[openbox] Images in the menu

[Tero Grundström]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Marc Wilson wrote:

> Ok, you're probably off-list now

You'd like that wouldn't you? Everything that doesn't fit into your little
world must be removed...

>, with this attitude,

I have no attitude, just some opinions.

> 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?

Nothing when it comes to its stated design goals. I never claimed
otherwise. *I* just *prefer* (an opinion, you know) Icewm's active state
of development instead of the "stale" state of Openbox development.

> 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

Yes, an app to set the wallpaper and an app for trayicons, but I don't
need them (yet). That's why it's good that they're separate.

>, but
> the actual window manager is rather feature-limited.

Well, the taskbar isn't an add-on program, and that includes quite a few
features. There is also a feature to assign different options to single
windows in $HOME/.icewm/winoptions. In ob you need devilspie for that.

>  Not that such
> feature-limitation is a bad thing.

That's right. Icewm can be as minimalistic as ob if you like it that way.

> > 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

It does very extensively, in $HOME/.icewm/preferences RTFM

>, 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...

You can. Set them in $HOME/.icewm/keys RTFM

> can't resize windows
> without the mouse... can't move windows without the mouse.

You can do these too. RTFM

>  Odd in a window
> manager that claims complete controllability from the keyboard.

Why do you write about things you apparently don't have a clue about?
RTFM!

>
> 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.

This is possible too. RTFM

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

It does support dynamic menus. RTFM

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

You can override all theme settings in $HOME/.icewm/prefoverride RTFM

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

One point off from Icewm with this one. I believe this is why Icewm is
a bit slower than ob in drawing the window decorations. Also might be why
I prefer the looks of ob better..

> > 4. consumes less memory (!)
>
> I doubt it.  I truly doubt it.  Or that the amount is meaningful.

I just tried it and noticed I remembered a bit wrong. The output of top
looks on my 128mb machine like this:

 PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
5948 tero      20   0  6244 3532 5448 S  0.0  2.8   0:01.35 icewm

 PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
6017 tero      20   0  6336 3740 5304 S  0.0  2.9   0:00.93 openbox
6019 tero      20   0  9688 5592 8564 S  0.0  4.4   0:01.40 fbpanel

It shows that there is not so much difference. I've also included the
result for fbpanel for comparison which takes suprisingly large imprint.

> > 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.

IMHO, I clearly said that Icewm (the WM) is almost as fast as Openbox. By
this I mean the window decorations and menus. I never, ever mentioned
anything about applications or toolkits.

> 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.

Oh, I don't think so... If this didn't even come to my mind... This is
sooo obvious.

> > 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.

I don't use gnome or kde. These "integration" problems I've had, have been
for example with fbpanel. They might be just bugs in fbpanel however.
Anyways I would really like ob/fbpanel compination (or will like some
day, when the annoying bugs are gone).

> 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.

Quote from the wmctrl home page:

Please note that wmctrl only works with window managers which implement
this (EWMH) specification. wmctrl is known to fully or partially work with
at least the following window managers:

* icewm
(the first in the list..)

> 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.

Errmh.. really? *Even this* is Icewm's fault, eh? You sound like a five
year old yourself.

> > 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.

It is pretty good as it is. Read my other answers - I'm not attacking ob
per se. You, quite childlishly, misunderstood my post completively...

> > PS. I really hate the "send your patches" and other elitistic comments
> > that seems to plague this list...
>
> What's "elitist" about it?

Because you need to be an programmer to make a patch. If you're a
programmer telling a non-programmer to write code you are using your
knowledge (power) in a wrong way - i.e. patronizing people.

> You think it's a desirable feature, but you
> think someone else should code it for you.

I *don't* think that way, but I do feel I have the right to request or
talk about a feature in a sivilized manner.

> You have the right to feel that
> way, but that doesn't require anyone to agree with you.

I agree that nobody has to agree with me. Of course not, this is obvious.
You are expressing just as strong opinions as I am? Why are you doin'g
that "bad" thing too?

>  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
>
> >From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
>   elitist
>        n : someone who believes in rule by an elite group [ant: {egalitarian}]
>
> Sorry... you're being invited to join that group, so it by definition isn't
> elite.

This doesn't stop *elitistic* comments coming from people, who are not
actually _elite_, just like mean words are sometimes said by people who
are not mean by nature.

What is happening here is that first you "invite" a person to your group,
then you kick him in the ass just because he has an different opinion,
idea etc. A truely closed elite group would be at least honest...

>  If someone refuses to do work after you demand that they do,
> they're not being elitist, they're being responsible.  Hackers almost
> without exception would like nothing better for you to join their group, so
> they're hardly interested in "ruling".

For *some* hackers only the ones who can code, rule. This attitude can be
seen on this list too.

> People who don't get what they want when they stamp their foot love to
> throw around the "elitist" comment.  It usually doesn't apply.

In some cases true, but in this context a pretty stupid and ignorant
comment.


As a final note, I'd like to say that I really do respect Openbox for
what it is designed for and that I also like it as much that I might come
back using it someday.


--
T.G.