1 |
On Monday 01 March 2010 21:17:23 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> On Monday 01 March 2010 22:28:42 Mick wrote: |
3 |
> > > My pet peeve is Desktop. I have two monitors at work and use two X |
4 |
> > > screens. KDE wants to create a Desktop and a Desktop-1 directory. I |
5 |
> > > want it to just |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > use the same set of files for both - background, icons, plasma widgets |
8 |
> > > must be the same on both monitors, but actual app windows running |
9 |
> > > there independent. This seems perfectly reasonable to me - e17 does it |
10 |
> > > out the box - but thus far I have not found the magic voodoo spell that |
11 |
> > > makes it happen. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > How does e17 compare in terms of resources to other WMs/DEs like *box, |
14 |
> > LXDE, xface, these days? I had a look at it when it was all the rage |
15 |
> > back when, but it looked too Gnomey to me at the time and I couldn't find |
16 |
> > a reason for preferring it over say fluxbox. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> As of right now, I really couldn't say. About 6 months ago the e17 devs |
19 |
> started ramping up for a release that was supposed to happen round about |
20 |
> last xmas. Then Samsung and a French manufacturer of set-top boxes got in |
21 |
> on the action, as a result the code changes faster than Paris Hilton |
22 |
> changes her knickers. It stopped reliably building from one hour to the |
23 |
> next ... :-) |
24 |
> |
25 |
> So I switched to KDE to get some stability and haven't tried again since. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> e17 has to be evaluated on it's own merits, like all other software. it's |
28 |
> not "like" anything ... except perhaps e17 itself. It's claims to fame are |
29 |
> twofold: |
30 |
> |
31 |
> 1. Themeability. If you have every written a KDE or Gnome theme engine you |
32 |
> will know what a serious ball-ache it is. Code mixed in with specs mixed in |
33 |
> with image files.... e17 does it a different way with .edj files. You write |
34 |
> an .edc spec file in a declarative style (as in you say *what* you want, |
35 |
> not *how* it is done - that's the engine's job to figure that out) and |
36 |
> supply your images to be used on the widgets. Then run it through a |
37 |
> mini-compiler to produce an .edj, tell the wm to use it and voila! theme |
38 |
> applied. It's not just a simple "replace all those .pngs with these .pngs" |
39 |
> to get a different set of colours - you change the entire look and feel of |
40 |
> the desktop and the engine just knows what to do with it. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> 2. Configurability. Everything that can possibly be changeable is so, |
43 |
> including stuff that really shouldn't be :-) It makes KDE look minimalist. |
44 |
> Fortunately, a lot of the advanced stuff can be hidden in the config dialog |
45 |
> which improves things. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> Resources - it's hard to write a wm these days that isn't a resource hog in |
48 |
> some ways. If you want transparency and composition, be prepared to sell |
49 |
> some cpu to get it. Having said that, e17 runs blindingly fast on ARM |
50 |
> mobile devices when configured appropriately. It's nowhere near as |
51 |
> minimalist as *box, those wm's are in a class where if they suit your |
52 |
> needs, then nothing else will come close, especially not e17 which is |
53 |
> designed to showcase graphic effects to a large degree. *box is the polar |
54 |
> opposite of that |
55 |
|
56 |
Thanks Alan, your insight in this is much appreciated. I've been trying |
57 |
different things and keep coming back to fluxbox. Having spent time some |
58 |
years ago to set it up just-as-I-want-it in terms of the menu with all my |
59 |
apps, as well as the windows behaviour and decoration, I find that I am trying |
60 |
to change other WMs to behave like fluxbox! Ha! I am a creature of |
61 |
(minimalist) habit I guess. I'll probably have another pop at e17 and see |
62 |
what gives. |
63 |
-- |
64 |
Regards, |
65 |
Mick |