iB::Topic::DSL v4.2

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » Damn Small Linux » Site News » DSL v4.2

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (6) </ 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: DSL v4.2

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

lucky13

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: Dec. 27 2007,12:18

Quote

That makes icewm almost 8X larger than jwm. Plus the extra processes that would be needed for the extra ice... binaries.

I posted the following link in a blog entry a couple weeks ago related to this:
http://www.gilesorr.com/wm/memory.html

--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)

andrewb

Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: July 2005

Posted: Dec. 27 2007,23:36

Quote (roberts @ Dec. 26 2007,03:35)

@andrewb

Perhaps at one time the default behaviour for jwm was double-click-title for shading? I don't really know. But the default is currently maximize. While at friends and relatives over the holidays I saw that Windows double-click-title also maximizes the window. That seems redundant as there already is a button to maximize. Perhaps jwm, trying to emulate Windows, made that the default and did not update the website or documentation that you may have previously seen.

Anyway, I went into source and found where I could implement double-click-title to shade/unshade.

Since most of our users are comming from fluxbox and since jwm already has a button for maximizing, it seems like a good change for jwm hosted in DSL.

Yes that is the behaviour in windows & a right pain it is too after using the shading in fluxbox & then having to use a windows system. I hadn't realised how much I did use it until I switched to JWM & found it didn't work! Keep up the good work!

jpeters

Group: Members
Posts: 804
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2007,02:21

Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 27 2007,07:18)

Quote

That makes icewm almost 8X larger than jwm. Plus the extra processes that would be needed for the extra ice... binaries.

I posted the following link in a blog entry a couple weeks ago related to this:
http://www.gilesorr.com/wm/memory.html

Well, judging from the numbers, the size of ice would be the least of my problems if my concern was low ram (which it isn't)/

COMMAND SZ RSS VSZ
bash 684 2028 3104
startx 76 1084 2312
xinit 156 644 2280
Xvesa 8076 9916 27972
icewm-session 204 1192 4232
dfm 428 2804 4920
torsmo 180 896 2268
firefox 100 1124 2336
run-mozilla.sh 144 1156 2380
firefox-bin 25376 35256 53104
firefox-bin 25376 35256 53104

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Dec. 28 2007,05:26

The 8x was referring to physical size not memory runtime.
When one is tasked with the limits of 50MB. Physical size, smaller with similar features is better.

I am well aware that advanced users will switch window managers to their favorite one.

Me included.

Discussing the merits of window managers is off topic for this thread.

I have been asked which window manger I use and why.
I will answer in the window manager topic area.

Lets stay on topic here.