[openbox] Images in the menu

[Marc Wilson]

Ok, you're probably off-list now, with this attitude, but in the interest
of an actual dialog...

On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 02:23:02AM +0300, Tero Grundström wrote:
> I wanted to like Openbox but then I discovered Icewm which
> 
> 1. is more actively developed

Ah.  So an active changelog is a measure of a desirable product.  That's
an... interesting metric.  What exactly is missing from Openbox?  I'm not
talking about $RANDOM_FEATURE_FROM_FLUXBOX, I'm asking what's missing from
its stated design goals?  What further "development" is necessary and
required?

Why is version churn a good thing?  I'm willing to listen, if you have an
argument that doesn't boil down to "I want feature $X, and he won't add
it!".

> 2. has alot more features

Such as?  It has a set of separate add-on programs that come with it, but
the actual window manager is rather feature-limited.  Not that such
feature-limitation is a bad thing.

> 3. is more configurable

In what way(s)?  Openbox supports extensive keybindings, and extensive
actions.  IceWM doesn't allow you to customize the keyboard at all, or if
it does, it does a remarkably good job of hiding the description of how to
do it.  You can't bind keys to launch applications... can't resize windows
without the mouse... can't move windows without the mouse.  Odd in a window
manager that claims complete controllability from the keyboard.

IceWM apparently doesn't allow you to control window actions, either.  You
get the set hard-coded into the window manager, and that's it.

Openbox supports dynamic menus... does IceWM?  Can't find it anywhere, if
it does.  Menus included in menus?  Can't find that either.

Regarding theming, I can't even rearrange, add, or subtract buttons from
window titlebars under IceWM without modifying the theme.

Oh, one point to IceWM... it supports pixmap themes.  Is that what you're
referring to?  I wonder...

> 4. consumes less memory (!)

I doubt it.  I truly doubt it.  Or that the amount is meaningful.

> 5. is almost as fast

Context here, please... define "fast".  Mapping a window is X's problem.
Decorating one is the window manager's problem.  How an application
performs is the applications's problem, and doesn't have anything to do
with the window manager.  So of those three, you might have something to
say about one in a "A vs B" contest.

The author of IceWM's documentation seems to get this distinction confused
several times as well, especially when mentioning toolkits.  He forgets
that GTK and Qt are just that, toolkits, and ignores that Qt doesn't have
to bring KDE along for the ride while he trumpets GTK's supposed
performance gain when not bringing Gnome along.

> 6. has no need for external panels/taskbars that don't integrate very well
> with the WM anyway

Oh?  Openbox supports the EWMH 1.3 spec, which under IceWM is very much an
afterthought.  What "integration" is it that you think is missing?  Before
you comment, consider that *all* of Gnome revolves around EWMH and the
integration between the window manager and external window-aware
applications the standard makes possible.

The fact that tools like fspanel, fbpanel, pypanel, docker, systray, wmctl,
devilspie, etc, can be created easily is entirely due to Openbox's almost
fanatical compliance with EWMH.  Openbox, in fact, includes a statement of
its compliance with the standard in the tarball.  Does IceWM?  Is there any
statement of compliance at all from IceWM?  I can't find one anywhere.

Up until *very* recently, IceWM's add-ons were entirely proprietary... they
only worked with IceWM and nothing else worked with IceWM.  Then IceWM
started implementing EWMH and things got better.  IceWM's documentation
refers in several places to now implementing "standards", while not
discussing what those "standards" are.  Looking at changelogs, though...
it's EWMH.

> Currently I can think only one reason to use OB - it can be made look
> a bit better than Icewm.

Aside... I've seen some IceWM theming.  It has all the ability, but I don't
think it has any theme creators older than the age of five based on what
you see in screenshots.

> > I'm installing programs for students at a university, and
> > one of the things I'm installing is a couple of window managers, so they
> > can choose (CDE, KDE, Gnome, IceWM, Openbox). I just thought it would be
> > nice for openbox also to have icons, so images in the menus was
> > consistent over all choices, personally I don't care. Openbox is my
> > favorite wm, and I like it just as it is - and I don't use the menus.
> 
> Well yes, there definately is "that" something in OB, and that's why I
> like it too. But if I consider that list above and actual usability, Icewm
> wins hands down.

I'd be most interested in hearing about this "usability" that IceWM has
that Openbox does not.  Given that one of the design goals of Openbox is
high usability, what does it lack?  Addressing that would get you high
attention from Mikael, I'm sure.

> PS. I really hate the "send your patches" and other elitistic comments
> that seems to plague this list...

What's "elitist" about it?  You think it's a desirable feature, but you
think someone else should code it for you.  You have the right to feel that
way, but that doesn't require anyone to agree with you.  That someone else
doesn't agree with you that they should do it for you, but is more than
willing to listen to you if you do the work yourself, is a great thing.

The dictionary definition of elitist:

1 definition found