[dundee] Linux on the desktop

[Andrew Clayton]

On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 15:03, Martin Habets wrote:
>  --- Andrew Clayton <andrew at digital-domain.net> wrote: > On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 12:45, Martin
> Habets wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > One of the other main threads seems to be a need for consistency, or rather: an
> > > interface that looks/feels/behaves consistent. The discussions on KDE vs. GNOME
> > > are somewhat based on this. Even though personally I don't see any need for this
> > > consistency at all, I can understand that Windows-users would demand it.
> > > Part of the problem is that these modern environments take on too many aspects:
> > > Display Manager, Window Manager, Theme Manager all in one. We must tear them up,
> > 
> > hmm... this is pretty much the case now... the display manager is
> > separate from X, the window manager is separate from the display
> > manager. Theme managers are relatively specialised. You have one for
> > GNOME/GTK, KDE/Qt, Mozilla, Enlightenment etc...
> 
> If so, what is the name of the executable in KDE/Gnome that is the display manager?
> And don't say kdm/gdm: those are login managers (with a wrong name).
> I remember launching the Gnome applet manager under olwm (a window manager), but I
> never found a separate display manager.
> 

eh!

XDM/GDM/KDM ? Display Manager, also handle logins.

These can all be used for remote X sessions.


> To explain more: a window manager takes care of the window boundaries and
> the menus that appear when clicking on them, and (optionally) a menu when clicking
> on the root window (i.e. the background).
> A display manager takes care of a toolbar, clickable icons, and virtual screens on
> the root window.

Nope.. thats all WM stuff...

I think your terminology is confused.

XDM/GDM/KDM are all display managers.... (unless I am completely
insane!)




> Sorry if this is turning academic (no pun intended), but I'd like to make sure we are
> on the same page here.
> 
> > > and most importanty separate the Window Manager from the other parts. Why? Well,
> > > application programs only deal with the window component and not the other parts.
> > > Sidenote: The X-Windows server can ignore a request from a Window Manager, and
> > > impose it's own behaviour.
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't think this is true. X is about providing mechanism NOT policy.
> 
> You are right, that is the de-facto standard today. But that has not always been the
> case, and X has allowed for servers that dictate policy. Deceased examples are the
> old DEC Alpha implementation and the Apollo (later HP I think) implementations.
> 
> As said, these are all gone now AFAIK. But X still has all the *Hints* APIs, and
> good applications are still not allowed to battle their window manager over the size
> or position of their windows for example.
> 

I've heard of WM hints, but not X hints.

Hmm... isn't that the WM dictating policy...


> But I'm sure Bill and his followers would not mind about (breaking) such principles.
> Neither would I, since it seems such servers die out in time (by which time the users
> have converted).
> 
> Martin
> 


Andrew