on Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 01:53:27PM -0800, Brian Nelson (nelson@bignachos.com) wrote: > "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. I'm not seeing it, set either way. Heisenbug. > > > 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. I don't use this feature (much), and haven't seen it. Have you tried clearing out your GNUstep directory (or creating a test user and checking behavior for it, if you don't want to mess with your own state). Window prefs that I _do_ set appear to persist across sessions. <...> > > 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. ...but it's rather more than your traditional window manager has done. There are exceptions. WindowMaker and Afterstep are superficially very similar. With modules, fvwm has any number of additional features (in fact Afterstep is an fvwm hack). But the role of just managing windows, iconifying them when closed, and providing menus, doesn't do WindowMaker justice. > Gnome and KDE, in addition, support that desktop/file management > paradigm for those who like pushing icons around on the screen Launch GMC if you want the same functionality under WindowMaker. Remember that GNOME/KDE are _desktop_ _systems_. They're just sets of related programs, interprocess communications, and uniform chrome. WindowMaker can stand alone or be used in conjunction with either, or portions of both. > > 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. And given the way it looks now, watch out when it does ;-) > 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've seen a few blips. Nowhere near the level you're describing. Talking about feature creep, when WMaker added a relatively minor feature (numbered application windows, with the number on the title bar), there was a major negative outcry. > I use wmaker because because I prefer the NeXTStep way-- a simple, > clean UI and tends to stay out of the way. Very much agreed. > However, I'm becoming suspicious of its underlying code. It's not looking to ugly from where I'm at. But I'll keep an eye out. 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:
pgpGTgrX6mG7_.pgp
Description: PGP signature