RE: [SLE] Windowmaker, KDE or something else?
-----Original Message----- From: lee [mailto:lnx@alltel.net] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 8:16 PM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Windowmaker, KDE or something else?
BlackBox is the way to go !! easiest one to use, easy on [...] Lee
On Monday 16 September 2002 15:10, Keith Winston wrote:
On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 13:16, Alex Daniloff wrote:
Hello SuSE folkz, In our eng.dept. we're looking to standardize on a single uniform Linux graphical environment.
KDE is a very good environment but it uses a lot of memory and processor power. [...] I really like Icewm. It is on the SuSE CDs. Very fast, very low resources, very stable, no extra frills like in KDE or GNOME. Of course, many people like the frills.
What, exactly, do people consider to be "frills" and unnecessary fluff in a desktop environment? (Yes, I know I can expect a different answer from every person who responds...) I like something with a bit more visual detail than just flat lines and flat color (or gray) for the window frames and toolbars and buttons, because the RIGHT kind of graphic doodads can make the interface easier to use. A nice, smooth color blend in the title-bar is all the decoration I need. I don't need "skins" and themes. In fact, I find it visually annoying if my windows attempt to look like they're made of cheap wood panelling, or like they are on fire or... Some metallic and jewel-tone looks are kinda attractive, but if they're going to slow down the operation, then I don't need 'em I don't need animation on open and close, and I never bother to activate system sounds, except for maybe an error beep. I do need a locking screen-saver. (Yeah, I know I should remember to explicitly lock the desktop each time I walk away, but... I don't always... ok? :-) There are probably other aspects of the desktop experience that I would never miss, if they went away, and aspects that would make me cry like a baby if I couldn't have them, but I can't imagine what they are, just now. What do KDE or GNOME do that ICEWM doesn't do? Is the entire difference... just frills? Or, is there some solid value to be found in all that bloat? (I'm running KDE 3-point-something right now, but if I can run something leaner and still have most K-apps work properly, then I'd consider switching. I really missed all those snazzy Gnome screen-savers when I switched to KDE last year, but I don't recall feeling deprived in any other department.) How much of the difference between Ice and Blackbox is frills? Is there a web site somewhere that gives a good, side-by-side comparison of window managers and desktop environments? Finally, to complete my flurry of questions: Why WOULD K-apps start more slowly in Ice or Blackbox? I figure, either they're going to run or they are not. If they're going to run, then why would they need/want to take extra time about it? Regards, /kevin
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:52:42 -0400 KMcLauchlan@chrysalis-its.com wrote:
Finally, to complete my flurry of questions: Why WOULD K-apps start more slowly in Ice or Blackbox? I figure, either they're going to run or they are not. If they're going to run, then why would they need/want to take extra time about it?
Because KDE starts up a bunch of stuff in the background, so you can run the KDE app. That's the "benefit" and the "problem" with KDE, the apps need a bunch of servers running. When they start, and find KDE is not running, it takes them awhile to figure out what to do. Just run ps auxww as root before and after trying to start a kde app, you'll see. I like gtk apps, start up fast and low on resources. By the way, I like fvwm2. I have everything turned off, except a nice vertical pager with 8 desktops, off to the right-hand-top of my screen. I hardly have any trouble with it. -- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 11:34, zentara wrote:
Because KDE starts up a bunch of stuff in the background, so you can run the KDE app. That's the "benefit" and the "problem" with KDE, the apps need a bunch of servers running. When they start, and find KDE is not running, it takes them awhile to figure out what to do. Just run ps auxww as root before and after trying to start a kde app, you'll see.
Exactly right. Launching KDE apps under Ice or other window manager forces the start of tons of KDE background processes, kind of defeating the purpose of running a small WM, unless you only use KDE apps once in a while.
I like gtk apps, start up fast and low on resources.
Most of my favorite apps are also GTK, but I have found nothing that comes close to the speed and power of Konqueror as a file manager. In fact, even when I'm running KDE, the only KDE apps I use are Konqueror and Konsole. Maybe Nautilus is faster in Gnome2, but it is a dog in 1.4. I've been using xftree as a file manager in Icewm, which is part of the XFCE package. It is OK, but since I push a lot of bits around on an average day, I miss Konq. Oh well. Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Once in a moment, it all comes to you As soon as you get it, you want something new Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
On 17 Sep 2002 13:40:50 -0400
Keith Winston
Most of my favorite apps are also GTK, but I have found nothing that comes close to the speed and power of Konqueror as a file manager.
I'm an "mc" guy. I usually have 10 mc's going in different xterms. -- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation
In a previous message, Keith Winston wrote:
I have found nothing that comes close to the speed and power of Konqueror as a file manager.
Try ROX (http://rox.sourceforge.net/) for a fast, lightweight, efficient file manager. You can use the ROX filemanager with or without the full ROX desktop. John -- John Pettigrew XL Cambridge - contract and freelance editing Biology specialist Molecular biology, genetics, biotechnology john@xl-cambridge.com http://www.xl-cambridge.com/ PGP public key available
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 04:26, John Pettigrew wrote:
In a previous message, Keith Winston wrote:
I have found nothing that comes close to the speed and power of Konqueror as a file manager.
Try ROX (http://rox.sourceforge.net/) for a fast, lightweight, efficient file manager. You can use the ROX filemanager with or without the full ROX desktop.
I have looked at rox and for some reason decided it was not for me. Maybe I should look at it again. I have never actually run it so I can't say whether I would like it or not. As far as mc goes, I just haven't invested any time into it. Like most console programs, you have to invest some time to get a good return. Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Once in a moment, it all comes to you As soon as you get it, you want something new Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
On Wednesday 18 September 2002 17.59, Keith Winston wrote:
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 04:26, John Pettigrew wrote:
In a previous message, Keith Winston wrote:
I have found nothing that comes close to the speed and power of Konqueror as a file manager.
Try ROX (http://rox.sourceforge.net/) for a fast, lightweight, efficient file manager. You can use the ROX filemanager with or without the full ROX desktop.
I have looked at rox and for some reason decided it was not for me. Maybe I should look at it again. I have never actually run it so I can't say whether I would like it or not.
As far as mc goes, I just haven't invested any time into it. Like most console programs, you have to invest some time to get a good return.
You could also take a look at gentoo (the file manager, not the distribution). It's at http://www.obsession.se/gentoo/ and it's also included on the SuSE CDs. It's fairly nice //Anders
On Tuesday 17 September 2002 13:40, Keith Winston wrote:
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 11:34, zentara wrote:
Because KDE starts up a bunch of stuff in the background, so you can run the KDE app. That's the "benefit" and the "problem" with KDE, the apps need a bunch of servers running. When they start, and find KDE is not running, it takes them awhile to figure out what to do. Just run ps auxww as root before and after trying to start a kde app, you'll see.
Exactly right. Launching KDE apps under Ice or other window manager forces the start of tons of KDE background processes, kind of defeating the purpose of running a small WM, unless you only use KDE apps once in a while.
Oh. That was going to be my next question. I'd need to find replacements for Konq (which works well for me, though I'm not married to it... :-), for KMail (which works very well for me -- easily as nice as Evolution, for the features that I use -- though I'm not married to it), for KGhostview (well, that woud be Ghostview), for KSnapshot (well, I could go back to XV, which is nearly ten years old and does just as good a job...), for KDE System Guard, for KCharSelect, and for Konsole (well, there are plenty of those...). I'm running SuSE 8 with KDE 3.x on both my home system (1.1GHz Athlon, 512MB...) and on my office laptop (500MHz PIII, 256MB). I would not say that it's slow. In fact, the only reason I have noticed speed at all is that the home system is a bit quicker than the laptop that I use all day at the office. I also didn't notice KDE 3 being any slower than the previous GNOME, but I have not tried new GNOME, so I can't compare there. (Anybody?) Intellectually, I like the idea of "leaner and meaner", but if I wouldn't really gain anything compared to my current comfortable KDE rut... well, not sure why I'd want to overcome inertia to start running ICE or Blackbox. Still, the more info that I absorb, the more I feel I have a basis (other than inertia :-) for the decision. Is the use of leaner window managers mostly an advantage for people using old systems with limited resources? For my work, I'm using OpenOffice and Gimp, mostly, and those would not be affected, would they? /kevin
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 10:55, Kevin McLauchlan wrote:
Oh. That was going to be my next question. I'd need to find replacements for Konq (which works well for me, though I'm not married to it... :-), for KMail (which works very well for me -- easily as nice as Evolution, for the features that I use -- though I'm not married to it), for KGhostview (well, that woud be Ghostview), for KSnapshot (well, I could go back to XV, which is nearly ten years old and does just as good a job...), for KDE System Guard, for KCharSelect, and for Konsole (well, there are plenty of those...).
Intellectually, I like the idea of "leaner and meaner", but if I wouldn't really gain anything compared to my current comfortable KDE rut... well, not sure why I'd want to overcome inertia to start running ICE or Blackbox. Still, the more info that I absorb, the more I feel I have a basis (other than inertia :-) for the decision. Is the use of leaner window managers mostly an advantage for people using old systems with limited resources?
For my work, I'm using OpenOffice and Gimp, mostly, and those would not be affected, would they?
Kevin, Here is my current config for a "lean and mean" desktop vs. "big and fat" (a YaST2 term). Window Manager -- Icewm Browser -- mozilla GUI editor -- nedit Mail -- evolution (I sometimes switch between this and mutt) Office -- OO/Staroffice GUI File Manager -- xftree (from xfce) PIM -- Qtopia (for zaurus syncing) Terminal -- xterm Audio -- xmms Image editor -- gimp GUI ftp -- gftp Financial -- moneydance (java) For my big and fat desktop, I replace xftree with konqueror and xterm with konsole. There is another reason I am deep into Icewm and that is because it is easier to secure than KDE or GNOME. I maintain some internet kiosk PCs at a public library where the user has local access to the machine and I have to prevent them from running unauthorized programs or changing the configuration. I had to modify about 30-50 lines of Icewm code to make it secure. With KDE, the task would be much harder. This is a rare and specific need and won't apply to most people. Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Once in a moment, it all comes to you As soon as you get it, you want something new Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:55:03 -0400
Kevin McLauchlan
Oh. That was going to be my next question. I'd need to find replacements for Konq (which works well for me, though I'm not married to it... :-),
Mozilla
for KMail (which works
Sylpheed
for KSnapshot (well, I could go back to XV, which is nearly ten years old and does just as good a job...),
If you just want to view, try "Quick Image Viewer", it's only 39k stripped and is very fast to load pictures. http://www.klografx.net/qiv/
is the use of leaner window managers mostly an advantage for people using old systems with limited resources?
Of course, I can't even run KDE on my old laptop. You also get more direct control over what is happening in X. Even on a fast system, your X will be "peppier" with Blackbox or fvwm2. If something "hangs" in X, I just kill off the xterm I started it with, and go on my merry way. I don't need to fight with the KDE servers.
For my work, I'm using OpenOffice and Gimp, mostly, and those would not be affected, would they?
They run fine without KDE. -- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation
On my P4, 1.7 Ghz, 256 MB RAM, I don't see any difference between KDE and GTK apps.
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 21:43, Salman Khilji wrote:
On my P4, 1.7 Ghz, 256 MB RAM, I don't see any difference between KDE and GTK apps.
Well, with enough firepower, it makes no difference. However, the original poster mentioned that he was running on somewhat older hardware and was struggling under the weight. Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Once in a moment, it all comes to you As soon as you get it, you want something new Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
participants (7)
-
Anders Johansson -
John Pettigrew -
Keith Winston -
Kevin McLauchlan -
KMcLauchlan＠chrysalis-its.com
-
Salman Khilji -
zentara