[TAG] One for Ben
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at baylink.com
Tue Jul 13 22:03:39 MSD 2004
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:25:19PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > dislike the standard RedHat install for the same reasons (it's a minor
> > dislike, but that's the reason for it.)
> *sigh*. I agree. I liked it more when RH4 and the subsequent RH5 release
> used Fvwm. They now use Gnome, which is arguably better IMO, than KDE.
> Qt is horrible.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I consider myself a fairly
stern evaluator of desktop managers, and I *greatly* prefer KDE to
And lets be clear: KDE and GNOME are entire desktop environments;
comparing them to window managers is apples and oranges.
> > IceWM is small, fast, and lacks nothing in features that I want from a
> > WM. From Thomas' previous rantings :), I gather that FVWM is much the
> > same sort of thing. It's like having a spoon that you bought for a
> Kind of. But there are a _lot_ of things Fvwm does that IceWM does not,
> and while I am not going to outline the individual merits of each, you
> cannot, for instance, in IceWM do event actions. And while I have used
> IceWm, it just doesn't have..., well, it lacks *something*. :)
And, of course, there are an order of magnitude more things that K and
G do that neither of those window managers do.
> Perhaps another addition that you might appreciate Ben is the fact that
> you can script commands to Fvwm, using the underlying $SHELL. There is
> even a full set of perl-bindings . The power that this gives, to
> allow complex things to be done simply, is quite amazing. Not only that
> but Fvwm has its own internal widget set (FvwmScript) so that you can
> define all kinds of things.
KDE DCOP scripting?
> /me comes down from his high horse.
Ah; a little good olde-fashion flamage. :-)
> But it really does just depend. I ask of nothing visual from my WM in
> terms of eye candy. Ick. The only thing I permit myself is xteddy. After
> all, a WM is just there to provide a means of being able to launch lots
> of rxvts. :)
I'm Mr. Command Line (Neal Stephenson is my patron saint), but that's
More Catholic Than The Pope, guy.
> > quarter; no matter *how* you improve the thing, it's _still_ going to
> > be a spoon, and the functionality of it will never be worth much more
> > than that price. Yeah, you could theoretically make it out of gold and
> That's where I diagree. The environment you work in is what you make it.
> And since Fvwm is free, the amount of things I can do with it, and the
> extendability of it is immense. I joke not. There are over 1000 styles
> in all to Fvwm. You can configure the minutest.
But it's still a window manager.
This is akin to Dick Wolf's argument, quoted on ATC last night, that
L&O is a *brand*, while CSI is a *franchise*: the L&O's are all
> > attach it to a gadget that will feed the baby, wipe up the spills, and
> > go to the store to buy the products to replace the ones it used up...
> > but it's neither a spoon any longer, nor is it nearly as useful as a
> > spoon is if you move away from the home/baby/store metaphor.
> Given that all of this is contained within Fvwm, the need to *add on*
> any features are irrelevant. It's ironic to think that despite all I
> have said, given my needs, I could quite easily go back to using TWM
> again.... 
fvwm will feed the baby and wipe up the spills?
Ok, but you still need emacs to wash up the bottles.
Jay R. Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
"You know: I'm a fan of photosynthesis as much as the next guy,
but if God merely wanted us to smell the flowers, he wouldn't
have invented a 3GHz microprocessor and a 3D graphics board."
-- Luke Girardi
More information about the TAG