WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: FLWM size?  (Read 2858 times)

Offline Okajima

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
FLWM size?
« on: May 17, 2009, 11:47:44 AM »

There will be many discussions about
changing the WM,
but I believe discussing is better than no discuss.

Before discussins that,
How FLWM is light weighted?

[TC]# ps w
does not answer.

I feel deleting ps -w option is not good idea.

Anyway, how light it is?

One problem ---
you can not select jwm as TCZ option for now.
I am not anti minimalism policy,
but I like extensible policy also.
I need using jwm as option.


-- Okajima, Jun. Tokyo, Japan.
Now you can save a session.
And, this CD has bigger font.
http://www.digitalinfra.co.jp/20090514/tc_save.html


Offline roberts

  • Retired Admins
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: FLWM size?
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2009, 12:44:39 PM »
jwm  125.4k
flwm  47.0k

I did not start out to replace window managers. My goal for 2.0rc2 was to provide window manager independence. But as more issues came to light regarding jwm, jwm was replaced.

Some of the issues of jwm:
* No full screen ability with flash
* Some applications would open under the task bar, so no visible window decorations, user must know to alt-left-click and drag, (openoffice and mtpaint come to mind)
* popups on top located taskbar should popdown and not off the screen.
* The work-around for the second item, is specifying which layer to use, still an issue, now some screens cover the taskbar. This results in FMW (forever moving windows) to get to the taskbar/pager/menu.

FLWM being considerably smaller, has no issue with fullscreen video. The popup menu is always easily available, no moving windows to get access to it. That same popup menu, has combined, application launcher/task indicator/pager.

Still there will be those who prefer jwm, issues and all. Like I said my goal was to provide window manager independence. There are those who prefer bash over ash and they don't complain. There are those who prefer vim over busybox-vi and don't complain. It is just as easy to add jwm extension to your collection of extensions.

In my posting of jwm.tce, I asked if anyone wants to maintain jwm. My time is better spent in base core area. In the wiki is a simple howto convert jwm.tce to a jwm.tcz.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline Okajima

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: FLWM size?
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2009, 01:59:09 PM »

> to provide window manager independence.

I agree with this.
Well, I hope somebody fix current jwm.tce bugs.

And, minimalism is also good.
But, deleting ps -w option is too much minimalism, I feel.
FLWM really contributes to memory reduction?
(not ramdisk foot print, but RSS stuff).
I have no clue to check it.

--- Okajima, Jun. Tokyo, Japan.
http://www.digitalinfra.co.jp/20090514/tc_save.html