Re: [rox-devel] Re: Patch: merge gnome-clipboard-daemon into ROX-Filer

[Guido S. <gu...@ar...>]

Am 30.01.2004 19:25:17 schrieb(en) Stephen Watson:
> Guido Schimmels <gu...@ar...> wrote:
>=20
> > Am 26.01.2004 18:32:47 schrieb(en) Jonatan Liljedahl:
>=20
> > > /Jonatan - who would love a standalone ROX-WM!
> >
> > If you want a WM for ROX, there is no reason why it shouldn't be
> part
> > of the filer,
>=20
> Let me quote the front page of the ROX web site: "The ROX style
> favours
> using several small programs together instead of creating all-in-one
> mega-applications."

I had the idea originally when playing with the WindowLab WM, which =20
compiles into merely 30k, a taskbar included. Unfortunately nowadays =20
with increased requirements and the growing pile of WM hints, it seems =20
you don't get away with so little WM.
Apple's OroborusX fork let me have a look at the Oroborus WM, which =20
compiles to 80k. Considerably more, but still not that bad. And I =20
already see how some 30% of it's source files can be dumped due to =20
overlaps with the ROX-Filer sources. You can not compare a jump from =20
450k to 500k-550k to monstrosities like Evolution, OpenOffice or =20
Mozilla. If we were talking 200-300k for the WM, then I'd agree, =20
obviously a bad idea.
And a window manager is not really an application in the sense of a =20
addressbook, calendar or mail client anyway.

> ROX-Filer is a file manager, not a window manager.

ROX-Filer with its pinboard and panel is more than a file-manager =20
already. With an integrated WM it would be a complete desktop shell.
Window Managers are a X11 curiosity. X was originally designed as an =20
academic toy for experimentation with graphical interfaces. It's not =20
the way it is because it made actual sense. I might be wrong, but I =20
don't think you'll find something like a window manager process =20
anywhere else. The task of a window manager is trivial, the fuss made =20
about it by Linux users pathetic.

Really, OS/2 Worplace Shell, explorer.exe, BeOS Tracker. There is =20
nothing odball about this kind of integration. It doesn't necessary =20
mean the "desktop" is best implemented as a single binary. But it =20
definitely should be presented as such to the user.


> > but many reasons in favour:
> >
> > - reduced memory usage
> > - fewer context switches
> > - reduced start-up time from the login prompt
>=20
> Trivial gains I would say.



> > - usability: ROX-Filer->Options->Window Settings
> > (if you think this is not an obvious place to look, open ROX-Filer-
> >  Options now, dig through the tabs and count the word "window")
>=20
> The relevant options being:
>  * Handle iconified windows for the window manager, a side effect of
> the
>    pinboard
>  * Compatability options, which will go away eventually when the WM's
> get
>    fixed.
>=20
> > - 100% compatibility with ROX-Filer guaranteed:  better chance =20
> users
>=20
> > arrive at a working setup; especially important as ROX is a
> neglected
> > step-child of all major distros
>=20
> I've never had compatability problems with Sawfish.  Obviously other
> people
> have had trouble with their WM,

From the 100 or so WM's maybe 5 are fully compatible with ROX-Filer.
The problem is all of those WM's are in use and people try to use them =20
with ROX-Filer. And I'm so tired and bored about the matter that I want =20
to make sure I'll never have to answer such questions for RoxOS. It's =20
so old.

> but only with panels and pinboards
> which you
> were deriding earlier.

That's a miss-understanding. I wasn't deriding them. Just pointing out =20
the irrational resistence the possible wm integration met. There may be =20
sound technical reason against it like reduced responsiveness . But =20
that's a different story.

> I really think it's a lot of code to add and maintain for so little
> gain.

No foreign WM will ever fully meet the needs of RoxOS. So this is =20
really only a matter of code organisation. Things like pinboard item =20
accelerators can not fully work when the filer doesn't know which ones =20
are already taken. And for "a lot of code" see above. How much WM does =20
one really need?