OSDev.org

Why must there be so many window managers for Linux is beyond me.

Why there should be only one window manager for windows and os x is beyond me too. X has window managers because it is not the job of the X server to move windows around. In and of itself, X already has the concept of windows. The only thing the window manager does is make the windows pretty and allows you to move them around. The number of window managers allow you to use what you like the most and what fits your computer.

An operating system, by definition is something that interfaces with the user through a GUI.

Wrong. An operating system is what it says it is: It operates the computer, nothing else.

You'd think that since most GUIs these days use similar window-based interfaces, there would be a standard for those.

There is a standard. However, some window managers are non-compliant. Most of the common window managers are compliant and standardized. Some less known window managers might not be perfect but that is what you have to expect from little known programs on any operating system. The major wms such as metacity,kwin,XFCE's window manager, enlightenment, compiz, beryl, and compiz-fusion are all pretty much standard and there is not much difference between them. However, there are those that try to be different such as Xmonad, but you are not required to use that.

If the model most commonly used is that of a window, as a simple square on the screen, why are there so many different managers out there?

You don't need a window manager to get squares on the screen. Try killing your window manager. The X server will still show the squares on the screen. However, they no longer have a title bar and so you can't move them. This is all a window manager does. It simply paints the title bar and allows you to move it.

The problem with all of them is that each offers a minimum amount of customization options to the user, but to be fully customizable, you'd have to install all of the existing window managers on top of a kernel and then switch between them.

How customizable can a window manager be? In most operating systems, you can't even change the theme for goodness sakes. Contrast this with X, where the window manager can take on a completely different look. Also, have you seen the options that compiz-fusion give you? If that isn't customizability, then I don't know what is.

I don't think you fully understand what exactly a window manager does in X. I would really suggest reading the wikipedia articles on it as they are really revealing as to the inner nature of window managers.

Just my point! I get confused even making the difference, but not between Linux and X; between X and window managers. Why so many different ways of drawing a simple square with a title on the screen and drawing stuff inside it: X, Gnome, KDE, Beryl, Compiz, and who knows what other stupid names there are out there? I might not know what those are (WM's, WS's, graphics servers or whatever). Yeah... never mind! The world goes round and who am I to question that? I just think it's as big a mistake as any other monumental historical screw-ups (conventional memory for example).

You're not understanding: X is this customizable base you said GUIs should be like, at least on most Unixes (albeit not part of the kernel). Gnome, KDE, Beryl, etc. run on top of the X server (think of them like the customizations to your GUI), which is why a Gnome app can run in KDE and vice versa... I don't really see the problem here...

And the X Window Manager does allow A LOT of customization - just compare each graphical environment (Gnome, KDE, Beryl, etc.) to one another.

inx wrote:Ubuntu is definitely snappier than XP. You're referring to X11, which is slow wherever it's shoved. That's not a Ubuntu/Linux flaw.

Ubuntu without GUI is completely different enveroment than any Windows, thus you can't compare the two unless you add gui to Ubuntu which is XServer + aditional component(like KDE).

and WindowManager to me is something that calls graph api & provides interaction between windows. Both of these things are done partially by X server & KDE(Gnome) together

exkor wrote:Ubuntu without GUI is completely different enveroment than any Windows, thus you can't compare the two unless you add gui to Ubuntu which is XServer + aditional component(like KDE).

I agree completely. Windows NT without a GUI is OS/2 1.x with better drivers and networking, anyway. However, "without X" != "without GUI". DirectFB has ports of GTK and Qt, and is much snappier than X with any window manager. The point of my post was to make the distinction between Linux and the crap bolted onto it. Linux is not even an OS, it is a kernel. What people stick on top of it is their own business, not the Linux devel team's. X originated from an entirely different source, and happened to become the de facto standard, but that does not make it the only choice. Linux itself is a snappy kernel that doesn't require very much resources. X11 is a bloated monstrosity by this point, but that's no different than any other mainstream UI. The primary reason for its speed (or lack thereof) is its flexibility. It was meant to be network distributed, and was not designed for multimedia applications. Almost everything we do with X was bolted on much later.

karekare0 wrote:X is this customizable base you said GUIs should be like

I never said anything about a "customizable base". I was talking about a real GUI, something that has GUI written all over it, not with a source that contains words like "****" or "love" which are counted every year and put in graph. That might have been a joke but I see it as nonsense.

zaleschiemilgabriel wrote:I was talking about a real GUI, something that has GUI written all over it, not with a source that contains words like "****" or "love" which are counted every year and put in graph. That might have been a joke but I see it as nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense, what exactly are you talking about? For the sake of debate, if you're not going to explain what in <insert deity here>'s name you're talking about, it helps to cite your sources.

If you're referring to something that was on the Xorg site on April 1st, that whistling you hear in the background is the sound of a joke sailing gloriously through the skies above your head.

On that note, two points:
1) XFree86 was a project started to provide an implementation of X11R6 free of charge, by volunteers. Being paid is a big part of maintaining rigid professionalism in all aspects of your organization's presentation in lieu of any humour whatsoever.
2) Xorg was a project forked to provide an implementation of X11R6 free of charge and free of the X Foundation's licensing burden, by volunteers. Being paid is a big part of maintaining rigid professionalism in all aspects of your organization's presentation in lieu of any humour whatsoever.

It's rather unfair to expect people to provide a service for free while maintaining a complete separation of their personality from the project. If you do something out of passion, you will be attached to it and feel a desire to continue it in the way you feel best. If you do something without passion or pay, it's unlikely to get very far, and if it does despite the lack of fundamental motivation, it's almost guaranteed to be a complete mess. Fun is a very big part of passion, and there is nothing wrong with that. If you're not having fun with it, you're not very passionate. Is my OS worthless because its kernel is currently named Llama, just for fun? I doubt that's the deciding factor when I don't expect anybody to to pay for it at any time for the future, and wouldn't be interested in their money if they wanted to.

So what you're saying is that X developers are selfish?

It helps giving proper arguments instead of going through these logical fallacies. If you don't have a clue about the subject then do not talk about it, rather than running an argument over nothing.

Try not to be an argument troll. Ok?

Wow. On troll standards you're almost on a par with Craze Frog. I must say I feel no regret for his departing these forums, and I probably would feel just the same amount if you did.

Oh, com'on! You mean to tell none of you ever asked yourselves why the most common Linux distributions use this hierarchy: kernel->X->{window manager mixed with Compiz and stuff}? If you really think I'm a troll you'd get rid of me a lot easier by simply acknowledging what I'm saying, instead of flaming everything I say. IMO every forum has a troll. It's just the mods' choice of who that should be. If I leave, someone else will take the place. But I chose to sacrifice myself for the sake of debate.

zaleschiemilgabriel wrote:You mean to tell none of you ever asked yourselves why the most common Linux distributions use this hierarchy: kernel->X->{window manager mixed with Compiz and stuff}?

We don't need to, since we know why: it's an historic artifact, embedded in Linux in such a way it would be very difficult to get rid off. And let's face it: it works pretty well. Of course noone in their right mind would design a hobby OS that works the same way, but that's not the point.


JAL

zaleschiemilgabriel wrote:IMO every forum has a troll. It's just the mods' choice of who that should be.

We've already have the official OSDev troll, so that position has been filled. And since you confessed, how about banning you right now? You have nothing to add

P.S. I liked the public display, shall we do it again

zaleschiemilgabriel wrote:So what you're saying is that X developers are selfish?

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. The point I was making was that X's existence as free software is a testament of the selflessness of the developers. The original developers didn't gain nearly as much as we did from its development -- they had access to the >$30,000 hardware/software bundles needed at the time to run X.

zaleschiemilgabriel wrote:IMO every forum has a troll. It's just the mods' choice of who that should be. If I leave, someone else will take the place.

Every forum has at least one troll, usually a couple. They are not, however, there because they are an essential part of the community, but rather because mods tend to be generally good-willed people, and the remaining trolls haven't become enough of a detriment to the community to be forcefully booted yet.

The idea is that if a troll is exposed to rational thought long enough, they can sometimes gain enough knowledge to become more enlightened and provide something meaningful to society. John Gabriel's Greater Internet F***wad theory kicks in here with the fact that any average person, given anonymity, will exploit this lack of need to be accountable for their actions. If, after an extended period of time, they continue to act like a troll after the glory of exploiting their anonymity in any particular venue has worn off, they probably are just a troll.

zaleschiemilgabriel wrote:But I chose to sacrifice myself for the sake of debate.

Merriam-Webster Abridged Dictionary of the English Language wrote:debate[noun] - A careful weighing of the reasons for or against something <after much debate, I decided to get the chocolate ice cream> — see consideration 1

or

Merriam-Webster Abridged Dictionary of the English Language wrote:argument[noun] - An often noisy or angry expression of differing opinions <the couple's arguments were often loud enough to be heard all over the neighborhood>

Which of these definitions would you say best describes your style of "debate"?

Combuster wrote:

zaleschiemilgabriel wrote:IMO every forum has a troll. It's just the mods' choice of who that should be.

We've already have the official OSDev troll, so that position has been filled.

Wait, wait. Who is it? (Craze Frog has since left....)