| |||||||||||||
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator MenusShuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator MenusPosted Apr 23, 2010 22:15 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus by Tet Parent article: Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus
since this would mean that you don't use Gnome (they have been doing this for years), I'm curious which distro you use?
note that you could use one of the variations of ubuntu (kubuntu, xubuntu, etc) that don't use gnome and won't have these indicator menus.
(Log in to post comments)
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 24, 2010 9:06 UTC (Sat) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link]
I use Fedora, but no, I don't use GNOME. Just plain old FVWM, which is still, after all these years, my preferred environment. It Just Works™, and it works the way I want it to.
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 24, 2010 9:43 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
On current form I'd not bother trying to switch to kwin :/ it seems that all the pretty window managers don't have enough configurability to actually tie more than one action together, and all the flexible ones are ugly and uncomposited...
(why is composition the job of the wm anyway? What does laying out windows have to do with making them look flashy?)
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 24, 2010 9:52 UTC (Sat) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link] why is composition the job of the wm anyway? What does laying out windows have to do with making them look flashy?Agreed 100%. Years ago, I advocated the creation of a libcomposite against which a wm could link, with the library taking care of the necessary compositing. But at the time, there was more interest in getting something out of the door quickly than in making something with code reuse potential :-(
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 24, 2010 20:59 UTC (Sat) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]
> (why is composition the job of the wm anyway?
> What does laying out windows have to do with making them look flashy?)
Both of them deal with windows and I assume that's a large part of the code. If separate WM would be controlling the window stacking, that of course affects how they're composited.
For example Matchbox window manager offers a library for window management, I guess there are also other window managers that do this. Window management code can be hairy, but it's stable, it doesn't change like what people want to do with compositing. -> Makes more sense to have library for window management than for compositing.
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 29, 2010 15:09 UTC (Thu) by daenzer (✭ supporter ✭, #7050) [Link]
> (why is composition the job of the wm anyway?
It's not from the X POV, you can use e.g. xcompmgr with any old WM.
> What does laying out windows have to do with making them look flashy?)
That said, the reason why compositing is usually integrated into the WM these days is that some things would be hard if not impossible to achieve without at least close integration between the two managers.
|
|||||||||||||