on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 09:03:04PM -0800, Brian Nelson (nelson@bignachos.com) wrote:
> "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> > on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:07:19PM -0800, Brian Nelson (nelson@bignachos.com) wrote:
> > > Theoretically, that should work, but wmaker rarely seems to save the
> > > window positions and attributes correctly for me. It completely
> > > ignores emacs windows, doesn't save the omnipresent attribute, etc.,
> > > not to mention all the cpu usage bugs that have been appearing lately.
> > > I'm really becoming disenchanted with wmaker.
> > >
> > > There's no problem with this guy's box; wmaker just sucks.
> >
> > Them's fightin' words.
> >
> > Hmmm...not my experience at all. Then again, I don't do much in the way
> > of saving session state (I open two terminals, that's it), or mucking
> > with window preferences, though the settings I've configured through
> > the window commands "Attributes" tab seem to stick.
> >
> > I'm running WindowMaker 0.70.1, the latest available appears to be
> > 0.70.2. There are a few notes of bugs on the mailing list (I monitor it
> > but only read every few weeks), particularly just after the 0.70 release
> > (libProbList deps removed), but my experience is that it works pretty
> > darned well. Considering a typical session might stay up for months,
> > that's not too bad.
> >
> > Could you point to references for the bugs you're seeing?
>
> This one's really annoying:
> http://bugs.debian.org/118368
Fixed in 0.70.1, per wm-user and my own test.
> and I think this one bites me as well:
> http://bugs.debian.org/108903
This is a libPropList bug. WMaker 0.70+ no longer requires libPropList,
and should be clear.
> There's probably about 100 bug reports in the BTS filed against
> wmaker, which is pretty poor for a relatively simplistic window
> manager.
Hmm...Counts are all currently listed bugs, including wishlist and some
marked fixed or forwarded. Alpha order.
9wm: 4
afterstep: 1
blackbox: 14
ctwm: 2
enlightenment: 25
fvwm1: 1
fvwm: 97
gnome-panel: 33
icewm: 11
kdebase: 50
lwm: 1
qvwm: 14
sawfish: 23
twm: 3
uwm: 2
vtwm: 5
wmaker: 94
Counts for wmaker are high, but not out of line. fvwm's higher, by a
hair, though I'd not think that speaks for poor quality. I'm not sure
what an equivalent metric for KDE or GNOME would be, I've included one
core package from each. The total bugcount for sawfish plus gnome-panel
approaches wmaker...does this mean GNOME's a piece of crap as well?
Many of the bugs listed for wmaker are old -- a year, two years, or
more -- and are resolved in current releases. Seems like some serious
bugsquashing needs to happen by way of closing out old bugs. I also
challenge your characterization of WindowMaker as "a relatively
simplistic window manager". It's not. It approaches being a desktop
environment, as I've said previously.
More pointedly: the highest correlation I suspect is not between
quality and bugcount, but use. It's the seldom-seen window managers
which have the fewest entries overall -- afterstep and lwm.
> Looking at that second bug report, there's some brain-damaged coding
> going on.
...for which wmaker has a monopoly, no doubt. Anyone got the DoJ's
number, maybe we should alert them to this....
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Attachment:
pgpWN5bZMFdrr.pgp
Description: PGP signature