EvilWM - Minimalist Window Manager 418
DasZweiten writes "Being a minimalist, I have run across a window manager by the name of EvilWM in which finally my standards have been completely met. Being an ex-fvwm addict, after the recent slashdot post about the ten year birthday of fvwm, I felt the need to share my overwhelming joy of my discovery of EvilWM with the rest of slashdot. The manager is small, efficient, beautifully coded, decorated with one pixel borders - all one needs or could ask for. The authors say it best on the EvilWM main site with "'Minimalist' here doesn't mean it's too bare to be usable - it just means it omits a lot of the stuff that make other window managers unusable." I frankly, could not have said it better myself. It lacks the unnecessary features, memory, and total bloating that most other window managers unfortunately contain. All of you die hard fvwm fans will love it. I'll never go back to anything else."
I've found... (Score:5, Funny)
Been using EvilWM for a while (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been a long time fan of EvilWM. Found myself in possession of an old Toshiba Laptop with only 16M of RAM and a 1.3G drive.
Found its quite possible to run a basic useable system but I had to choose my software carefully. Links (configured for graphics) and/or dillo make a useable web browser while I use run GAIM for a chat client. (Gaim is a bit too heavy weight for what I like, but oh well.)
EvilWM is the window manager that makes this possible, but I did couple that with a basic menuing system written using bash and xmessage. Just because most computer users fall into the "norm" doesn't mean there are no uses outside the box, so to speak.
Re:Been using EvilWM for a while (Score:5, Informative)
usability (Score:5, Funny)
hm, that must be fun on a 1600x1200 screen (okay okay, you can use alt too)
Re:usability (Score:4, Funny)
Pranks (Score:2)
Re:usability (Score:5, Interesting)
This is IMO the cardinal sin of window managers: stealing important application keystrokes. If I find a WM camping on Alt-mouse or Alt-key, preventing my hungry hungry hippo (emacs) from getting them, its uninstalled faster than you can say "twm".
If I want a window manager to steal keystrokes, I do it on a bucky bit that hardly anyone uses anymore, like "super" or "hyper". Then I rebind my keyboard to make those keys accessible. My caps-lock is now super, kills two birds with one stone.
Too Bad (Score:5, Funny)
I really want the SKIN TWO Fetish Doll.
ohwell.
Same here (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing bad can come out of a misogynyst, so I'll give it a try.
Re:Same here (Score:2)
- Misogyny Unlimited = http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ksolway/misogyny.h t ml [ozemail.com.au]
- Skin Two (Fetish doll, as a seperate part has been removed) = http://www.skintwo.com/index_2.html [skintwo.com]
And, since I can't find the "no pants page", this should do nicely on slashdot:
Lord of the Pants [geocities.com]
Minimalist...ha... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Minimalist...ha... (Score:5, Funny)
Do I win? (Until someone posts claiming not to use X, at least?)
Re:Minimalist...ha... (Score:3, Funny)
well, you know euhhh.... You insensitive clod!
EvilWM? (Score:2, Funny)
Demonic window manager, I rebuke you!
Minimalist WMs (Score:5, Interesting)
---
Jedimom.com [jedimom.com], that not-so-fresh feeling...
Re:Minimalist WMs (Score:2, Informative)
Blackbox is really all you need. Not more, not less.
Rince
Blackbox/Openbox (Score:3, Informative)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
who cares? No offense to the Evil author, it's a good WM, I've used it. But it's existence isn't news. It's been listed on Freshmeat for *years*.
Does slashdot now do OSS project announcements? I have a few I may like to promote on slashdot.
Or is the X topic really that starved for news?
No offense, and Kudos to the EvilWM team, but still!
Re:So what? (Score:2)
It may not be news per se, but I don't think that the purpose of Slashdot is news alone(despite the subtitle). Slashdot serves a useful purpose in the geek community as a kind of central area for distributing useful bits of information.
Personally, I can think of many times that I have seen something in a story or comment on Slashdot that, while not news, was still extremely useful to me. For example, I found out about Plucker [plkr.org] and WindowMaker through some random comments in stories like this.
.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Funny)
No, you're quite right, but I think you failed to read the post correctly. The point is not that something like this exists, but that someone actually uses it (DasZweiten in this case). I find that quite newsworthy...
top ten forgotten OSS projects? (Score:3, Interesting)
I like your idea and actually support it. I suggest new article subject: top ten forgotten OSS projects. I would publish such review by myself, but it's useless: everything that I've tried to publish was refused. I think /. editors dislike my name (just kidding here).
Anyway, coming back to the original post, I think it's too short for review and too old for news. I think this guy is just a friend of one of /.
linux confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:linux confusion (Score:2)
Some screenshots are here [redhat.com].
Re:linux confusion (Score:2)
Re:linux confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Except when you hit the magic Windows machine of Joe Jackass 'Leet Windows Power User who moved his taskbar to the top, is using a high-contrast flourescent color scheme, and is using 2mb wav files for every stinking windows event, has a screensaver that kicks on after 1 minute of idle time and features that guy saying "Hey Vern!" over and over, has changed all desktop items from the somewhat useful standard to one identical image - say golf balls, has renamed shortcuts from the application name to what they REALLY are; for example, Internet Explorer is now The Internet.......
Re:linux confusion (Score:3, Informative)
While most of the modifications you listed are completely inane, moving the taskbar to the top is not. This is the first thing I do when I get on a default Windows system. But I worked within the Windows world only after a long love affair with the Macintosh.
There is a reason why the taskbar has been at the top of Macintosh computers since 1984. Apple knows usability, or at least it did w
Re:linux confusion (Score:2)
Re:linux confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:linux confusion (Score:2)
Re:linux confusion (Score:3, Interesting)
The hell it does! I work in tech support and the vast majority of users don't realize that they can find their programs in Start->Programs. If it ain't on the desktop, they don't run it.
Re:linux confusion (Score:3, Funny)
" for example, Internet Explorer is now The Internet......."
Re:linux confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
for every good one way to do something, there are 1600 more ways of doing it that just confuse the hell out of me
At first, I had the same problem. But after a bit, I realized this is a Good Thing. True, everyone and their brother has a solution to a given problem. And you have to poke around a while to find it.
The important fact is that you can.
More popular OSes make these decisions for you, and expect you to cope. If you hate it, you can't change it. You learn to deal with it. Assuming everyone is going to like what you like is what causes these problems.
Figuring out the window manager you like is IMHO a Linux tradition. Congrats on hitting a milestone.
Weaselmancer
Re:linux confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Too often I find people mix up "choice" with "a good standard". I'm not trying to shove one design down everyone's throat here but rather the idea of one wm that used a
Re:linux confusion (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't It Be Wonderful! (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont think it would be impossible though and (despite all the screams of "bloat") it could be feasible to set it up to read the description once and compile/link together different modules and
Re:linux confusion (Score:5, Funny)
This is why mating has never worked for me... For every good chick out there, there are 1600 more good ones that just confuse the hell out of me. Yes, I do like the ability to find the one perfect match for me, but I'd prefer if my parents had already made the choice for me, and my perfect girl would already be at home by now.
</irony>
You know, choice is a good thing 9 times out of 10. Generally, you only want to avoid having available choices when in an emergency situation, like when fleeing from a fire, or dispersing a crowd.
Re:linux confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should I care whether you can walk up to my machine and use it easily? (That's why I use xlock in the first place.)
Why do people concerned about usability spend so much time worrying about what people can do in the first 5 minutes after they sit down at a 'puter and so little time worrying about what people will be able to accomplish over the next five
Re:linux confusion (Score:3, Interesting)
Because there is a large number of potential users who will use something else if they can't work out how the thing works in less than five minutes.
It's a trade off. You can either spend your time making the software good and not having many users. Or you can spe
An even more minimial WM ... (Score:3, Informative)
Pwm is nice as well. (Score:5, Informative)
Also check out Ion and ratpoison (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Also check out Ion and ratpoison (Score:2)
Re:Also check out Ion and ratpoison (Score:2, Funny)
I like it. It's fricking huge, and it's got (non functioning) laserbeams on it's head!
Re:Also check out Ion and ratpoison (Score:3, Interesting)
evilwm persuaded me (and the fact that OpenBSD
only has the NetBSD wscons as text console, 80x25
(okay, you can get 80x50 too, but that sucks on a
14.1" laptop LCD with the thick black border)
and only 6 (or 7, here) virtual consoles.
With evilwm I have 8 virtual workspaces, and top(1)
and "tail -f
check out the files [bsdadvocacy.org]
in MirBSD where I publish my
Heh. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Heh. (Score:2)
Are you attempting to imply that this is unreasonable?
-Restil
Feh! (Score:4, Funny)
Why would I want a minimalist window manager? Give me one that has an e-mail client and a flight simulator built in!
Re:Feh! (Score:4, Funny)
Definition of a Minimalist (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Definition of a Minimalist (Score:2)
I always thought mini-mallism was about low-slung commercial structures with multiple small shops and ample parking, though.
minimalist? (Score:4, Interesting)
VTWM is my perfect window manager (Score:3, Informative)
Bloat? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of false baloney really needs to be countered.
And I don't mean to suggest that you should not run any window manager that you like. But don't make silly statements abuot what other people like.
One could argue that Linux is bloated compared to many things that came before. (DOS, Apple II, Commodore 64, etc.)
One could argue that <insert favorite feature rich software> is bloated. I'll try to avoid starting a flamewar but mention some possible feature rich ones that could be substituted: emacs, bash; I'll stay away from gui apps like mozilla, openoffice, because I'm afraid those I'm arguing against are gui-phobic.
The real point I'm making here is that one man's "bloat" is another man's "features".
There is another argument about "bloat". One could say that even a feature-rich program is bloated if it is implemented inefficiently.
But then it can be legitimately argued that you can trade human implementation efficiency for runtime inefficiency. I'm NOT talking about poor design, poor choice of algorithms, lack of skill, etc. I'm talking about purposeful, concious decisions to make certian choices that lead to quicker implementation, not more efficient runtime.
I could implement a garbage collection system into my complex project. Now the rest with extremely complex data structures is vastly easier to write. But has higher runtime cost. Is this bloat? I could forego garbage collection, have a longer implementation time, use some kind of careful memory management discipline, and still end up with object lifecycle bugs. Is this efficient? Well, I suppose so, if you measure everything only in terms of cpu cycles.
Re:Bloat? (Score:2)
If it serves no utility, it is bloat (Score:2, Insightful)
If it serves no utility other than "looking pretty" or "sounding good", it's bloat in a WM. Skinning. Translucent icons. Glowing/popping/spinning animted icons. Playing audio whenever you perform some particular manipulation.
All bloat. Very nice to look at, but it slows the system down and provides no functionality.
Technically the whole concept of a GUI is "bloat" to a purist, but I think there is too much ease-of-use utility to a GUI to slam the whole concept as bloat..
Re:If it serves no utility, it is bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny. I remember hearing the exact same argument about guis when the Macintosh first appeared in 1984.
After all, I can just type "cp" or "mv" without using a mouse to drag a file.
GUI's are bloat.
Playing audio in response to certian manipulations is something called feedback. If you don't like it, turn it off. It's a feature.
Kind of like the "bloat" of having air conditioning in a car. It is completely unnecessary. Uses lots of cpu power.
Games are pure bloat. We should eliminate them. They provide no "functionality". Why is this different than your argument about audio or translucent / glowing / spinning / animated icons?
Most screensavers are just pure bloat. We should make them illegal.
Back to my original point: If you don't like it, then don't run it. But don't make silly assertions that they are bloat. Some would argue that games and screensavers are bloat.
Some would argue that having preloaded compilers and development tools on their system is bloat.
Re:If it serves no utility, it is bloat (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that should be the definition of bloat: you should at least be able to turn it off.
That way, if there's bloat, at least it's your bloat.
Re:If it serves no utility, it is bloat (Score:4, Insightful)
Or not even run it at all if you don't like it.
I'm not arguing (from my top level post) that you shouldn't be able to run any window manager you please. Please do.
Just don't call mine bloat. That is silly. I don't use disparaging terms to refer to feature-poor or feature-minimal window managers (or other software).
In fact, after three years, I'm beginning to believe that there is no such thing as "bloat". I have never yet seen it. It is always either:
- features
- implementation choices leading to
- proovable correctness
- higher level abstractions, quicker implementation, earlier delivery
I know I'll get modded up for this, but here goes... Maybe, the term "bloat" should only be used when the software in question is prefixed with the word "Microsoft".Re:Bloat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Emacs is probably actually the program most effective at controlling (as opposed to not having) bloat. It has a huge number of features, both useful and silly, enormous flexibility, support for a large number of tasks, and extensible support for a lot of file formats. On the other hand, it doesn't load any of these features or offer them in menus unless you ask for them.
Compare this with Word, which probably has a comparable number of features, but they're all in the menus all the time. It takes forever to load all of this code (versus a mere moment to load enough of Emacs to do the thing you're trying to do), and you have to sort through all of the features to find the one you want to use.
The real measure of efficiency is how long it takes the user to complete the task. The largest factor, these days, is the complexity and speed of the interface. Smaller than this is runtime efficiency of the software (although some tasks still take noticeable processor/disk time; generally loading the program). Of varying significance is the time the user spends redoing work lost (due the crashes or user mistakes). Lastly, there is the amount of time the user spends waiting for the software to be written.
Of course, the task that window managers enable the uer to accomplish is sufficiently straightforward that there are few features which would improve efficiency; most of the common features are intended to improve the user's enjoyment, which is a somewhat different thing. For this reason, most window managers are bloated, although it may be worthwhile bloat if the user finishes the task later but happier.
Parent post is a good definition of Bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that gets to the heart of the matter: bloat is the stuff included in a program that you do not want, & cannot get rid of. Some programmers have faced this problem, & offer solutions (e.g., the case of emacs in the parent post). Other programmers only realize this is an issue late, & leave it to their non-programming colleagues to address (e.g., the typical PR response by a company many people here hate, ``But our customers have asked for these features!")
The reason I like Linux is that I know I always have a way to trim the stuff I don't want from the programs I run; the reason I dislike almost every distribution is that they were created without this requirement clearly addressed to my satisfaction.
YMMV.
Geoff
Re:Bloat? (Score:5, Funny)
Emacs is probably actually the program most effective at controlling (as opposed to not having) bloat.
My goodness, I just realized this about the Emacs design. Overall, Emacs-- at its core-- is a bloat manager!
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
I should be able to run a decent accounting system in 64 K of RAM. We were doing it 20 years ago.
I should be able to process 1 million data processing records on a machine with 192 K of RAM. We used to be able to.
Today's software, such as Linux is way too bloated. (Note: sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired.)
I can imagine, quite seriously, in just a few years, someone seriously complaining about when they could run a less fea
Evil Bit as well (Score:5, Funny)
Btw : I tought the EvilWM was the one used in XP
will they have copyright issues for that?
Re:Evil Bit as well (Score:2, Funny)
What is this evil bit of which you speak, it sounds like the kind of thing I'd expect to see covered upon /.
I don't remember hearing about it though..
Meh. I like title bars. (Score:2)
1. Title bars, with close buttons (and optional resize buttons).
2. The ability to have colors and patterns on the title bars.
3. Windowshading.
4. Configurable border widths (some people might like something a bit wider than one pixel).
SFX aren't necessary, and things like drag-and-drop should be handled by X anyway. It's interesting, but a bit too minimalist for me.
I don't understand this. (Score:5, Interesting)
What am I talking about? A window manager that has keyboard shortcuts that happen to be configured in a normal way. I don't know if the Mac-like WMs properly do option-Q, etc, but I do know that IceWM [icewm.org] is the only WM I've found that has a superset of Win16, Win32, and OS/2 shortcuts in its sane, default configuration. Rather than spending hours hacking away at some obscure config file, or googling around for one that worked, this Window manager worked out of the box in ways I expected.
Keyboard feel is why I've never used any other Window manager for longer than a few days. I've been 100% linux since 2000, and had been using it since 1996, and have always enjoyed how I haven't had to relearn everything, hack files, or lose my couple of years of Windows and OS/2 experience to move up to something better.
So why don't you try IceWM [icewm.org] for a bit, and see how much faster you can work with good shortcuts.
Re:I don't understand this. (Score:2)
Gnome and KDE are pretty, but damn, when it comes to being hackable, being fast and easy to configure, IceWM beats the pants off all of them!
Hack value and Esperanto (Score:2)
I wonder if I don't see this in th
apt-get install.... (Score:2, Funny)
I like their statement about linking (Score:5, Funny)
icons? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is wrong with icons? Really.. icons are a perfectly good way to launch applications that you use often. The desktop isn't doing anything else, so why not put some icons on there.
Whats up with 1px borders? Those must be easy to grab onto and manipulate at high resolutions.. oh yeah you can use the keyboard. Whats the point of having borders that you can manipulate if you can't really do anything with out using the keyboard.
Minimalistic wm's would be great if the designers actually took gui concepts into account instead of trying to emulate the console. People who like using the keyboard to do everything, use the console not wm's.
Re:icons? (Score:2)
What sense does it make to put icons in a place where they will just get covered up by windows? I have never understood or liked icons myself.
Key/mouse bindings aren't flexible at all (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Key/mouse bindings aren't flexible at all (Score:2)
The Ten Year Test (Score:3, Interesting)
fvwm passed a major milestone today, being around for a decade says something about software. WMs come and go but good ones persist. Ditto for text editors. Will EvilWM persist, will it build a user base, or will it be history inside a year? Jury's out. I await the counterexamples as regards ten years being a measure of goodness ...
PWM is so far the best.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's also the fastest, one of the most light-weight, window managers that still allows enough keystroke and mouse programmability to make it worth switching to.
After all, why waste time on something that looks good but eats up more than half your available ram?
(*cough* E *cough*)
REALLY small windowing system (Score:3, Interesting)
And, believe it or not, the window manager even has title bars and close buttons
Re:REALLY small windowing system (Score:4, Funny)
Or for the really hardcore, turn the computer off. That's a minimalistic system.
Re:REALLY small windowing system (Score:3, Funny)
My minimal is more minimal (Score:3, Informative)
Let's not forget the wonderful combination of ratpoison [sourceforge.net] and screen [gnu.org], as detailed in a great Freshmeat article [freshmeat.net]. I have been using this setup for several months on a slow laptop and found it great (once you get the hang of the keybindings, and customize them so they don't screw up Emacs). Not only does it not take any memory to speak of, but by always seeing everything full screen, you use all of your valuable laptop screen real estate.
Slashdot? Is that really you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Forgive me, I'm truly not trying to troll (I wouldn't be much good at that, I think) but that is not news. I'd think most people here already knew of evilwm... Or, at least, anyone who might fit the user profile EvilWM is aimed at would already have found it.
I don't mind reviews and nifty pointers on the front page, such as when Tempest for Eliza came out. But this is a little too banal.
Where do we draw the line? Hey. I found a project called exim. Wonder if the eds will accept it... (exaggerating, sorry, but you get the idea)
Note to editors: Slow news days are just that: slow. We don't beef things up by stuffing the content pot full of sawdust.
Umm, do you need the subs that badly?
Missing the point! (Score:4, Insightful)
And looking at evilwm's web page, I have to say, there is no way I'd consider switching from fvwm. Their choice of hard-coded defaults do not match what I want. If someone wrote a minimalist WM that did have all the defaults set to what I want, then I might consider switching, but these guys aren't even close. (And even then, I'd have to find third-party equivalents for the fvwm modules I use, like the buttonbar.)
9wm (Score:4, Interesting)
The author of 9wm, David Hogan, died suddenly this April, at the all too young age of 34. I have created an online memorial [unauthorised.org].
Danny.
They're not bloated (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest window manager I know is Enlightenment. It possibly qualifies as "bloated" in my book, but only because it was deliberately designed to have as much eyecandy as possible. And even then it's a pretty damned fast window manager.
GNOME and KDE? They ain't window managers! Kwin, Sawfish and Metacity are all very small window managers. To look at one in particular, Kwin does not put icons on the desktop, kdesktop does that. It doesn't have a panel, kicker is a separate application. It doesn't have a screensaver, system sounds, etc. KDE may have those, but Kwin doesn't. All it does is the normal window manager stuff. Heck, the themes aren't even a part of the window manager, they're plugins!
bloat and more bloat (Score:3, Interesting)
Something like this or FVWM, sorry. Nine years ago, I used FVWM. I also spent a while with slackware. I spent MONTHS before that without X or a working soundcard. Just couldn't get the dang things to work...no amount of perseverence seemed to help.
These days I use Redhat and KDE. Why? They have exactly what I want and need. Not only does my soundcard work from install, so does X. I know enough now that I could write scripts, I could use emacs to poke around in the config files. But why would I want to? I just want something that works, does what I want it to, and does it well.
If I need more processor power or more memory, well...I'll buy it. That's why they sell it. That's not bloat to me. That's progress.
Re:bloat and more bloat (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, right off you don't sound like you are in the market for minimalist anything. But in some cases, typically outside of the (first-world) home, upgrading is not an option.
Fine. Swell. The KDE gang thanks you for your support. Different strokes for different folks, as it were.
Th
Another light window manager (Score:3, Informative)
PWM: http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/pwm/
PWM is not actively deveploved anymore, but this is really not that bad thing. There are a lot of sofware projects that should stop for a while and focus on fixing bugs instead of adding new features (BLOAT). Read more from the website if you're interested.
This advertisement was sponsored by no one.
Re:Using it (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Using it (Score:2)
-Restil
Re:uhh (Score:4, Informative)
Wouldn't it make more sense to drag a window by moving *the window* than having to find that ~10-20px tall title and move it?
Oh I see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting.
Re:Oh I see... (Score:2)
Bad analogy, nice flamebait
Re:Oh I see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget that with this WM, Maya and programs like it are now completely unusable. Since to manipulate objects you hold down alt and drag. Instead this will just move the window. I'm all for minimalism, but if it actually breaks applications, it's useless.
At least Sawfish et al use the Windows key to do this...
Re:Yeall, real nice... (Score:3, Informative)
And the source is very simple and readable, I'm not at all used to programming X applications, but had no trouble adding a couple of features I wanted (like snap to the edge of the screen)
Re:Yeall, real nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
WindowMaker does the same thing. Very lightweight, without looking completely spartan. Myself, I am not keen on the absolute minimalist look, reminds me of Apple too much (OS 9 and before)
Re:Yeall, real nice... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:evilwm is? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Thanks for admitting it! (Score:2)
Is this really a tough concept?