Desktop Managers - Suse

This is a discussion on Desktop Managers - Suse ; I'm just curious about different desktop managers and everyone's opinion about them. I have been using KDE for a while and I looked a bunch that came with SuSE but none of them really struck me so I just want ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Desktop Managers

  1. Desktop Managers

    I'm just curious about different desktop managers and everyone's opinion
    about them. I have been using KDE for a while and I looked a bunch that
    came with SuSE but none of them really struck me so I just want to see what
    else is out there and what people get behind and what people stay away from
    and where I would be able to find them.

    Appreciate all opinions.
    --
    Running SuSE 10.0 KDE 3.4.2 x86_64

  2. Re: Desktop Managers

    Mike wrote:

    > I'm just curious about different desktop managers and everyone's opinion
    > about them. I have been using KDE for a while and I looked a bunch that
    > came with SuSE but none of them really struck me so I just want to see
    > what else is out there and what people get behind and what people stay
    > away from and where I would be able to find them.
    >
    > Appreciate all opinions.


    XFCE is quite good, I like that one (but use KDE)
    Gnome isn't really my taste
    Blackbox, Openbox etc are a bit to minimal for me, but good for some "quick
    jobs"
    I try to stay clear of WM, Icebox, e16/e17 and the likes.
    I never tried JavaDE so can't really tell you anything about that.

    however everybody will have his/her own taste in WM/DE. So this isn't reaaly
    a good question for newsgroups, as everybody will tell you his personal
    opinion and it will probably result in some kind of flamewar.

  3. Re: Desktop Managers

    Patrick Grimbergen wrote:

    > Mike wrote:
    >
    >> I'm just curious about different desktop managers and everyone's opinion
    >> about them. I have been using KDE for a while and I looked a bunch that
    >> came with SuSE but none of them really struck me so I just want to see
    >> what else is out there and what people get behind and what people stay
    >> away from and where I would be able to find them.
    >>
    >> Appreciate all opinions.

    >
    > XFCE is quite good, I like that one (but use KDE)
    > Gnome isn't really my taste
    > Blackbox, Openbox etc are a bit to minimal for me, but good for some
    > "quick jobs"
    > I try to stay clear of WM, Icebox, e16/e17 and the likes.
    > I never tried JavaDE so can't really tell you anything about that.
    >
    > however everybody will have his/her own taste in WM/DE. So this isn't
    > reaaly a good question for newsgroups, as everybody will tell you his
    > personal opinion and it will probably result in some kind of flamewar.


    I tried searching for some but all I got was too many results with nothing
    to do with this. So I figured with this I will be able to get some names to
    search for.
    Also, is the "flamewar" bad?

    --
    Running SuSE 10.0 KDE 3.4.2 x86_64

  4. Re: Desktop Managers

    On Jun 19, 6:15 pm, Mike wrote:
    > I'm just curious about different desktop managers and everyone's opinion
    > about them. I have been using KDE for a while and I looked a bunch that
    > came with SuSE but none of them really struck me so I just want to see what
    > else is out there and what people get behind and what people stay away from
    > and where I would be able to find them.
    >
    > Appreciate all opinions.
    > --
    > Running SuSE 10.0 KDE 3.4.2 x86_64


    I avoid Gnome. I don't like the file manager, too limited in views
    and such. Plus, I don't like metacity, the default window manager.
    No options at all for making things happen based on window class or
    anything. (I like to make my eterm windows appear on a certain
    desktop and certain way, for example.) You can use other window
    managers of course. Sawfish, for instance, goes a long way towards
    making it usable, but there's too many other limitations that I don't
    like.

    XFCE... someone based a desktop environment design on CDE. On purpose
    even. ...shudders...

    I like to play with the Enlightment once in a while, but the pretty
    themes usually go overboard and have unreadable fonts. It's basically
    just too hard to use for me to bother with it in my work environment,
    unfortunately.

    All the others, WM, *box, etc, are just too featureless or difficult
    to configure to bother using. However, if ram and resource
    consumption were a factor for me, I'd just go back to WM. I used it
    in conjunction with tkdesk for many years.

    --
    Andy


  5. Re: Desktop Managers

    On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:15:51 -0400, Mike wrote:

    > I'm just curious about different desktop managers and everyone's opinion
    > about them. I have been using KDE for a while and I looked a bunch that
    > came with SuSE but none of them really struck me so I just want to see
    > what else is out there and what people get behind and what people stay
    > away from and where I would be able to find them.
    >
    > Appreciate all opinions.


    I used fvwm for a while and really liked it. You have to do a lot of
    configuring to get it the way you want it though.
    http://www.fvwm.org/

    I forget why I switched back to kde. Maybe I'll fire fvwm back up.


  6. Re: Desktop Managers

    Mike writes:

    > I'm just curious about different desktop managers and everyone's opinion
    > about them.


    I don't like to limit myself to apps from one desktop environments. I
    use Window Maker as my Window Manager. As to apps I use a mixture of
    GNUstep, KDE + pure QT (NewStep theme), GNOME + pure GTK + wxGTK
    (GTK2-Step theme), and NeXtaw (Athena with NeXTstep look) apps.

    The good thing about Open Source is choice. WHat is one man's treasure
    is another one's garbage.

    Charles

    --
    "Oh, I've seen copies [of Linux Journal] around the terminal room at The
    Labs."
    (By Dennis Ritchie)

  7. Re: Desktop Managers

    AHinMaine writes:

    > I'd just go back to WM. I used it in conjunction with tkdesk for many
    > years.


    Brings back memories. I still use Window Maker. As to Tkdesk, too bad it
    is dead- I still think that it is one of the most configurable
    file/desktop managers.

    Charles

  8. Re: Desktop Managers

    Whitey Johnson writes:

    > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:15:51 -0400, Mike wrote:
    >
    > > I'm just curious about different desktop managers and everyone's opinion
    > > about them. I have been using KDE for a while and I looked a bunch that
    > > came with SuSE but none of them really struck me so I just want to see
    > > what else is out there and what people get behind and what people stay
    > > away from and where I would be able to find them.
    > >
    > > Appreciate all opinions.

    >
    > I used fvwm for a while and really liked it. You have to do a lot of
    > configuring to get it the way you want it though.
    > http://www.fvwm.org/
    >
    > I forget why I switched back to kde. Maybe I'll fire fvwm back up.
    >


    Like everyone else, my first recommendation is to suggest that you
    experiment to find out what works best for you. But if you'd like a
    little bit of help, my experience:

    --KDE looks the best and always works. It's a bit of a hog, though,
    and takes the longest to start of any of them. Since I'm using a
    laptop that I start and stop several times a day, this is a big deal.
    It's also a RAM-hog. When I'm editing photos it'll sometimes nearly
    stop working. Those are the two reasons I seldom use it anymore, but
    frankly I prefer it.

    --Gnome. I'd really like to give Gnome a really good work out, but for
    some reason I've never been able to get it to work. On my machines
    it'll be unstable, won't start right or won't log out. For other
    people it's their preferred desktop. I don't know why I have such
    problems with it. I do like the way it looks, though.


    Since I seem to always have underpowered machines, I've used
    lighter-weight window managers most of the time in the last few years.
    Here are some I've used:

    --IceWM. I really liked this. It has a traditional task bar with clock
    plus a gadget that shows how hard the machine is working. For some
    reason it won't work on my new laptop.

    --Blackbox. This is what I use most of the time. Like its name
    suggests, it's just a blank screen. You start programs by clicking on
    the screen. It's extremely lightweight, starts right away and solved
    my bogging-down program when editing photos. I've found adding the
    BBkeys program to it a big help, since it allows you to alt-tab
    through running programs along with adding keyboard shortcuts to
    close, maximize, minimize or do other things to them. You're supposed
    to be able to do a certain amount of customization to the title bars
    and things, but I've never been able to get that to work. Therefore on
    my machine it's pretty ugly. When I want to show off Linux to people I
    switch to KDE. They're always impressed. I found that making your own
    menu of programs using BBkeys is a big help in maximizing efficiency
    with this window manager.

    --Sawfish. I used to use this exclusively but it wasn't in the 64-bit
    section of SuSe 9.1. I recall it as being kind of like Blackbox but
    really don't remember. It's been a long time. Worked good, though.

    --Windowmaker. People love this, it never works quite right for me. It
    looks nice.

    --Enlightenment. I've been really impressed with some of the screen
    captures I've seen online of this window manager. I don't know where
    they get all those bells and whistles. It seems to eat certain
    programs, KInternet for one, and while they there, you can't use them.
    Still, I'm using it right now since I'm no longer on dial-up and don't
    need KInternet. I have to admit I'm mostly attracted to it because of
    its animated effects, but don't know if I'm really any farther ahead
    than on Blackbox.

    I've tried many others but often discarded them as not workable for
    the things I have to do with a computer.

    Speaking of KInternet, most window managers will allow you to use KDE
    and Gnome programs. In other words, you aren't restricted to Gnome if,
    say, you want to use Evolution. It'll probably work in whatever you're
    using.

    As you can see, I've had a bit of a checkered experience with window
    managers. Ones that work perfectly for other people won't work at all
    for me. Some that I find irritating are a perfect fit for others.

    And that's the thing. Your working style isn't necessarily my working
    style. Some people have huge numbers of running programs that they
    need to file on several virtual desktops. In my case, I have a small
    number of programs I use at any time (Emacs, Firefox, GQView) so I
    don't have a use for additional desktops. So, again, the main point is
    experiment until you find what works best for you. And don't forget
    that you're not limited to one desktop. There are people that use one
    window manager for one type of work, another for a different type.

    Hope all this helps.


    --Rod
    ______________________
    Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answers for Practical
    Consumers" and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." To reply by e-mail
    take the second "o" out of the e-mail address.

  9. Re: Desktop Managers

    Mike wrote:

    > I'm just curious about different desktop managers and everyone's opinion
    > about them. I have been using KDE for a while and I looked a bunch that
    > came with SuSE but none of them really struck me so I just want to see
    > what else is out there and what people get behind and what people stay
    > away from and where I would be able to find them.
    >
    > Appreciate all opinions.


    See http://xwinman.org/ there you will lots of info.

    Gert

  10. Re: Desktop Managers

    Gert wrote:

    > See http://xwinman.org/ there you will lots of info.


    And obviously http://themes.freshmeat.net/ as well if you want to look
    at screenshots.

    houghi
    --
    First we thought the PC was a calculator. Then we found out how to turn
    numbers into letters with ASCII and we thought it was a typewriter. Then
    we discovered graphics, and we thought it was television. With the World
    Wide Web, we've realized it's a brochure. -- Douglas Adams.

  11. Re: Desktop Managers

    roodwriter@ureach.com wrote:
    > Like everyone else, my first recommendation is to suggest that you
    > experiment to find out what works best for you. But if you'd like a
    > little bit of help, my experience:


    It is about opinions of what you think indeed. And IO suppose you know
    the saying about iopnions and everybody having one. ;-)
    If you try, give it a serious try. Not just a few minutes or even hours.
    I tried XCFE for about 2-3 months before deciding against it.

    > --KDE looks the best and always works.


    I think it is hidious and ugly. I think it tries to be like XP and that
    is hidious and ugly too. Looks like 'My first Desktop' from Fisherprice
    and Sony.
    I do use the KDE progras (as well as the GNOME ones) but dislike the way
    it does things. First I hate and do not understand the need for desktop
    icons. What is up whit that? MOve ove a program so you can click on
    somwething that is available somewhere else. Serious failing of
    ergonomics.
    I did not get it with Windows 3.1. I did not get it with 95, 98 or with
    Enlightenment, or with MacOS. I just do not get it. People have tried to
    explain, but the fact remains that if your program is over an icon you
    want to use, you need to move it.

    > --Gnome. I'd really like to give Gnome a really good work out, but for
    > some reason I've never been able to get it to work.


    Stability is not an issue. It is as stable as anything else I install
    with YaST. It still looks ugly.

    > --IceWM. I really liked this. It has a traditional task bar with clock
    > plus a gadget that shows how hard the machine is working. For some
    > reason it won't work on my new laptop.


    Again no problem when I install it with YaST. Not sure what I think
    about it, but I in general do not like the concept of the menu bar.

    > --Blackbox. This is what I use most of the time.


    No real experience with it, so no comment

    > When I want to show off Linux to people I switch to KDE. They're
    > always impressed. I found that making your own menu of programs using
    > BBkeys is a big help in maximizing efficiency with this window
    > manager.


    I used to use Enlightenment! to show off Linux. Now the thing to show it
    of might be that 3D stuff.

    > --Sawfish.


    No real exprience

    > --Windowmaker. People love this, it never works quite right for me. It
    > looks nice.


    Bit more exlantion, because that is what I use and have more experience
    withit.
    It looks functional. I would not call it 'nice'. There are some themes,
    but mainly it is functional. It needs some tweaking till you get it to
    your liking, but the tools to do it with are easy to use. You have
    Window Maker Prefrences and wmconf that do about the same thing, but in
    slightly different ways. I tend to use the second one.
    http://houghi.org/shots/wmaker/index.php for some screenshots.

    > --Enlightenment. I've been really impressed with some of the screen
    > captures I've seen online of this window manager.


    It used to be on the forefront of design. This is what made me go to
    Linux. They had Eterm, which was semi-transparent. Unheard of when we
    were all still using Windows 95. It had flowing water at the bottom and
    some realy neat effects.
    The disadvatage is that it is not realy seriously developed by enough
    people. It has now some even better effects. Look at
    http://www.rasterman.com/files/ and especialy the e17_movie-XX.avi
    movies. Those are movies from 2004, begin 2005.

    Configuration was a bit of a pain and later I went to WindowMaker,
    because it was a bit easier to configure.



    > In my case, I have a small number of programs I use at any time
    > (Emacs, Firefox, GQView) so I don't have a use for additional
    > desktops.


    Because of that I DO use different desktops. As can be seen on my link
    above, I have 8 desktops. 4 on each screen and I auto-launch so all
    programs are there when I log in in the correct space on the corret
    desktop, making it easy to switch between them.

    houghi
    --
    First we thought the PC was a calculator. Then we found out how to turn
    numbers into letters with ASCII and we thought it was a typewriter. Then
    we discovered graphics, and we thought it was television. With the World
    Wide Web, we've realized it's a brochure. -- Douglas Adams.

  12. Re: Desktop Managers

    houghi writes:

    > roodwriter@ureach.com wrote:
    > > Like everyone else, my first recommendation is to suggest that you
    > > experiment to find out what works best for you. But if you'd like a
    > > little bit of help, my experience:

    >
    > It is about opinions of what you think indeed. And IO suppose you know
    > the saying about iopnions and everybody having one. ;-)
    > If you try, give it a serious try. Not just a few minutes or even hours.
    > I tried XCFE for about 2-3 months before deciding against it.
    >
    > > --KDE looks the best and always works.

    >
    > I think it is hidious and ugly. I think it tries to be like XP and that
    > is hidious and ugly too. Looks like 'My first Desktop' from Fisherprice
    > and Sony.
    > I do use the KDE progras (as well as the GNOME ones) but dislike the way
    > it does things. First I hate and do not understand the need for desktop
    > icons. What is up whit that? MOve ove a program so you can click on
    > somwething that is available somewhere else. Serious failing of
    > ergonomics.
    > I did not get it with Windows 3.1. I did not get it with 95, 98 or with
    > Enlightenment, or with MacOS. I just do not get it. People have tried to
    > explain, but the fact remains that if your program is over an icon you
    > want to use, you need to move it.
    >


    Probably that was a bit thoughtless of me, since attractiveness is in
    the eye of the beholder. It probably would have been better for me to
    say the way I have it set up I think looks great.

    I didn't use the default.

    As far as desktop icons, I never use them. They're just clutter. KDE
    allows you to shut them off, which I do.

    I had kind of forgotten this. One day I was showing off a KDE desktop
    to someone who was curious about Linux and he asked me where the icons
    were. He was happy when I turned them on. After he was gone I turned
    them off. Got in the way of the winter picture of the Lake Michigan
    lighthouse I was using as a background.


    --Rod
    ______________________
    Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answers for Practical
    Consumers" and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." To reply by e-mail
    take the second "o" out of the e-mail address.

  13. Wallpapers (Was: Desktop Managers)

    roodwriter@ureach.com wrote:
    > I had kind of forgotten this. One day I was showing off a KDE desktop
    > to someone who was curious about Linux and he asked me where the icons
    > were. He was happy when I turned them on. After he was gone I turned
    > them off. Got in the way of the winter picture of the Lake Michigan
    > lighthouse I was using as a background.


    Well, my backgrounds are a bit diferent. :-D

    I have some 37000 (yes 000) 1600x1200 backgrounds and the majority is
    ladies. I have a script that changes my background every two minutes.
    With two screens that is almost 13 days continues seeing a different
    picture. :-D
    The script I use is http://houghi.org/script/background2

    I display the name, because sometimes I have people asking 'Who was
    that' and by the naming I have, I can determine who the person was most
    of the time.

    I also use some scripts to make them and post them to
    alt.binaries.pictures.wallpaper. Also some scripts that rip several
    sites so I can decide what pictures I use for the wallpapers.

    The whole process is a bit as follows.
    1) Get pictures of an as high quality as possible
    2) Determine which pictures to use
    3) Rename the pictures and if pssible put the name of the person in the
    picture
    4) Determine what to do with each picture.
    a) Turn it into a 'photo' like
    http://houghi.org/shots/slides/Jessica6.php
    b) Turn it into a background with a name like
    http://houghi.org/shots/slides/wppbr...uthbert_02.php
    c) Use the whole picture, like
    http://houghi.org/shots/slides/background.php

    With cm I can still add a name.

    Making the photo is done by the script
    http://houghi.org/script/00_personal_scripts/wpm_photo It rotates the
    photo a bit and also gives a different name and number to each picture
    in a random way.

    Turning it into a wallpaper where the picture is deeper is done with
    http://houghi.org/script/00_personal...allpaper_maker where it
    takes the name from the picture and puts it on a semirandom place with a
    random font and a random way to show the font.

    When I use the whole picture, I can decide wether or not I want to edit
    it, using the gimp and then later add the name at the left bottom with
    http://houghi.org/script/00_personal...ts/wpm_addname

    If I decide to use the gimp, I use a small script
    http://houghi.org/script/00_personal_scripts/wpm_gimp where I get a new
    file with the new correct size.

    I put everything in different directories, using gqview and then in each
    directory I use http://houghi.org/script/00_personal_scripts/wpm where I
    can decide also if I want to have pictures resized.

    Renaming the files I do with
    http://houghi.org/script/00_personal_scripts/wpm_rename and somehow that
    does not work from the above script. No idea why not and too lazy to
    figure it out. :-)

    houghi
    --
    First we thought the PC was a calculator. Then we found out how to turn
    numbers into letters with ASCII and we thought it was a typewriter. Then
    we discovered graphics, and we thought it was television. With the World
    Wide Web, we've realized it's a brochure. -- Douglas Adams.

  14. Re: Wallpapers (Was: Desktop Managers)

    houghi writes:

    > roodwriter@ureach.com wrote:
    > > I had kind of forgotten this. One day I was showing off a KDE desktop
    > > to someone who was curious about Linux and he asked me where the icons
    > > were. He was happy when I turned them on. After he was gone I turned
    > > them off. Got in the way of the winter picture of the Lake Michigan
    > > lighthouse I was using as a background.

    >
    > Well, my backgrounds are a bit diferent. :-D
    >


    These days when I have KDE on I use the Worldclock as a background.


    --Rod
    ______________________
    Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answers for Practical
    Consumers" and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." To reply by e-mail
    take the second "o" out of the e-mail address.

  15. Re: Wallpapers (Was: Desktop Managers)

    houghi wrote:

    > The script I use is http://houghi.org/script/background2


    I use KDE ;-)
    http://users.telenet.be/photo-memori...-backgroud.png
    --
    EOS
    www.photo-memories.be
    Running KDE 3.5.7 / openSUSE 10.2

  16. Re: Wallpapers (Was: Desktop Managers)

    EOS wrote:
    > houghi wrote:
    >
    >> The script I use is http://houghi.org/script/background2

    >
    > I use KDE ;-)
    > http://users.telenet.be/photo-memori...-backgroud.png


    Have fun doing the following:
    1) Determing who shows up on what screen for the curent and past image
    2) Have a list so that you know what pictures have already been shown
    and do not show them again on either screen, untill all pcitures have
    been shown
    3) Add some 1500 directories and subdirectories.

    e.g. (And now you all might understand why I want to burn a DVD
    ../dvd_01/women/a/alice_greczyn
    ../dvd_01/women/a/april_scott
    ../dvd_01/women/a/ashlee_simpson
    ../dvd_01/women/a/alley_bagget
    ../dvd_01/women/a/anne_suzuki
    ../dvd_01/women/a/amber_arbucci
    ../dvd_01/women/a/ashley_judd
    ....
    ../dvd_02/women/z/zita_debreczeni
    ../dvd_02/women/z/zoe_ball
    ../dvd_02/women/z/zdenka_podkapova
    ../dvd_02/women/z/zrinka_jelicic
    ../dvd_02/women/z/zhang_ziyi
    ../dvd_02/women/z/ziyi_zhang



    houghi
    --
    First we thought the PC was a calculator. Then we found out how to turn
    numbers into letters with ASCII and we thought it was a typewriter. Then
    we discovered graphics, and we thought it was television. With the World
    Wide Web, we've realized it's a brochure. -- Douglas Adams.

+ Reply to Thread