[dundee] Linux on the desktop

[Martin Habets]

 --- Andrew Clayton <andrew at digital-domain.net> wrote: > On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 15:03, Martin
Habets wrote:
> > 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!)

I'm not confused, you are not insane. It's more that I'm using old *nix terminology,
and you are using new Linux terminology. You prove the point that nowadays people don't
even know the difference any more between an window manager and a display manager.
No wonder it is so hard to find a proper solution to the current consistency problem.

Motif you mention in you other email is an interesting example. If you install the mwm
(Motif Window Manager) that is based on the 2.0 version of the Motif libraries you get
a true window manager. I've never seen the 3.0 based version of mwm, so I can't tell if
it has evolved into a display manager.
Other window managers are olwm and things like twm, sawfish, aewm. olvwm is a display
manager because it provides virtual screens.

...

> > 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...

Yes, and no it is not nice. That is why good Linux developers don't do such things (and
get tapt on their fingers if they try). We never sacrificy policy to create a crap
solution, even if it could win over millions of M$ users quickly. In stead, we'll
probably find a costly, labour intensive, architectually perfect solution using an extra
layer or two.

One the one hand I agree with sticking to good policies, on the other it is a shame if
good developers have to waste so much time and effort in order to convert the ignorant
masses. Worst still if an 'old' dog like me can provide a simple solution that does not
add 6MB of conversion effort.

Must stop now, I'm turning philosophical and I haven't even had a few beers in me.
This is bad :)

Martin


________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html