As a long time windowmaker user and my current switch to the gnome/sawfish combination (this evenening actually) I was wondering what windowmanager you use.
Windowmaker ruled bigtime in it's stability and speed, but actually kinda looked like $#@% and sawfish is really fast, I didn't expect it actually and until now gnome seems to be quite stable (Unlike the slow kde) and it also looks pretty nice. I still have a lot to get used to , like missing the ALT #number combination to switch workspaces and all, I'll get used to it :)
So, the question, which windowmanager do you use and why ??
Marc van Duivenvoorde
I use KDE because it's stable.
I use twm.
Btw: this would have been a nice poll. Why haven't you started one?
I used KDE up until a little while and now I use TWM because I only use the box as a router.
KDE is very slow and runs slower than windows98 on my machine. But if you are a newbie its the way to go
E.
gnomenlightenment
very nice lot of weight to it but not a problem with the thunderbird
Originally posted by Theeggman
I used KDE up until a little while and now I use TWM because I only use the box as a router.
If you only use the box as a router, why don't you just forget the gui altogether and boot to a console? All my linux boxes boot to a console first. You'd be a fool not to boot your servers to a console, I mean, how often do you actually interact with them beyond an ocassional ssh/rsync/scp session?
There's a lot of times when I don't start x for hours on even my workstations, and having the gui boot each time annoys me.
Originally posted by Hero Zzyzzx
If you only use the box as a router, why don't you just forget the gui altogether and boot to a console? All my linux boxes boot to a console first. You'd be a fool not to boot your servers to a console, I mean, how often do you actually interact with them beyond an ocassional ssh/rsync/scp session?
There's a lot of times when I don't start x for hours on even my workstations, and having the gui boot each time annoys me.
Because I don't want to????
But what is the point of running any kind of UI on a router? You don't actually work on it (except via SSH etc., of course), do you?
Originally posted by Theeggman
Because I don't want to????
Fair enough. It's just kind of a waste of memory / processor clicks. It's definitely better to use a super lightweight WM like twm than the heavier ones.
By the way, I use KDE when I use a desktop. I just think it's more useable than gnome. The newest koffice rocks, and I like the keyboard shortcuts in KDE better than gnome.
I just feel more productive in KDE, though gnome is prettier.
gnome is productive I have to opposite the kde is more guess it depends on how the person produces
I set up the desktop for fast access to everything monitors whatever its
just great and with the enlightenment blend adds even more
does kde have eterm?
I've never used gnome, but I think the kde equivalent to that eterm is the Konsole (just great, best kde program there is!). You can use most stuff "cross-window-manager" anyway.
I just brought up eterm cause for myself it makes it easy and fast using console
Originally posted by realnowhereman
But what is the point of running any kind of UI on a router? You don't actually work on it (except via SSH etc., of course), do you?
QaPla!
Actually, why even use a standard distro for a router? Something like Smoothwall would work much better IMNSHO.
Originally posted by Theeggman
KDE is very slow and runs slower than windows98 on my machine. But if you are a newbie its the way to go
Yeah, KDE is slower than Win98 on most systems, sadly. But I would argue KDE is less geared towards the newbie than GNOME. After all, you have to know enough to WANT KDE on most distros. I've used both, but I always end back with KDE.
Actually, why even use a standard distro for a router? Something like Smoothwall would work much better IMNSHO.
Because when you install a minimal standard system you have more control on what you want to do with the machine...right now I have mandrake single network firewall running because our company maybe want to use it as a replacement for nt/proxy for some of our clients, but as a firewall it's nice but not what I want. I do not have the control over the system the way I would like to have.....better get my cable (pppoe) running with freebsd and use that as a router with natd and ipfilter.
btw, I couldn't get the cable running with Suse 7.2, which actually is my favo linux distro, a strong second is slackware, but for heavy duty servers and / or internet connected machines I almost only use freebsd, I don't exactly know why but somehow it seems to run faster, more stable and secure than linux boxes.
Marc
1. Amen to FreeBSD. It's not your imagination. Just browse the uptime reports at NetCraft (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html)
2. Blackbox, Blackbox, Blackbox (http://blackbox.alug.org/).
It's a perfect GUI to run on a server (again, only run it when you need it...). On a reasonably fast Pentium III, I guarantee you will get Blackbox to start up in almost the same time as it takes to start up a bare X session ("xinit"). In other words, it's almost a zero impact window manager.
And, on top of that, it looks darn cool. It uses only vectors and gradients, no bitmap rendering, but the range of themes you can get out of it are stunning. The menus are quick, and smooth-feeling. The only drawback is that all menu configuration is done by editing text files, but then again, maybe that's not a drawback...
How nice. But why run a GUI on a server/router anyway? You don't usually work on that system and 99.5% of the things you might want to do on it a possible via ssh or some kind of http interface. So what's the point in wasting ressources and possibly risking stability? (OK, it'll run longer than any M$ OS, but X is an insecurity factor.)
Well, the post was asking "which windowmanager" not "should I run a windowmanager on a server?", so I figured I would try to answer the question, instead of argue the basis of it. I think this question didn't just mean servers, anyway.
Yes, usually I don't run X on a server, but sometimes (especially during development work) I like to have multiple terminal windows open, and sometimes I like to run those cool resource tracking widgets, just to see what's happening.
IMHO, X is only an insecurity factor if you don't know what you're doing with it. Also, as i said, before, if you only fire it up when you are actually using it, and turn it off most of the time, then what's the problem? When I use it remotely, I use SSH tunnelling, so it's about as secure as you can get.
So in short, IF you are going to run X on a server (and I'm not saying you should), use a lightweight like Blackbox, and otherwise, on a workstation, Blackbox is great because of its speed.
Originally posted by rycamor
I like to have multiple terminal windows open
Personally, I don't have a problem running X on a server once in a while. If your server isn't adequately firewalled enough to make X secure, you have far greater problems than memory use.
Anyway, another way to get multiple terminal windows without booting X is the "screen" command, which uses a simple set of commands to allow you to launch console, destroy, suspend, and switch between them. I use it all the time, it's really handy!
Check it out.
How about using virtual terminals to have more than one shell open? On most distros its alt-Fx where x is an integer between 1-5 or so. Works well for me.
Hmm. Redhat doesn't seem to be set up for this. I use 6.2, 7.1 and 7.2 on different boxes and none of them handle this.
I don't think this would work remotely via SSH, would it?
Does anyone have any idea how to get Redhat to handle this? This would be pretty nifty.
Mandrake does allow this directly from the console, I've used it in the past.
"screen" is kind of cool because you can suspend a session, even between logins and resume from any console. Plus, it's been on every distro/shell I've ever used.