Talk:X window manager

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

could someone explain how window managers relate to things like KDE and gnome?

KDE, Gnome, Enlightenment and Xfce are desktop manager. They contain a window manager but add things to it. Basicly they add an extra api and some rules for application programmers. So that the whole desktop is more integrated.

Afcourse to do this, they also have to be a window manager.

Extra note: Some will see Enlightment as a window manager and some will see it as a desktop manager, the same with some other desktop/window manager. Both are right, it is how you see it that coints.

An other note: Some (more pure) desktop manager allow for an other window manager (part). That other window manager will afcourse need to be written in a way that it kan be used with that desktop manager. Usually with an special api. -- ppareit

So a desktop manager is a window manager with more bits for better integration? -- Tarquin 20:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 rename 2 Reverts 3 Poll links 4 Peer review of a related article 5 Suggesting merge from Virtual window manager to here 6 Modification of Window manager lists 7 Which managers to include? 8 merge

[edit] rename

Centrx, isn't "window manager" unique to X? In other words, I don't see why move it when it's not namespace pollution. --Shallot 21:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

I've reverted these edits for the following reasons:

* xfce: a window manager aims to low resource consumption

Xfce isn't a window manager, it's a desktop environment. Xfce uses Xfwm as its window manager, but that's already listed. Therefore, I've removed this entry.

Most users do not need to care the X window managers, however, one might to do so if the popular default window manager/desktop is too slow on old machines. As a result, some lighweight window managers such as Xfce and Fluxbox are worthing trying.

I'm not sure if this article needs a ==choice of window managers== section; I think the second paragraph and corresponding bullet points explain how different users make choices on which window manager to use. If we want to keep this section, it should be rewritten and made NPOV (removing the Xfce and Fluxbox references), but I've removed it for now.

[edit] Poll links

* a poll for favorite window manager, another poll by tech geeks, yet another poll, [one more poll]

Do we need the polls? I'm hesitant to remove them, so I'm leaving them for now. --Sether 5 July 2005 06:25 (UTC)

Nah, removed them. --Phatmonkey 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of a related article

I submitted X Window core protocol for peer review, as I intend to candidate it for featured status. I would appreciate comments (Peer review page). - Liberatore(T) 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting merge from Virtual window manager to here

I'd earlier proposed to merge the Virtual window manager article with the Virtual desktop article, but User:Jonabbey pointed out that it'd probably merge into this one better, which I agree with. (Also see the VD talk page) Are there any objections? Izogi 23:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that there's also a Tiling window manager article, so I've also added a merge suggestion for that one. In any case, I'm just going to go ahead and do it now, and it can be reverted if anyone thinks it's a bad idea. Izogi 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modification of Window manager lists

It seems like this is (and should be) a good resource for someone researching various window manager choices. In light of that, maybe it would be wise to note that current status of these projects. I mean that some seem to be dead (ie Weimia), and others are not yet extant (ie Aegis). Maybe we could use a table, discussing various attributes like size, availability, brief purpose...

[edit] Which managers to include?

The page is now protected until the issue of which links are allowed here. IMO, two things that are uncontroversial are:

• if a window manager has a Wikipedia page, it should be linked; if it's not notable, that article should be deleted first;
• some window managers are historically significant, such as OLWV; if there is evidence that an article about them could be written, they can stay in the list with an external link in the meantime;
• all others go.

Opinions? Tizio 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• in the other wikipedia pages there are list of things that aren't yet implemented. the red links and related external links there should be so that anybody in the future can make related article.

--83.190.219.68 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:NOT, we should not describe things that does not exist. On the other hand, we can describe a notable project for realizing something. I do not clearly understand why Beryl (window manager) is so far a separate article from Compiz, but so far I'd rather have the two being listed on the same item of the list, such as:

• Compiz (a compositing window manager) and Beryl (window manager) an under development fork of it

I think this is an acceptable compromise. Tizio 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• no, the red links are intended as an articol that hasn't yet written on wikipedia but exist in the web and in the world. anyone has deleted a true word that don't exist in wikipedia. --83.190.138.45 23:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not everything that exist in the world will have an article on Wikipedia (see WP:SOFTWARE for a proposed guideline regarding software; this guideline is in addition to WP:V). Red links are useful if their corresponding articles can stay in Wikipedia; otherwise, they just invite people to create articles that would then be deleted. So the question is: which ones of the redlinked WM's may deserve an article? I still do not see any specific proposal on this. Tizio 23:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Since I see nobody disagreed on my proposal, I have implemented it. Tizio 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge

uhhhhhhhhhhhh... why does window manager redirect here? — Omegatron 13:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)