The Linux Desktop (was Re: [PLUG] Ubuntu Dapper Drake Officially Delayed)

[AthlonRob]

Michael M. wrote:
> I'm kinda curious as to why you use a DE at all, given the way you
> describe how you like your set-up.  What's the advantage of using Xfce
> over something simpler like Openbox?:

Well, honestly, I don't *use* a DE so much as have it running in the 
background for the heck of it.  I really only am using the basic window 
manager and a few of the configuration *things* that make life slightly 
easier.

> --no default toolbars/taskbars/panels that you'd need to hide or disable
> --everything keymappable, including a highly configurable menu that can
> be as comprehensive or skimpy as you want
> --as many desktops as you want
> --configurable window auto-arranging policy and configurable window
> manipulation from the keyboard (nudging windows, auto resizing to fill
> open space vertically or horizontally, moving windows to different
> desktops, etc.)

I used OB3 from about a week after it was released until perhaps a year 
ago when I discovered Xfce4.  Before that I used an incredibly stripped 
down KDE.  Before that it was Englightenment.  Before that it was 
Fluxbox.  Before that it was Blackbox.  And before that... it was 
hmmm... what was it before that?

I've found Xfce4 to be *faster* than all of the above.  Smoother.  OB3 
started taking too long to switch desktops when I had ten desktops each 
with ten or more windows on it.  It would literally take a second or two 
for me to flip to a new desktop.  KDE was just getting ugly as stripped 
down as it was.  In Fluxbox, scrolling text in terminals ate CPU time 
like there was no tomorrow... and it was relatively buggy.  Blackbox 
didn't have a good pager available for it.  Enlightenment was full of 
bloated eye candy and ate up RAM like there was no tomorrow.

Things I need but don't regularly see in window managers or desktop 
environments are pagers that not only show me there are windows on other 
desktops, but *WHAT THE HECK THOSE WINDOWS ARE!* and smoothness in 
flipping desktops or other standard things when I have a bunch of 
windows open.  The keybinding issue can be solved in any window manager, 
although it feels easier in Xfce4 than it did in most of the others.

> And beyond Openbox and similar, there are the tiled WMs like wmii and
> ion3, which you might find even more to your liking.  I think wmii is
> pretty cool, except I couldn't really get with the "plan 9" aspect of
> it, which seems to me to add unnecessary complexity.  And as for ion3 --
> well, I don't want to have to learn a scripting language just to control
> my desktop.  PekWM might be better than either of these, if development
> continues.

My windows overlap.  All the time.  How else can you fit ten consoles 
into a 1024x768 screen with an IM window and web browser open, too?

> None of this is to suggest that they must all be right just because they
> spent a lot of money, but you're being awfully dismissive of the work
> that's been done just because they don't happen to be right for you.

*Was* there really a lot of money spent on interface research for 
Windows 95?  I would be surprised if there was.  And I would wager any 
future research done by MS was tainted by the task bar/start button 
ideas they were so intent on keeping.

FWIW, I like the way Apple does things with OS X... I think they *did* 
do their research and came up with some ideas that were different from 
Microsoft's.  I still like my customized Xfce environment better... but 
OS X is definitely something I could live with instead.

Rob