (and obviously does, since you're using KDE). Free software is about choice. Choose what works best for you.
 
Old 02-25-2013, 09:37 AM   #3
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,616
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072Reputation: 4072
I think the most "adhering to their philosophy" WMs are the *boxes and some the tiling WMs, those that try to get better over time without feeling the need to change things just for change's sake. May be you can add Enlightenment and XFCE to the mix.
 
Old 02-25-2013, 09:35 PM   #4
frankbell
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Mageia, Mint
Posts: 8,098

Rep: Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537Reputation: 1537
For constancy over time, I agree with TobiSGD about the "boxes."

My own favorite is Fluxbox. I got an update to it the other day. It just kept on keeping on.

It just does what it does and does it very well, helping me get things done without getting in my way.
 
Old 02-26-2013, 04:20 AM   #5
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Wallowing in a pit of despair.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,347
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 395Reputation: 395Reputation: 395Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubunoob001 View Post
which WM/DE do you find most consistent, most configurable withing a specified framework
Consistent? I am not sure how consistency relates to GUIs, but every one does follow a philosophy, which is why they are on different paths of development.

Most configurable? Openbox can be configured any way one wants to configure it. As long as one possesses the requisite knowledge. I have not used Awesome, but it also has a reputation for tremendous flexibility of configuration.

DEs by nature have a restricted range of customisation. What you refer to as a framework. Most, but not all, WMs have a framework of freedom in that regards.
 
Old 02-26-2013, 02:52 PM   #6
Ubunoob001
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: New Orleans, LA
Distribution: Mint 16 RC, Elementary OS Luna, Crunchbang
Posts: 166

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
Consistent? I am not sure how consistency relates to GUIs, but every one does follow a philosophy, which is why they are on different paths of development.

Most configurable? Openbox can be configured any way one wants to configure it. As long as one possesses the requisite knowledge. I have not used Awesome, but it also has a reputation for tremendous flexibility of configuration.

DEs by nature have a restricted range of customization. What you refer to as a framework. Most, but not all, WMs have a framework of freedom in that regards.
For example, the ArchWiki states that
Quote:
Note: The syntax of awesome configuration changes regularly, so you will likely have to modify any file you download.
. This is something that for me would be an example of negative-consistency; whereas while XMonad might adhere to a strict philosophy, configurations via Haskell might be a skill rather lost if the project where to be discontinued.(This is not to imply that learning Haskell is a skill not worth having). Lets compare this to the admittedly unifying concept in Enlightenment: speed:
Quote:
Unfortunately, e17 stores them [config files ] in a binary form so the only way to configure the manager is to use a dedicated tool, either command-line or GUI-based.
. While for me, unification and singular focus is great, the lack of a portable skill,standardized text configuration is something that seems a bit of an issue from the standpoint of elegance.
So, I suppose what I seek is a project which, if not long-lived itself, is likely to be forked in a way which maintains some central focus or philosophy, ie the Black->Flux/Open seems to be a smart model therein.
 
Old 02-26-2013, 05:31 PM   #7
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Wallowing in a pit of despair.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,347
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 395Reputation: 395Reputation: 395Reputation: 395
Ah, I see.
I cannot make a blanket statement, because there many WMs, but the "boxes" are set up by creating a start-up file and adding the things one wants. Other changes and customisation of items like panels can be done by making changes to configuration files. One does not need to learn a programming language.

The boxes are all based on the original Blackbox. The evolutionary path has resulted in a family of WMs (the issue of forks you mentioned) that are consistent in design and configuration. So no radical changes that require learning a new way to do things.

I cannot shed any light on Enlightenment and its binary files, because I have never used it.
 
Old 02-28-2013, 09:41 AM   #8
Drakevr
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2013
Location: Greece
Distribution: Slackware64, openBSD
Posts: 27

Rep: Reputation: 6
Enlightenment stores its configuration in EET database format (binary) but on every installation you have the eet tool with which you can decompile the database to plain text so that you can change it with your $EDITOR if you so wish (instead of using GUIs and whatnot).
 
Old 02-28-2013, 12:21 PM   #9
DavidMcCann
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Salix
Posts: 3,189

Rep: Reputation: 813Reputation: 813Reputation: 813Reputation: 813Reputation: 813Reputation: 813Reputation: 813
Thanks for that information about Enlightenment. I'd always considered binary format files un-Unix and a Bad Thing. I wonder if there's any way of getting into Gnome's dconf?
 
Old 02-28-2013, 01:00 PM   #10
Drakevr
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2013
Location: Greece
Distribution: Slackware64, openBSD
Posts: 27

Rep: Reputation: 6
I do too, however the EFL do not only target the desktop or servers but also embedded systems where speed is a big requirement (thus the need for binaries).
 
  


Reply

Tags
configuration, de, desktop environment, window manager, wm


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Window Managers vs Window Shell Environments DJOtaku Linux - General 7 08-09-2005 01:43 PM
window managers - where to get them? kriidler Linux - Newbie 11 05-25-2005 03:37 PM
Other window managers... elitecodex Mandriva 18 06-30-2004 11:48 PM
Window Managers vs. Desktop Managers mikeshn Linux - General 4 02-11-2004 12:31 PM
Window Managers finegan Linux - Software 7 08-01-2002 07:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration