On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:08:25PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > No, I meant it from an aesthetical point of view only. Umm, where did > you get the idea that a WM controls the widgets on an application? > That's not true.
The fact that when you shut down the WM without shutting down X the window
border along with the close/minimize/maximize buttons (aka, the widgets)
disappear? :P
> Because XFCE4 has XFFM built into it -- that's the file manager that is
> used. Yes, you can use another one if you like, but that commonality
> between applications will then be lost.
Uh, no, it doesn't. XFFM is a separate application. XFFM can be used
with ICEWM if you so chose. Don't believe me? Do an apt-cache show xffm4 and
read the suggests line:
Suggests: xfwm4, xfce4
Not requires. Not depends. Suggests.
> Configuring that aspect is usually what makes the whole process fun,
> IMO. I am curious though which WMs you feel were "lacking" in that
> regard. I'd have said the issue isn't so much with the WM, as it might
> have been with the application, for reasons I won't bore you with.
Hrm, which WMs did I use in the past? FVWM2, WM, BB, a few others that
were supposed to be the kitty's titties but I uninstalled in about 5m flat
because they were completely lacking. IceWM was one that I used for about a
year but even so it was too minimalistic for me. KDE was a good standard.
GNOME was just wacked. XFCE4 seems to be an excellent compromise.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
