Re: how to save my setting of window maker
"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 09:03:04PM -0800, Brian Nelson (nelson@bignachos.com) wrote:
> > "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > > 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.
I can still reproduce it in 0.70.1. If I right-click on a menu bar
and click Options->Omnipresent, the cpu pins at 100%. If I set it
through the attributes window, however, the cpu usage remains low.
> > 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.
Fair enough. However, the problem the original poster stated still
exists. Wmaker does not properly save window attributes. The only
way I've found to make windows stay omnipresent across sessions is to
hack the GNUStep/Defaults/WMWindowAttributes file by hand.
> > 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.
To me, wmaker feels simpler than a full desktop environment like Gnome
or KDE, which is why I like its interface. It manages windows and
workspaces, has the dock which functions and a simplified task bar, and
supports applets in the clip. That's just about it.
Gnome and KDE, in addition, support that desktop/file management
paradigm for those who like pushing icons around on the screen (which
I've never understood), built-in file managers, a more featured
(though less functional, IMO) task bar, sound events (and their own
sound daemons), and so on.
Wmaker may be more complex than another window manager, but it really
doesn't compare to a desktop environment.
> 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.
Another important aspect is maturity. Newer apps that are still in
heavy development, like Galeon, will also have plenty of bugs filed
against them. Of course, an app like Galeon isn't necessarily poorly
written; it just hasn't matured yet.
Wmaker has been around for quite a while (>5 years?), and is quite
mature. Development is moving quite slowly. Furthermore, wmaker
prides itself in its limited amount of feature creep that affect other
window managers. Consequently, I'd expect wmaker to be rock solid and
nearly bug free. It seems solid enough (I've never crashed it), but
the little bugs that have been appearing recently really irritate me.
I use wmaker because because I prefer the NeXTStep way-- a simple,
clean UI and tends to stay out of the way. However, I'm becoming
suspicious of its underlying code.
> > 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....
Heh, I wish there were only 2 brain-damaged coders in the world.
--
Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
BigNachos@jabber.org
http://bignachos.com
Reply to: