Could linux use a new WM?

[@trophy]

So, I was talking with my boss at work here the other day, and we were wondering something regarding desktop environments.

Background: My boss is one of those rabid Apple fans, but also uses Linux at home for his mythtv boxes. I'm a Ubuntu guy. I use gnome because there's a lot I don't like about kde, but there's a lot I don't like about gnome, too. For instance, a lot of times when I put a CD in or insert my USB key, the icon for it will appear underneath another icon on my desktop. As a developer myself, I find it relatively hard to believe that finding an open area for the new icon to appear is all that hard.

Anyways, our conversation revolved around the fact that there really isn't a de that we really like. And how Apple took next, completely redid the de part of it, and came up with something that is actually really good (anti-apple people just cool it for a moment... I'm not suggesting we copy Aqua). I was wondering why some company (Canonical is probably in a unique position to do this well) doesn't sit down and either perfect gnome/kde to the point where it could be sold commercially, or if that were difficult design wise, start from scratch and build their own de which could.

It would help a lot to dispel the "cheap knockoff of windows" mentality that a lot of people seem to have about linux.

[23meg]

I was wondering why some company (Canonical is probably in a unique position to do this well) doesn't sit down and either perfect gnome/kde to the point where it could be sold commercially, .

Because it doesn't make sense to sell a free DE, and many companies are already pouring big money into GNOME and KDE to "perfect" them.


It would help a lot to dispel the "cheap knockoff of windows" mentality that a lot of people seem to have about linux.

With those people that do have that mentality, no amount of work would guarantee dispelling it.

[Outrunner]

First of all, Canonical doesn't develop KDE or Gnome, so you can't ask them to improve those DEs.

And second, there are a lot of posts about improving Ubuntu's look, but almost nobody does anything about it and I think this thread will turn out the same. I'm sorry to be so blunt but I think this thread will turn out to be useless like some/most of the others...

Maybe you should contact the Gnome or KDE developers(I don't even know their names :D ) with your idea(s). That would be much more useful.

Just my opinion, of course. Rock on.

[justin whitaker]

It's a good question, one which I have pondered myself. Personally, I think that Linux could have a real shot at the desktop title if someone put together a DE/WM that broke with the "let's copy the other guys" mode of thinking, and innovated.

[@trophy]

Because it doesn't make sense to sell a free DE, and many companies are already pouring big money into GNOME and KDE to "perfect" them.


I didn't say you should sell it, I'm saying it should be made good enough so it *could* be sold and there'd be a market for it.

And yes, there are companies pouring money into both projects. And IMHO they aren't getting their money's worth. I suspect that part of the reason might be that desktop environments are really prone to being bike-shedded to death at every turn.

[juxtaposed]

It's a good question, one which I have pondered myself. Personally, I think that Linux could have a real shot at the desktop title if someone put together a DE/WM that broke with the "let's copy the other guys" mode of thinking, and innovated.

It's not that our desktop environments copy anything, it's that they do what is standard for the time and don't innovate (well, they do innovate, but not as much as is possible).

[@trophy]

It's a good question, one which I have pondered myself. Personally, I think that Linux could have a real shot at the desktop title if someone put together a DE/WM that broke with the "let's copy the other guys" mode of thinking, and innovated.

This is more of what I was getting at... and there's been a few out there that looked really nice (Enlightenment springs to mind), and I always wondered why nothing besides the two big guys ever gains traction.

[hardyn]

It's a good question, one which I have pondered myself. Personally, I think that Linux could have a real shot at the desktop title if someone put together a DE/WM that broke with the "let's copy the other guys" mode of thinking, and innovated.

What would be novel in a GUI? they all have icons, mouse pointer, maybe some context menus; what could be added that would be a breakthrough?

[@trophy]

First of all, Canonical doesn't develop KDE or Gnome, so you can't ask them to improve those DEs.


Why not? KDE and Gnome are both open source projects. Canonical could fill an office building with developers and say "You will do nothing but contribute to Gnome until we say otherwise." if they so wished. Basically what I'm getting at is that yeah, Gnome and KDE are adequate, but they lack a lot of polish that is necessary (unfortunately) to get Dell to start offering them in a wider linup, or to convince the suits to move all of your workstations over, etc.

[arvevans]

If the objective is to attract hard core windows users, then it seems the DE would have to look and feel like Windows.
If the objective is to be different, innovative, and improve productivity, then the DE would have to not look and feel like Windows.

There are already many different DE's or Window Managers available for the various ..ix OS variants.


* Beryl: A fork of Compiz.
* Compiz: A window manager and OpenGL composite manager which brings a variety of effects to Xgl based Linux desktops.
* dwm: A dynamic window manager derived from wmii.
* SithWM: A minimalist window manager based on evilwm with menus and virtual desktops.
* Whim: A window manager written in Tcl that supports multiple desktops.
* Karmen: A simple window manager with a clean look. It doesn't need a config file and has no library dependencies other than Xlib.
* Integrity: A Qt/X11 based window manager supporting multiple dynamic themes, image transparency, color masking, menus, and virtual desktops.
* QuarkWM: A lightweight window manager designed to increase your productivity.
* BadWM: A minimalistic window manager with good keyboard control.
* XIGE: The Xilicius Graphical Environment is a new and fast window manager optimized for programmers, laptops and fast users.
* JWM: Joe's window manager is a simple Xlib-based window manager with sloppy focus and click-to-raise.
* WWM: The Weird Window Manager is rather basic and hasn't been updated for a long time.
* wmii: Window Manager Improved 2 is a lightweight window manager written from scratch. It aims to combine the best features of larsWM, Ion, evilwm, and ratpoison.
* Stumpwm: a tiling, keyboard driven window manager written in Common Lisp.
* TrsWM: This window manager builds on the ideas of Ion, by splitting the screen into frames, and making it easy to completely manage windows using only the keyboard.
* Kahakai: A window manager based on Waimea with scripting support for various languages.
* PyWM: The Python window manager is a small python-programmable window manager based on FLWM.
* XWEM: A window manager written in Emacs Lisp.
* MIWM: The Microscopic Window Manager is a minimal window manager written in C++ which is efficient and stable, and supports virtual desktops.
* Eclipse: A window manager written entirely in Common Lisp.
* Framer: Written in Eiffel, this is a simple window manager for the ROX Desktop.
* Mavosxwm: A minimal window manager, in an early state of development.
* WindowLab: A small and simple window manager based on aewm, with some novel additions.
* Openbox: Based on Blackbox, with various features including anti-alised fonts with Xft and Xinerama support for multiple monitors.
* Hackedbox: A stripped down version of blackbox, with the toolbar and slit features removed.
* Matchbox: A small window manager, requiring only XLib, designed for computers with little screen real estate, including PDAs and phones.
* Pekwm: Another aewm++ based window manager. Features include tabbed windows (grouping windows together in a single frame), root menus, and Xinerama support.
* Waimea: A fast and highly customizable virtual desktop window manager which conforms to the EWMH specification and uses the Cairo graphics library.
* Clementine: A small, fast window manager based on aewm but rewritten in C++.
* Interface WM: A window manager written in objective-c (originally a rewrite of alloywm) and optimized for GNUstep applications.
* ZWM: a SDL based Window Manager and Widget library intended to be used in cross platform applications.
* HaZe: A window manager based on mlvm.
* PAWM: The Puto Amo Window Manager (PAWM) is designed to be simple, small and functional.
* aewm++: A window manager with more modern features than aewm but with the same look and feel.
* NovaWM: A very new window manager in an early stage of development.
* Golem: A small window manager supporting themes, plugins, and multi-screen displays.
* Oroborus: A simple window manager with GNOME support, themes, and full keyboard control.
* Treewm: A window manager that lets you create desktops and windows within desktops.
* GwML: A window-manager written in OCAML.
* Heliwm: A compact window manager designed to minimize memory consumption.
* 5dwm: The Indigo Magic Desktop for Linux.
* Mosquito: A small window manager by Erik Thyrén, not to be confused with the beginnings of a GNOME-compliant window manager also called Mosquito by Michael Rogers, which seems to have disappeared.
* Maewm: Yet another hack of aewm.
* QLWM: A small and efficient Qt 2.x based window manager.
* Phluid: Yet another window manager (pre-alpha) based on aewm.
* Alloywm: Another window manager based on aewm.
* Amaterus: a window manager using the GTK+ toolkit, in an early stage of development.
* Evilwm: A minimalist window manager derived from aewm, with some additions in the area of keyboard control.
* Ratpoison: A simple lightweight window manager with no fancy graphics or window decorations.
* Ion: A tiling tabbed window manager designed with keyboard users in mind.
* Perlwm: A window manager written in Perl, using the X11::Protocol module.
* Efsane II: Formally Efsane, the first Turkish window manager, it has now been rewritten as Efsane II.
* 3Dwm: A Three-Dimensional workspace manager from Chalmers Medialab in Sweden.
* Swm: The Small Window Manager is designed for low memory / small screen environments such as laptops and PDAs.
* Puppet: A window manager written in Java, which has no window decoration and is keyboard driven. It includes a Java library, called Escher, for making X11 calls.
* YAWM: A window manager, in an early state of development, which aims to be portable, intuitive and fast. Previously at www.yawm.org, but now defunct.
* w9wm: This is a quick hack which adds virtual screens to the 9wm window manager.
* larswm: Another hack of 9wm that adds automatic tiling of windows.
* PWM: This is a lightweight window manager, which can frame multiple client windows within a single frame.
* PLWM: The Pointless Window Manager. It is a highly modularised window manager written in Python.
* EPIwm: A window manager that is intended to be small, fast, configurable while maintaining a large feature set.
* wmG: A small GTK-based window manager that is GNOME-compliant, partially Mwm compliant, and fully ICCCM compliant.
* aewm: The ascetic/aesthetic WM, a minimal window manager based on 9wm.
* B4step: An original window manager for Linux and Solaris, featuring GNOME compliance and fancy window titles.
* flwm: The Fast Light Window Manager, based on wm2.
* lwm: the Lightweight Window Manager, which has no icons, no button bars, no icon docks, no root menus, no nothing.
* mlvwm: a virtual window manager designed to look like the Macintosh.
* qvwm: a Win95 look-a-like.
* mwm 2.0: the 2.0 version of mwm includes support for multiple workspaces.
* GWM: the Generic Window Manager is an old Lisp-based extensible window manager.
* 9wm: by David Hogan (dhog@cs.su.oz.au), this is an X window manager which attempts to emulate the Plan 9 window manager 8-1/2 as far as possible within the constraints imposed by X.
* OSWM is the window manager from Sun's version of OPENSTEP for their Solaris platform. OPENSTEP is based on a joint specification from NeXT and Sun.
* awm: the Ardent Window Manager was for a while a hotbed for hackers and offered some features (dynamic menus) not found on more current window managers
* rtl: Siemen's window manager tiles windows so that they don't overlap and resizes the window with the focus to its preferred size.
* dxwm: Digital's dxwm is part of the DECwindows offering
* hpwm: HP's window manager offers a 3D look; it is a precursor of mwm
* tekwm: Tektronix's window manager offering
* m_swm: the Sigma window manager is on the R4 tape
* pswm: Sun's PostScript-based pswm is part of the OpenWindows release
* swm: Solbourne's swm is based on the OI toolkit and offers multiple GUI support and also a panning virtual window; configuration information comes from the resources file. See also this swm PDF document.
* tvtwm: Tom's Virtual Tab Window Manager is also based on the Tab Window Manager and provides a virtual desktop modelled on the virtual-root window of swm. It is available on ftp.x.org and mirroring archive servers. The current [March '95] version is available at ftp.x.org/contrib/window_managers/tvtwm.pl11.tar.gz.
* mvwm: the vtwm-style virtual-desktop added to OSF's mwm. A beta version is floating around (most recently from suresh@unipalm.co.uk) but requires a source license to OSF/Motif 1.1.3 [March '92].
* NCDwm: the window manager local to NCD terminals offers an mwm look
* XDSwm: the window manager local to Visual Technology's terminals is simple but full-featured.
* vuewm: HP's MWM-based window manager offers configurable workspaces. SAIC offers a version of this VUE environment.
* 4Dwm: SGI's enhanced MWM
* piewm: this version of tvtwm offers pie menus
* pmwm: IXI's Panorama version of MWM offers olvwm-like features.
* uwm: the Universal Window Manager is very outdated, but is an excellent example of how to do simple window manager functions. The source code (47K) is available, and minor modifications have been made to ensure it compiles on UnixWare, Linux, and AIX. It should also compile on other platforms without too much trouble.
* wm: a very primitive overlapping window manager, originally designed to help with the debugging of the X11 server, this window manager was phased out in X11R2 or R3.
* xwm: Possibly the first... this dates back to 1985, before X11 itself. The version in the archive is from X10R4.


_._

[Tomosaur]

I agree that there are improvements that need to be made for both of the really big DEs - Gnome and KDE. I prefer BOTH over Windows any day (unfortunately I don't have all that much experience with OSX so I can't compare. I've used it a few times and what I saw I did like, but there were a few things which I didn't like that jumped out right away).

However, rather than starting over, I think developers should focus more on improving what we already have. The next version of KDE is shaping up to be awesome, and I can't wait to see the new Plasma feature. However, I don't use KDE right now because I find it far too cluttered.

Gnome, on the other hand, is clean, and stays out of my way when I'm not using something directly DE related. However, nautilus feels too clunky from time to time, and although I certainly love the little things (mouse-over previews on music files for one, I love that, I hope we get the same for movies soon too), there are too many things which just irritate me. I mostly end up just using the terminal for file management. The lack of an integrated 'sudo up' feature is perhaps the most irritating, it forces you to rely on custom scripts etc to do anything requiring root priveleges, which again means that I may aswell just use the terminal. Another thing which frequently irritates me is the behaviour of the 'quick-link' panel on the left. It looks, and feels, like you should just be able to drag a folder onto it to create a quick link, but if you actually try to do this, there's no telling what the actual result will be. Sometimes, it does actually add the folder. Other times it doesn't. Sometimes it tries to burn the folder to a CD.

I would definately say that the weakest aspect of Gnome at the moment is Nautilus. However, although there are a fair amount of problems with it, it seems to me that they are all very very minor, and I can't for the life of me understand why they still haven't been sorted out. It feels like Gnome development goes at a snails pace, while KDE seems to be sprinting along with a lot of innovation, if not always great execution.

When KDE4 comes out, I think the KDE team may gain yet another user, in all honesty. I would love to see the KDE team and the Gnome team (and, of course, the users) put aside their differences and start sharing ideas and suggestions rather than just taking potshots at each other. Both have problems, and for the most part, the problems are such that a weakness in one is very well executed in the other. It's hardly brain surgery to see that a little co-operation would improve both.

[blah blah blah]

I agree that there are improvements that need to be made for both of the really big DEs - Gnome and KDE. I prefer BOTH over Windows any day (unfortunately I don't have all that much experience with OSX so I can't compare. I've used it a few times and what I saw I did like, but there were a few things which I didn't like that jumped out right away).

However, rather than starting over, I think developers should focus more on improving what we already have. The next version of KDE is shaping up to be awesome, and I can't wait to see the new Plasma feature. However, I don't use KDE right now because I find it far too cluttered.

Gnome, on the other hand, is clean, and stays out of my way when I'm not using something directly DE related. However, nautilus feels too clunky from time to time, and although I certainly love the little things (mouse-over previews on music files for one, I love that, I hope we get the same for movies soon too), there are too many things which just irritate me. I mostly end up just using the terminal for file management. The lack of an integrated 'sudo up' feature is perhaps the most irritating, it forces you to rely on custom scripts etc to do anything requiring root priveleges, which again means that I may aswell just use the terminal. Another thing which frequently irritates me is the behaviour of the 'quick-link' panel on the left. It looks, and feels, like you should just be able to drag a folder onto it to create a quick link, but if you actually try to do this, there's no telling what the actual result will be. Sometimes, it does actually add the folder. Other times it doesn't. Sometimes it tries to burn the folder to a CD.

I would definately say that the weakest aspect of Gnome at the moment is Nautilus. However, although there are a fair amount of problems with it, it seems to me that they are all very very minor, and I can't for the life of me understand why they still haven't been sorted out. It feels like Gnome development goes at a snails pace, while KDE seems to be sprinting along with a lot of innovation, if not always great execution.

When KDE4 comes out, I think the KDE team may gain yet another user, in all honesty. I would love to see the KDE team and the Gnome team (and, of course, the users) put aside their differences and start sharing ideas and suggestions rather than just taking potshots at each other. Both have problems, and for the most part, the problems are such that a weakness in one is very well executed in the other. It's hardly brain surgery to see that a little co-operation would improve both.

It's not like the developers are bitter enemies.

[@trophy]

If the objective is to attract hard core windows users, then it seems the DE would have to look and feel like Windows.
If the objective is to be different, innovative, and improve productivity, then the DE would have to not look and feel like Windows.

Personally, I'd prefer the look different, innovate, and improve productivity route, but the argument could be made that Windows, the inferior product, got the market share so now they make the rules, so perhaps we should copy Windows until we have sufficient market share to make the rules.

[hypothetical situation]
If they choose to go down the Windows path, then probably the best solution would be for Canonical to get a list of all the ways in which Gnome falls short of their expectations and either send patches in, or add those features to the queue to be added in. If progress doesn't happen as quickly as they'd like, they could assign full-time programmers to working on the fixes. Gnome benefits from the extra help, and Ubuntu benefits from a slicker looking GUI.
[/hypothetical situation]

[hypothetical situation]
If they choose to go down the "be different" path, Canonical could hire a bunch of UI artists to come up with some wacky new ideas for a whole new interface, each of which could be turned into a simple proof of concept app(fake desktop just to get a feel for what it would be like) that ubuntu users everywhere could download, play around with, suggest improvements to, etc. Once the good ideas are distilled into a fairly coherent HIG, some programmers get to work and build the damned thing. Ubuntu benefits from the ability to take a page from Apple's "Think Different." playbook. Linux benefits from the addition of a higher quality GUI.
[/hypothetical situation]

[maniacmusician]

When KDE4 comes out, I think the KDE team may gain yet another user, in all honesty. I would love to see the KDE team and the Gnome team (and, of course, the users) put aside their differences and start sharing ideas and suggestions rather than just taking potshots at each other. Both have problems, and for the most part, the problems are such that a weakness in one is very well executed in the other. It's hardly brain surgery to see that a little co-operation would improve both.

Sorry, good sir, you've got that part wrong. It's the ignorant users of both Gnome and KDE that keep taking potshots at each other. I've seen the development teams be quite friendly to each other. This hasn't always been the case, but it definitely is today. There is no blatant animosity between the groups at large.

Of course, they definitely are competitors, so there is a healthy smattering of "I can do it better!", and that's a good thing. When they compete, both KDE and Gnome users win.

As to the OP: The best way to get stuff done is the open source world is to contribute it yourself rather than asking a company to do so. While Canonical certainly could hire a building full of developers and have them work on gnome or kde, they really can't afford to throw away money like that. It'll be helping the general cause of open source on the desktop, yeah, but they're concerned most about keeping Ubuntu development alive and running, and they need all the revenue they can get just for that. So basically, they don't have money to throw around, since they're focusing mostly on funding Ubuntu.

But like I said, it's very possible to help them yourself. If you don't have the right mindset for it (be it graphics or programming), then try to get some friends who do have the right mindset to help with it. you can always apply to join the graphics team of either gnome or kde.

Speaking of which, KDE is really evolving this time around, and I think it's becoming that "different" DE that you're looking for. I've been keeping up with the development and there's a lot of graphical innovation going around. the Oxygen style is looking pretty good, and plasma is really changing the basic concept of the desktop. Your desktop won't be a static thing anymore like it used to be in KDE3 and Gnome2.

[@trophy]

When KDE4 comes out, I think the KDE team may gain yet another user, in all honesty.


Me too. I've tried to use KDE over the years, and it always feels like I'm sitting in the cockpit of an F16 looking at 10,000,000 buttons, having no idea what does what, and afraid to push anything lest I accidentally fire a missle or something. This new plasma stuff looks like a lot of fun, and I'm thinking I'll probably give it another shot come KDE4.

[lumberjack]

hahahaha. Nice analogy. I think that it's best to keep the standard desktop as standardized as possible, while making it easy for users to preview new styles and switch to something new. Synaptic does this pretty well, but it's pretty intimidating to a noob user to know where to find everything and to search through the long list of packages in synaptic. There are enough add-ons that you can do pretty much anything you can think of. There are some pretty impressive and revolutionary things that are out there, and the only reason why they shouldn't be implemented out of the box is so that people can have as stable and confortable system that they can easily figure out how to work in.

We can go all "spiffy" after we've gotten used to the environment.

[23meg]

I didn't say you should sell it, I'm saying it should be made good enough so it *could* be sold and there'd be a market for it.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to sell a DE on its own, and whole OSes using these two DEs are already being sold and supported, and there's already a huge market for them. It's growing bigger, as the DEs keep getting better.


Canonical could fill an office building with developers and say "You will do nothing but contribute to Gnome until we say otherwise." if they so wished.

Exactly; it's just that they don't wish so, and we aren't in a position to tell them what they should be doing with their money. We are, however, in the perfect position to contribute to whatever free DE that we find best suited to our purposes, so that it will be one step closer to what we want it to be.

Trivia: Mark Shuttleworth is first patron of KDE.


Sorry, good sir, you've got that part wrong. It's the ignorant users of both Gnome and KDE that keep taking potshots at each other.

Exactly, and it's the "which product is better" mentality that feeds this behavior the most; as if KDE and GNOME were static products that are either "good" or "bad", and are destined to stay the way they are.

[Dragonbite]

when I put a CD in or insert my USB key, the icon for it will appear underneath another icon on my desktop. Yeah, that's annoyed me as well. I've had to make sure they all have their own little space on the desktop.

I was wondering why some company (Canonical is probably in a unique position to do this well) doesn't sit down and either perfect gnome/kde to the point where it could be sold commercially, or if that were difficult design wise, start from scratch and build their own de which could.

There is no "perfect gnome/kde" because everybody has their own opinion. Just like Aqua, which I am not all that impressed with, but some people think it's the cat's meow; it's perfect for them and not for me.

Also, have you tested out Xfce (http://www.xfce.org)or even Looking Glass (http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/details.xml)?

By the way, your post mentioned Desktop environments while your posting states Window Managers, you do realize there is a difference (not much for all intents and purposes)?



It would help a lot to dispel the "cheap knockoff of windows" mentality that a lot of people seem to have about linux.None so much as XPDE (http://xpde.linuxring.hu/)!

[@trophy]

By the way, your post mentioned Desktop environments while your posting states Window Managers, you do realize there is a difference (not much for all intents and purposes)?

You betcha. While there is a difference, if you attempted to explain it to someone who had only used Windows, you would most likely get a deer-in-the-headlights response.

Oh, and yes, I've tested both Xfce and Looking Glass.

My opinions about both:

Xfce: Looks nice. Works decent. Doesn't consume all available RAM. I like it! Looks like it's made some progress from back when I tried it, too.

Looking Glass: No real productivity enhancement other than the stickies on the backs of windows. Very cool looking but ultimately it's just intellectual masturbation for Sun developers. I like that one with the 3D desktop and the physics engine (can't remember what it's called) better. At least the "piles" theory would bring something new to file organization.

[Nekiruhs]

It's a good question, one which I have pondered myself. Personally, I think that Linux could have a real shot at the desktop title if someone put together a DE/WM that broke with the "let's copy the other guys" mode of thinking, and innovated.
You see, thats a great Idea, but its also our greatest flaw as an OS. Many people see Linux = Windows - Cost - Malware. So many people want it to look just like the other guys. Theres also the people who see linux for what it is, an alternative to Windows and OS X. People have tried to innovate (Seach Wikipedia for Mezzo) and KDE 4 will be revolutionary. The two camps just never get along.

[LookTJ]

All I have to say: Nothing is perfect.

[SunnyRabbiera]

well we are free to make a new one, as linux is flexible.

Me I really want to make a slimmed down version of KDE that looks good but hogs little room.
I want to remove most of the "k" names in KDE and come up with better name varients...


I also want to see a rounded taskbar/ kicker as opposed to the old boring square ones.

[forrestcupp]

I'm tired of the "Linux never innovates, but always copies the other guy" mentality. It's just not true. Just look at all of the things brought to us by Beryl/Compiz/Fusion. We had transparent windows before Vista (and better ones, too). We had multiple workspaces. We had the 3d cube before anyone else. Apple likes the 3d cube so much, they're integrating it into their next OS.

Just because there are things that need fixed doesn't mean that we don't innovate. And the basic GUI things that we do copy are things that any WM, DE, or OS will use (such as windows, menus, buttons, etc). The reason we use them is because they are time-proven effective ways to do things.

I've seen more progress to make Linux different than I have to copy other OSes.

[stuman]

I'm still relatively new at the Linux thing, and mostly happy with Ubuntu out of the box, but I've played briefly with Damn Small Linux, and would love to get Fluxbox up on Ubuntu. What does it take to get an alternate desktop/window-manager operational under Ubuntu? Or perhaps a better question would be "what does it take to implement a window-manager/desktop from a clean ubuntu server install?

Most of what I do is in virtual machines on top of whatever came with the laptop due to time constraints and the critical nature of having the hardware "standard" to connect to most anything. The deviation is that my newest machine has been reloaded with XP (Vista what?), but I still do all of my actual work inside VM's.

Is there a nice tutorial out there with all of the necessary pieces to install a window manager (such as fluxbox) and then a good explanation of what portions would be considered the "desktop environment" and how to go about building that part?

[JohnOfSheffield]

well we are free to make a new one, as linux is flexible.

Me I really want to make a slimmed down version of KDE that looks good but hogs little room.
I want to remove most of the "k" names in KDE and come up with better name varients...


I also want to see a rounded taskbar/ kicker as opposed to the old boring square ones.

KDE can be slimmer than XFCE, just install the packages you want and not meta packages, take a look at how Slackware does it, or SuSE for that matter.

You can make kicker look rounded, 3D shiny, whatever you want, you can use ANY image to do it, it's the trick with KDE, you have all the options you could possibly want and fifty more, half of them may appear useless to most users and the OTHER half may seem useless to other users, point is that they are all there and there is not one DE that i know of that is as customizable as KDE.

If your biggest Koncern (see what i did there?) is the names of the programs you use, i would say that KDE is doing very well. It won't go away simply because it's an easy way to know which programs belong to the KDE DE.

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm still relatively new at the Linux thing, and mostly happy with Ubuntu out of the box, but I've played briefly with Damn Small Linux, and would love to get Fluxbox up on Ubuntu. What does it take to get an alternate desktop/window-manager operational under Ubuntu? Or perhaps a better question would be "what does it take to implement a window-manager/desktop from a clean ubuntu server install?

Most of what I do is in virtual machines on top of whatever came with the laptop due to time constraints and the critical nature of having the hardware "standard" to connect to most anything. The deviation is that my newest machine has been reloaded with XP (Vista what?), but I still do all of my actual work inside VM's.

Is there a nice tutorial out there with all of the necessary pieces to install a window manager (such as fluxbox) and then a good explanation of what portions would be considered the "desktop environment" and how to go about building that part?

Getting fluxbox up and running isn't harder than typing "sudo aptitude install fluxbox" and choosing fluxbox in GDM (or KDM) before logging in, configuring it is another story but you get firefox in the right click menu so go search and you will find.

There is no good reason to do it from a clean ubuntu server install, it would be better to choose another distro that already implements it as it's default WM, like DSL.

[MellonCollie]

I'm tired of the "Linux never innovates, but always copies the other guy" mentality. It's just not true. Just look at all of the things brought to us by Beryl/Compiz/Fusion. We had transparent windows before Vista

I'm pretty sure Microsoft had window glass/transparencies as far back as the 2003 Longhorn betas. From memory, they demonstrated it at their '03 PDC.

[stuman]

Thanks for the reply.

I've thought of basing my install on DSL, since I like the Fluxbox presentation.

What I would actually like to accomplish is to put together a minimal Linux installation as the host for a set of VM's which I currently run under XP. I'm looking for a "lean" distro which is fairly straightforward for handling laptop screen resolutions, wireless and the other obtuse pieces of the laptops. I will continue to use Ubuntu as my main personal platform from within the VM. I like Evolution, Firefox, OpenOffice etc...and I use Bochs to run an old MS-Dos based application I wrote 20+years ago...yes, I'm that old.

Before I go that far, though, I need to get a VM up and running with DSL into which I can install some additional software...eventually that software will be VMWare when the DSL is the host. I may play a little with an old Compaq that I have which currently has a dead hard drive.

The fact that my good hardware must remain operational as a work support machine makes it a slower process. I almost choked when I couldn't manage to get Ubuntu to handle the wireless on my brand new Acer...and the factory Vista restore cd's failed...(they won't re-partition a drive...what would a normal user do if they had to replace the HD?). I managed to get it up with XP however, and I had already downloaded the peculiar drivers as a precaution. I just got the network interface up today, since I was wireless first.

Anyway, I guess all I really need is a way to install a foreign package into DSL, once I get it up and running properly. Most of my "mission critical" stuff is done inside VM's, which transport readily to new hardware. I've had to do that probably 5 times in the last three years, so it is a proven technique.

[Dragonbite]

You betcha. While there is a difference, if you attempted to explain it to someone who had only used Windows, you would most likely get a deer-in-the-headlights response.

Oh, and yes, I've tested both Xfce and Looking Glass.

My opinions about both:

Xfce: Looks nice. Works decent. Doesn't consume all available RAM. I like it! Looks like it's made some progress from back when I tried it, too.

Looking Glass: No real productivity enhancement other than the stickies on the backs of windows. Very cool looking but ultimately it's just intellectual masturbation for Sun developers. I like that one with the 3D desktop and the physics engine (can't remember what it's called) better. At least the "piles" theory would bring something new to file organization.Oh yeah, forgot JDS (Java Desktop System).. which is basically Gnome but written in Java instead of (C? C++? ).

[rfurman24]

I have to say that I have used both KDE and Gnome. I liked both. I feel Gnome is much more easily customizable. I used KDE for 4 years and decided to give Ubuntu a try I am very impressed with Gnome. As far as Gnome or Kde getting "better" I do not understand the original posters point/question. In my opinion both of these d.e.s are more customizable than anything from mac or windows. Both Gnome and KDE are increasing in looks and usability exponentially and distros are getting better at fine tuning them to their liking. I did desire a mac with OSX until I tried Ubuntu. That desire as gone.

[igknighted]

I'm still relatively new at the Linux thing, and mostly happy with Ubuntu out of the box, but I've played briefly with Damn Small Linux, and would love to get Fluxbox up on Ubuntu. What does it take to get an alternate desktop/window-manager operational under Ubuntu? Or perhaps a better question would be "what does it take to implement a window-manager/desktop from a clean ubuntu server install?

Most of what I do is in virtual machines on top of whatever came with the laptop due to time constraints and the critical nature of having the hardware "standard" to connect to most anything. The deviation is that my newest machine has been reloaded with XP (Vista what?), but I still do all of my actual work inside VM's.

Is there a nice tutorial out there with all of the necessary pieces to install a window manager (such as fluxbox) and then a good explanation of what portions would be considered the "desktop environment" and how to go about building that part?

Look for "fluxbuntu". It is a Ubuntu release (unofficial) that comes with a well configured Fluxbox setup. It also has some fluxbox goodies that aren't available in the Ubuntu repo's.

[tonytraductor]

Or, you could just apt-get (or synaptic) fluxbox after installation of another flavor.
I couldn't get the fluxbuntu install cd to work, so I have kubuntu install, and
installed fluxbox afterwards.
Works for me, since I do like a lot of KDE tools, but have gotten tired of the bloat.
Running flux v kde, top shows less than half the processes running in flux.
It's pretty cool.

I've run JWM on ubuntu, too.
Lightning fast.

/tony

[aimran]

Or, you could just apt-get (or synaptic) fluxbox after installation of another flavor.
I couldn't get the fluxbuntu install cd to work, so I have kubuntu install, and
installed fluxbox afterwards.
Works for me, since I do like a lot of KDE tools, but have gotten tired of the bloat.
Running flux v kde, top shows less than half the processes running in flux.
It's pretty cool.

I've run JWM on ubuntu, too.
Lightning fast.

/tony

Way to go for thread necromancing :) !

Anyways to offer my $0.02:

Canonical can't make a DE specific to Ubuntu because that will be incoherent with the spirit of FOSS. The developed DE will work well with Ubuntu but not with other distros. A lot of people using SUSE will get pissed at us :P

[Ripfox]

If the objective is to attract hard core windows users, then it seems the DE would have to look and feel like Windows.
If the objective is to be different, innovative, and improve productivity, then the DE would have to not look and feel like Windows.

There are already many different DE's or Window Managers available for the various ..ix OS variants.


* Beryl: A fork of Compiz.
* Compiz: A window manager and OpenGL composite manager which brings a variety of effects to Xgl based Linux desktops.
* dwm: A dynamic window manager derived from wmii.
* SithWM: A minimalist window manager based on evilwm with menus and virtual desktops.
* Whim: A window manager written in Tcl that supports multiple desktops.
* Karmen: A simple window manager with a clean look. It doesn't need a config file and has no library dependencies other than Xlib.
* Integrity: A Qt/X11 based window manager supporting multiple dynamic themes, image transparency, color masking, menus, and virtual desktops.
* QuarkWM: A lightweight window manager designed to increase your productivity.
* BadWM: A minimalistic window manager with good keyboard control.
* XIGE: The Xilicius Graphical Environment is a new and fast window manager optimized for programmers, laptops and fast users.
* JWM: Joe's window manager is a simple Xlib-based window manager with sloppy focus and click-to-raise.
* WWM: The Weird Window Manager is rather basic and hasn't been updated for a long time.
* wmii: Window Manager Improved 2 is a lightweight window manager written from scratch. It aims to combine the best features of larsWM, Ion, evilwm, and ratpoison.
* Stumpwm: a tiling, keyboard driven window manager written in Common Lisp.
* TrsWM: This window manager builds on the ideas of Ion, by splitting the screen into frames, and making it easy to completely manage windows using only the keyboard.
* Kahakai: A window manager based on Waimea with scripting support for various languages.
* PyWM: The Python window manager is a small python-programmable window manager based on FLWM.
* XWEM: A window manager written in Emacs Lisp.
* MIWM: The Microscopic Window Manager is a minimal window manager written in C++ which is efficient and stable, and supports virtual desktops.
* Eclipse: A window manager written entirely in Common Lisp.
* Framer: Written in Eiffel, this is a simple window manager for the ROX Desktop.
* Mavosxwm: A minimal window manager, in an early state of development.
* WindowLab: A small and simple window manager based on aewm, with some novel additions.
* Openbox: Based on Blackbox, with various features including anti-alised fonts with Xft and Xinerama support for multiple monitors.
* Hackedbox: A stripped down version of blackbox, with the toolbar and slit features removed.
* Matchbox: A small window manager, requiring only XLib, designed for computers with little screen real estate, including PDAs and phones.
* Pekwm: Another aewm++ based window manager. Features include tabbed windows (grouping windows together in a single frame), root menus, and Xinerama support.
* Waimea: A fast and highly customizable virtual desktop window manager which conforms to the EWMH specification and uses the Cairo graphics library.
* Clementine: A small, fast window manager based on aewm but rewritten in C++.
* Interface WM: A window manager written in objective-c (originally a rewrite of alloywm) and optimized for GNUstep applications.
* ZWM: a SDL based Window Manager and Widget library intended to be used in cross platform applications.
* HaZe: A window manager based on mlvm.
* PAWM: The **** Amo Window Manager (PAWM) is designed to be simple, small and functional.
* aewm++: A window manager with more modern features than aewm but with the same look and feel.
* NovaWM: A very new window manager in an early stage of development.
* Golem: A small window manager supporting themes, plugins, and multi-screen displays.
* Oroborus: A simple window manager with GNOME support, themes, and full keyboard control.
* Treewm: A window manager that lets you create desktops and windows within desktops.
* GwML: A window-manager written in OCAML.
* Heliwm: A compact window manager designed to minimize memory consumption.
* 5dwm: The Indigo Magic Desktop for Linux.
* Mosquito: A small window manager by Erik Thyrén, not to be confused with the beginnings of a GNOME-compliant window manager also called Mosquito by Michael Rogers, which seems to have disappeared.
* Maewm: Yet another hack of aewm.
* QLWM: A small and efficient Qt 2.x based window manager.
* Phluid: Yet another window manager (pre-alpha) based on aewm.
* Alloywm: Another window manager based on aewm.
* Amaterus: a window manager using the GTK+ toolkit, in an early stage of development.
* Evilwm: A minimalist window manager derived from aewm, with some additions in the area of keyboard control.
* Ratpoison: A simple lightweight window manager with no fancy graphics or window decorations.
* Ion: A tiling tabbed window manager designed with keyboard users in mind.
* Perlwm: A window manager written in Perl, using the X11::Protocol module.
* Efsane II: Formally Efsane, the first Turkish window manager, it has now been rewritten as Efsane II.
* 3Dwm: A Three-Dimensional workspace manager from Chalmers Medialab in Sweden.
* Swm: The Small Window Manager is designed for low memory / small screen environments such as laptops and PDAs.
* Puppet: A window manager written in Java, which has no window decoration and is keyboard driven. It includes a Java library, called Escher, for making X11 calls.
* YAWM: A window manager, in an early state of development, which aims to be portable, intuitive and fast. Previously at www.yawm.org, but now defunct.
* w9wm: This is a quick hack which adds virtual screens to the 9wm window manager.
* larswm: Another hack of 9wm that adds automatic tiling of windows.
* PWM: This is a lightweight window manager, which can frame multiple client windows within a single frame.
* PLWM: The Pointless Window Manager. It is a highly modularised window manager written in Python.
* EPIwm: A window manager that is intended to be small, fast, configurable while maintaining a large feature set.
* wmG: A small GTK-based window manager that is GNOME-compliant, partially Mwm compliant, and fully ICCCM compliant.
* aewm: The ascetic/aesthetic WM, a minimal window manager based on 9wm.
* B4step: An original window manager for Linux and Solaris, featuring GNOME compliance and fancy window titles.
* flwm: The Fast Light Window Manager, based on wm2.
* lwm: the Lightweight Window Manager, which has no icons, no button bars, no icon docks, no root menus, no nothing.
* mlvwm: a virtual window manager designed to look like the Macintosh.
* qvwm: a Win95 look-a-like.
* mwm 2.0: the 2.0 version of mwm includes support for multiple workspaces.
* GWM: the Generic Window Manager is an old Lisp-based extensible window manager.
* 9wm: by David Hogan (dhog@cs.su.oz.au), this is an X window manager which attempts to emulate the Plan 9 window manager 8-1/2 as far as possible within the constraints imposed by X.
* OSWM is the window manager from Sun's version of OPENSTEP for their Solaris platform. OPENSTEP is based on a joint specification from NeXT and Sun.
* awm: the Ardent Window Manager was for a while a hotbed for hackers and offered some features (dynamic menus) not found on more current window managers
* rtl: Siemen's window manager tiles windows so that they don't overlap and resizes the window with the focus to its preferred size.
* dxwm: Digital's dxwm is part of the DECwindows offering
* hpwm: HP's window manager offers a 3D look; it is a precursor of mwm
* tekwm: Tektronix's window manager offering
* m_swm: the Sigma window manager is on the R4 tape
* pswm: Sun's PostScript-based pswm is part of the OpenWindows release
* swm: Solbourne's swm is based on the OI toolkit and offers multiple GUI support and also a panning virtual window; configuration information comes from the resources file. See also this swm PDF document.
* tvtwm: Tom's Virtual Tab Window Manager is also based on the Tab Window Manager and provides a virtual desktop modelled on the virtual-root window of swm. It is available on ftp.x.org and mirroring archive servers. The current [March '95] version is available at ftp.x.org/contrib/window_managers/tvtwm.pl11.tar.gz.
* mvwm: the vtwm-style virtual-desktop added to OSF's mwm. A beta version is floating around (most recently from suresh@unipalm.co.uk) but requires a source license to OSF/Motif 1.1.3 [March '92].
* NCDwm: the window manager local to NCD terminals offers an mwm look
* XDSwm: the window manager local to Visual Technology's terminals is simple but full-featured.
* vuewm: HP's MWM-based window manager offers configurable workspaces. SAIC offers a version of this VUE environment.
* 4Dwm: SGI's enhanced MWM
* piewm: this version of tvtwm offers pie menus
* pmwm: IXI's Panorama version of MWM offers olvwm-like features.
* uwm: the Universal Window Manager is very outdated, but is an excellent example of how to do simple window manager functions. The source code (47K) is available, and minor modifications have been made to ensure it compiles on UnixWare, Linux, and AIX. It should also compile on other platforms without too much trouble.
* wm: a very primitive overlapping window manager, originally designed to help with the debugging of the X11 server, this window manager was phased out in X11R2 or R3.
* xwm: Possibly the first... this dates back to 1985, before X11 itself. The version in the archive is from X10R4.


_._

WHOO HOO thnx for that post.

[GSF1200S]

I agree that there are improvements that need to be made for both of the really big DEs - Gnome and KDE. I prefer BOTH over Windows any day (unfortunately I don't have all that much experience with OSX so I can't compare. I've used it a few times and what I saw I did like, but there were a few things which I didn't like that jumped out right away).

However, rather than starting over, I think developers should focus more on improving what we already have. The next version of KDE is shaping up to be awesome, and I can't wait to see the new Plasma feature. However, I don't use KDE right now because I find it far too cluttered.

Gnome, on the other hand, is clean, and stays out of my way when I'm not using something directly DE related. However, nautilus feels too clunky from time to time, and although I certainly love the little things (mouse-over previews on music files for one, I love that, I hope we get the same for movies soon too), there are too many things which just irritate me. I mostly end up just using the terminal for file management. The lack of an integrated 'sudo up' feature is perhaps the most irritating, it forces you to rely on custom scripts etc to do anything requiring root priveleges, which again means that I may aswell just use the terminal. Another thing which frequently irritates me is the behaviour of the 'quick-link' panel on the left. It looks, and feels, like you should just be able to drag a folder onto it to create a quick link, but if you actually try to do this, there's no telling what the actual result will be. Sometimes, it does actually add the folder. Other times it doesn't. Sometimes it tries to burn the folder to a CD.

I would definately say that the weakest aspect of Gnome at the moment is Nautilus. However, although there are a fair amount of problems with it, it seems to me that they are all very very minor, and I can't for the life of me understand why they still haven't been sorted out. It feels like Gnome development goes at a snails pace, while KDE seems to be sprinting along with a lot of innovation, if not always great execution.

When KDE4 comes out, I think the KDE team may gain yet another user, in all honesty. I would love to see the KDE team and the Gnome team (and, of course, the users) put aside their differences and start sharing ideas and suggestions rather than just taking potshots at each other. Both have problems, and for the most part, the problems are such that a weakness in one is very well executed in the other. It's hardly brain surgery to see that a little co-operation would improve both.


I agree with you 100%. I currently lean KDE, while I do like Gnome for many reasons as well. Overall, for me, when tweaked, KDE feels the best. But Gnome has very cool features that KDE lacks, and vice versa. I think KDE is doing the right thing with KDE4. They are facing tough times and alot of flack, but by KDE 4.2 it will be very innovative, stable, and bring a new era in how a desktop acts. I hope Gnome and for that matter XFCE follow suit...

[K.Mandla]

WHOO HOO thnx for that post.
It's from http://xwinman.org/others.php

[KhaaL]

I'm quite happy with compiz-fusion. the only thing that it's missing is making a window "ghosted", that is the clicks goes to the window below instead. It's ideal when you need a note stickied on the desktop yet not in the way.

[Nymrat]

I can reccomend these wm's:

IceWM: lightweight and configured/themed using plain-english text files
pros: speedy, drawing your own theme is fun ;)
cons: retro look
website: http://www.icewm.org/

Xfce: A solid alternative to Gnome and KDE. Similar to Gnome, but 'feels' better to use, in my opinion.
pros: full DE, focus on productivity
cons: takes some effort to make it look good
website: http://www.xfce.org/
distros: http://www.xubuntu.org , http://www.zenwalk.org/

My #1 choice...

Enlightenment (e17): A beautiful desktop shell (almost a full DE) which somehow focuses on both performance and eye-candy with no compromise on either. It runs smoothly on old hardware and kicks all other WM's and OS's on looks. It also does things differently. It has clearly evolved independently from other desktop environments without feeling any pressure to do things anyone else's way.
I feel comfortable and happy using the desktop to do actual work. The eye-candy is subtle and elegant, it makes work pleasant and doesn't get in your face. Art for your, not it's own, sake.
Pros: Supremely attractive interface, very fast on low spec machines (openGEU runs great on my Duron 700MHz, 192MB RAM laptop)
cons: Not yet as fully featured as Gnome
website: http://www.enlightenment.org/
distros: http://www.elivecd.org/ , http://opengeu.intilinux.com/Home.html

[subdivision]

This thread is over a year old, bud.

[stwschool]

If you want to see something innovative and not copying mac or windows, wait til you see gnome-shell, part of gnome 3. It's sexy.

[Mazza558]

I found it strange I didn't notice this thread was from 2007... nothing has changed since then, apart from KDE 4.

[Dragonbite]

I found it strange I didn't notice this thread was from 2007... nothing has changed since then, apart from KDE 4.

2007? Then that makes this thread almost 2 years old, not one!!

[Choad]

What would be novel in a GUI? they all have icons, mouse pointer, maybe some context menus; what could be added that would be a breakthrough?
intelligent window management, tiling windows, cleverly integrated virtual desktops, integrate search in to everything, zero delay when opening and closing windows (note: application may still take a while to load, but the window should be created and destroyed instantly), clever thumbnails for windows (showing you the information that is pertinent to the window), unification of notifications (notify OSD is a step in the right direction, let's see that work with *everything* and have a method of allowing user interaction and allowing users to bring up a message history), an integrated tutorial which asks a few questions to give the user the right level of guidance, use of 3D acceleration within applications to enhance user experience (pages of a document/ web page animated like desktop wall when switching tabs, for example)

this is just what is on the top of my head right now. THERE IS SO MUCH THAT CAN BE DONE BUT NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING THAT COMES CLOSE TO ENOUGH

[lvleph]

That is kind of sad that this thread is two years old and nothing has really changed, especially with gnome. I guess the announcement of gnome 3, but that will be a while.

[Choad]

That is kind of sad that this thread is two years old and nothing has really changed, especially with gnome. I guess the announcement of gnome 3, but that will be a while.
yeh i missed the age of this thread, i just read up to who i quoted and started ranting. doesn't change a damn thing unfortunately :(

[lvleph]

So I guess the point of this has been proven.

[del_diablo]

use of 3D acceleration within applications to enhance user experience

I disagree on everything except that. 3D is highly over-rated, and the coding tends to be bloat. And most of the time its not adding anything, just fancy idiocy.

Well anyway, the real problem is that GNOME got a awful default GUI along with lots of annoying quirks, KDE just went on to 4 and is attempting to purge the last bugs, and all the small WM's lack a proper tool to configure the rest of the system.

[sertse]

This is one of the few times I think bump a thread 2 years later is actually worthwhile, and hopefully not closed for necromancing.

As there's said, not much has changed, in terms of completely change the way we use interface, but with KDE 4 and Gnome 3 perhaps we might be seeing something?

Though actually, have tiling wm's become more "mainstream" from 2 years ago? In screenshot threads at least, I found they are more common (Especially awesome and xnomad) than it used to be..

[Psumi]

I disagree on everything except that. 3D is highly over-rated, and the coding tends to be bloat. And most of the time its not adding anything, just fancy idiocy.

Well anyway, the real problem is that GNOME got a awful default GUI along with lots of annoying quirks, KDE just went on to 4 and is attempting to purge the last bugs, and all the small WM's lack a proper tool to configure the rest of the system.

Seriously, my IBM computer can barely use 3D, and it's enabled by default if I install Ubuntu.

[del_diablo]

Then again, out of curiosity:
*Does there actually exists a good configuration tool for the entire system that can rival KDE and GNOME's system tools?
*What windows managers are actually decent these days? PekWM? Some other ones?
*Does there exists a modern light QT window manager with decent features?
*What new desktop design should there be?
*Is LXDE good, or does it lack to many features?

I think we need to discuss this topic more, its importent. There is also 1 thing i really want to know:
*When will X11 support changing virtual desktops while running a full 3D application in fullscreen?

Well, the real problem is not that Linux is behind. Its actually quite good, and far ahead. Its the lack of a proper configureation tool outside of the main DE's, and that the small ones also lacks something to kick them into the mainstream.

[Nerd King]

It's a good question, one which I have pondered myself. Personally, I think that Linux could have a real shot at the desktop title if someone put together a DE/WM that broke with the "let's copy the other guys" mode of thinking, and innovated.
Gnome-Shell's an attempt at that and look how people are screaming blue murder.

[Странник]

I remind you that Gnome Shell is the attempt to be innovative

[BrokenKingpin]

I think at this point XFCE has the most potential. It is getting close to Gnome in terms of usablility and features, but is a fair bit lighter.