Has the Development of Window Managers Slowed? 437
al3x asks: "When I first got into Linux nearly five years ago, the new releases of competing window managers (like Blackbox, Enlightenment, Sawfish, etc.) were a constant thrill, and great strides were made with every release. I can't count the number of nights spent trying to get that sexy new E build to work, and what fun it was! But these days, window manager development seems to be stagnating. The last stable release of Enlightenment is from last year. Sawfish hasn't done much of anything in months, nor has Blackbox. WindowMaker had a recent update, but not with any exciting new features (it is rock solid, however). Now, verging from the paths of window manager favoritism or "they haven't been updated because they just work," why has development in this arena slowed to a crawl, and what's on the horizon?"
Golem (Score:4, Interesting)
Couple possabilities (Score:5, Interesting)
XFce development is still proceeding (Score:3, Interesting)
Because nobody's willing two do two things. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's why the mainstays for Linux development have ground to a halt:
1) Nobody is willing to work on something, pouring hours upon hours of work into it, only to have someone working in Company X take their code, and make a living off of tweaking it. Suppose you're writing a windowmanager for Linux. In order for your windowmanager to succeed, it probably has to be GPL in order for it to really catch on. And if its GPL, surprise-surprise, there are employees of parasitic companies like VA Linux Systems who make a nice living playing with your code. No one in their right mind is going to do something for free, working side by side next to someone who is getting paid to do the same. By simple virtue of the fact that parasitic GPL companies exist, you're effectively letting someone else make the money off your work by making it GPL. This is why companies who capitalize on Linux software development are a (tm) Bad Thing, because they assert a choking influence over the entire community. It stops becoming an exercise in fun, and rapidly becomes an exercise in profiteering.
2) Nobody is willing to think about doing anything different, more useful, or more ergonomic right now. The main driving force driving Linux UI development is "lets make it look like Windows!" which is a horrendously bad move. Instead of giving Linux its own face, its own appeal, and its own distinct look, we're playing Poor-Man's Explorer with X11. Instead of putting our own talents to work, making something useful for us, we're playing second fiddle to a third rate design by copying it.
Now, rather than purely bitching, here's what you can do about it:
Start at the ground up. Get ahold of the source of a weak windowmanager like fvwm, that has all the basic guts you need to work from. Ask yourself what makes sense to you as a user, NOT what makes sense because you've seen the same thing in Windows. Give Linux its own look. Try to avoid imitating other platforms. Build it because it makes sense to build, not because "Windows has it". The sheer number of things that Windows has wrong with its UI would require a completely separate article to discuss them in detail. Think about how to represent things differently. Is there a better way to represent the same information? Do you really want an OS that resembles a browser? Think, ask, and move. Learn, modify, and repeat.
Cheers, (and yes, Propaganda is still running..)
Re:Because nobody's willing two do two things. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fvwm2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Configuring Window Managers (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall my recent attempts to install my new Nvidia Gforce MX 200
Linux: No reboots. The new card (the old one was a Voodoo 3) was detected during the boot sequence after adding the card. I configured the card for my setup and it started X using the new card without missing a beat. Time taken: 30 seconds (literally)
Windows: 4 reboots, two failed shut downs, a trip into Linux to download drivers because the ones on the disk didn't work, and finally it worked. Time taken, about an hour (including download time)
Granted, I then had to install the Nvidia version of the liunux drivers to get full value from the card, but that was relatively simple and didn't involve a reboot of the system to achieve, and took less than 30 minutes including downloading the drivers. This process wouldn't even be an issue if Nvidia would GPL their drivers so they could be included in the kernel and X. Yes, that's right, the only hick-up I had with installing a new graphics card under linux was problems caused by non-GPL software.
Here's another example
A recent change of network card on:
Linux: restarted computer, the change of network cards was detected during boot, the current network config was migrated to the new card (after asking me if I wanted too) and the connection to the network was made without a reboot. Time taken: 10 seconds
Windows 98: The new card was detected, a driver was requested (it was on a floppy) and the machine finished it's boot process. No network connection. I open the network config tools to find that a secondl network card config has been loaded (which doesn't work). I have to remove the original setup, config the new setup and reboot. Time taken: 10 minutes.
Still not convinced? Try it with a sound card.
Sadly, I think Linux gets a hard rap when it comes to hardware. Changing and installing hardware in Linux is exceptionally easy, and limited only by a lack of support by hardware manufacturers. Given support by manufacturers linux ability to hand new hardware or hardware changes leaves Windows for dead. I can even change my processor and motherboard anmd linux will get everything sorted out during the restart without having to reboot once. Try that in Windows!
Oh and before you start telling me that Linux doesn't support as much hardware as Windows, try installing windows on a Macintosh, or a mainframe, or a wristwatch. Many operating system companies won't even move to a new platform for fear of what new hard might do to their stability. Apple's reliability on Macintosh is often cited as a result of a limited hardware base (an that reliability isn't that good. Microsoft originally started NT on an Alpha and said they wanted a kernel that would be easy to port to different processors. They don't even support the Alpha chipset anymore and are having troubles getting Windows to run on x86.
We've got Linux running on three different platforms here at work (x86, PowerPC, M68K) and running well.
What? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is a troll, but I think I should at least be a voice of dissent...
Lots of people, including me, work on software or do research for free, and don't mind when companies profit from our code or ideas. Mainly, this is because we believe that there is a great deal more work necessary to turn code or research into a product, and that work is primarily very tedious. I like the idea of a company using my code (I don't know of any who do, but I would) because they do work that otherwise wouldn't get done.
Second, I actually think the Windows UI is pretty good. More importantly, it is standard, which means that I can use KDE without reading any documentation. Regardless of how it might revolutionize the world (I don't think it would; the UI is pretty superficial and pretty subjective), new users are not going to switch to linux if they have to learn a lot just to use the UI.
So, I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, but that asserting it as an "obvious" truth is.
Define weak. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not trying to disagree with you or berate you or flame you or anything. I'm honestly curious -- what's FVWM2 missing? What's wrong with it? What would you do to it?
Perhaps it's not nessecary (The goal of OSS)? (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps the development cycle has slowed down because most of the nicer and more mature window managers have become quite stable and there are becoming less and less bugs to fix. Isn't that the eventual goal of OSS, to become as stable and usable as possible. So there must be some saturation point when as we approach that peak.
If you think about other pieces of OSS software, there is nearly no development. Utilities such as GNU text-utils or even emacs don't get updated more than once a year or two.
Re:Why E has slowed (Score:2, Interesting)
Gtk broke E (Score:2, Interesting)
The gimp toolkit (gtk) has of course improved enormourly since then and is now cross platform. Athough, if something like thai language support in pango is broken, then it won't compile. It was an intersting exercise finding that I couldn't configure pango to leave it out and couldn't have gtk without pango.
The bit about Raster getting frustrated with his job was between him and an unprofessional middle manager at RedHat (who probably didn't last long) that hadn't quite worked out how to use email. It became very public because the guy didn't know how to use email.
Re:Golem (Score:2, Interesting)
Ubiquity breeds transparency (Score:4, Interesting)
Asking if the development of Window Managers has slowed is like asking if the development of television remote controls has slowed down.
Window Managers have faded into the background as it is the tools and information inside the windows that (rightfully) recieves the focus. Since the advent of the Mac, the incredible uniqueness of windowing and the desktop metaphor in general has meant that we've spent an exorbinant amount of time focused on the UI itself instead of the tools contained by the UI.
To put it another way... imagine I was a caveman transported to today and placed inside of a room with a window. First, I would marvel at the incredible transparent substance that formed a barrier between me and the outside world, but after a while, I would take it for granted and simply use the window to see outside.
Xinerama Enhancements (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure if any of the other managers are working on this but it should be really cool when it is released.
Re:Golem (Score:2, Interesting)
Dedicated (Score:1, Interesting)
Miguel de Iguana is too much of a schizophrenic dictator. Otherwise, why isn't Gnumeric so much more developed today? Why not concentrate on that, like the Abiword guys?
"There are too many visionaries out there."
L. Torvalds
Re:Improve Xfree86 (Score:3, Interesting)
1) It's fine to say "use a GeForce3" if you have one. However, the majority of us do NOT have a GeForce3. For some of us (like everybody who's not on an Intel-based system), a GeForce3 may not even be on option. Enlightenment 0.16.5 works fine on my AIX box - it even runs fine on my old home AIX box (a model 350 - a whole whopping 66mz Power chipset). Remember that Sun and SGI are both shipping Enlightenment now, and even in the Intel-based Linux world, I don't think it's safe to assume any more capability than 24-bit color. E17 shouldn't be assuming effects - it should be saying "use options if the X server (which may not be XFree86) says they are available". Last I checked, even XFree86 didn't have XRender extension support for all drivers yet.
2) There's a major distinction to be made between "looks nice" and "is productively useful". Yes, it's good if your window manager looks pretty (I'd like to thank Christian Kreibich for his Ganymede theme) but at least in *my* case, I get paid to get things done on the computer. As a result, I *want* my window manager to look pretty, but I *need* it to help me get things done quickly.
Now, some features are pretty easy to demonstrate why they'd be useful - for instance, it *would* be nice to have sane support for drop shadows. However, the reason for drop shadows isn't "because it's cool" - it's because it's additional visual information that helps you identify the edges of windows and the actual stacking order.
Now maybe there's a good HCI (human computer interaction) reason for supporting motion blur and bump mapping for the window manager. And if there is, I'll be happy to listen. But keep in mind that you're talking about *window manager* controlled screen real estate, not application windows. There seems to be a backlash by at least some users who feel window managers take too much screen space away (I'm one of these - my current theme has only 5 pixels on sides and bottom, and 25 or so in the titlebar). Not much you can *DO* with bump mapping or motion blur in a strip 5 pixels wide
Just keep in mind that "eye candy" and "usability" are not always synonymous....
Maybe... (Score:2, Interesting)
I would also think with the way the economy has been most authors are scrambling to feed themselves, so their projects are a little on the side. How has Rasterman and Mandrake been with E since VA started getting hit? I remember the fast updates of E as well, but those are the good ol' days. If you tossed a chunk of cash at them I bet you they'd respond. :)
Re:Gtk broke E (Score:2, Interesting)
Also I think at that time of the switch "certain interests" had never heard of gnome or Enlightenment - it was well before the fanfare of the gnome 1.0 release, and RedHat was almost the only company that was paying people to write linux applications.
Anyway, I'm not talking about something that happened last year or the year before - I think it happened early in the days of the 0.16 rewrite of E or late in the days of 0.15 and was dropped within a couple of months. If you can find the e-devel mailing list archeives you'll find more.
Next wave: windowmanagers for handhelds (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with window manager development (Score:2, Interesting)
That said, I have a cool idea I would like to suggest and work on with other people. The problem is : what place can I go to to talk with *all* of the window manager crowd ? There doesn't seem to be a single gathering point where window manager issues (ideas, comparisons, ...) are discussed.
Now on to my idea : for a project I'm working on I'd like to discuss the possibility of integrating support for joysticks/joypads/remote controls into the window manager, and making sure the window manager works well on a TV screen. This is a wholly different approach from the standard PC desktop window manager needs.
I am not talking about the physical side, I know you can fake your mouse using any of these devices.I am talking about using large fonts, doing more full-screen stuff, starting/stopping applications, and so on. I have worked out a sample user interface using Perl on top of Gnome for my project, but I think that it would be better served using a dedicated window manager.
Anyone wanting to discuss this further can mail me at thomas@apestaart.org