FVWM, the powerful ICCCM-compliant multiple virtual desktop window manager for the X Window system, released version 2.4.8. Latest alpha release 2.5.2 will support font shadow effects like the ones seen at WindowsXP’s title bars.
FVWM 2.4.8 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
errh.. i mean.. YAWM..
Wow, kids these days! FVWM is hardly write-offable as yet another window manager… it’s likely the oldest currently actively maintained window managers in existence, and there’s good reason for it: it’s among the most robust, well-designed, and extensible window managers out there.
Shame on you. =)
..like njm said, you gotta give props to FVWM, but man, it is *UGLY*.
FVWM, the window manager that’s cool if you’re an old geek who thinks the 80’s were the pinnacle of computing.
the Amiga, the Atari, the first macs, the IBM PC…
“it’s likely the oldest currently actively maintained window managers in existence”
that is cool that the project is still worked on, but if it is so old, why is it only on version 2? Am i missing something here?
Suddenly CDE and Motif don’t look as ugly anymore…
CDE rocks.
that is cool that the project is still worked on, but if it is so old, why is it only on version 2? Am i missing something here?
Open source developers tend to be conservative (read: “realistic”) in their version numbering. There have been 18 official versions of Linux 2.4, about 20 of Linux 2.2, about 40 of Linux 2.0, and countless ones before that. Yet the latest stable version is only “2.4.18”.
The developers don’t need inflated version numbers since they’re not selling anything. Look at Microsoft’s version numbers. Internally, Windows 95 was Windows version 4.0, Win98 was version 4.1 and WinMe was 4.2 (IIRC). Microsoft knew that very little had changed between the releases (besides the ‘commingling’ of IE), but they had to hide this so they would sell more copies.
I don’t like the overhead of KDE or GNOME, WMAKER and Afterstep are good looking but I dislike there feel, icewm looks to much like windows (and it’s configuration is to easy ;p) and so I stick with FVWM. I love it, it looks like a geek wm and feels very comfortable. thanks to the programmers!!!
Wow, kids these days! FVWM is hardly write-offable as yet another window manager… it’s likely the oldest currently actively maintained window managers in existence, and there’s good reason for it: it’s among the most robust, well-designed, and extensible window managers out there.
Shame on you. =)
Ditto.
FVWM, the window manager that’s cool if you’re an old geek who thinks the 80’s were the pinnacle of computing.
No, all we’re doing is giving credit where credit is due.
I’m sure that’s just youthful envy speaking on your part, but the truth is that some of the older, cruder window managers have their place. Because they were developed long before the age of gigaHertz machines, these window managers were designed to perform well on machines that are tens, hundreds and even thousands of times slower than today’s machines. Today they’re a great way to put some new life into those older machines.
For example, I have an old pre-MMX Pentium 166 box with a modest 96MB of RAM that I use as my firewall. While it’s possible to build a Linux box to serve network firewalling and routing functions with a lot less, even the first ‘386, my box has enough resources to do more. It just doesn’t have enough to do full-blown KDE or GNOME at an acceptable level of performance. But using IceWM, and more recently XFce, I get a modern-looking desktop environment with a reasonable level of functionality that responds quite well.
I’m also involved in a project that gives refurbished computers to kids who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford one. As much as we’d love to give them brand new machines, the fact of the matter is that what we get are cast-offs that somebody thought were worthless, at least as Windows systems. A window manager like FVWM95 can provide a small and fast interface that’s familiar enough without going nuts trying to be Windows.
Those who claim that XFree86 is slow have obviously never bothered to test their ignorant assumptions. Anybody who has used something like TWM knows just how efficient XFree86 really is!
http://users.netwit.net.au/~pursang/lofat.html
CDE rocks.
LOL, I wouldn’t go that far myself! But I do admire the elegance of the design. I was using the OS/2 PM dock before I ever had access to a real UNIX workstation, and came to appreciate the drawer approach. Notice that even Apple has *cough* “innovated” *cough* a dock of their own. Of course my XFce dock works well on an old 166MHz box…
Speed, you speak of the usefulness of old unixish window managers.
I have used fvwm2 and I think it’s alright…but that is after I’ve spent days on configuring it…(the configuration file is insane). The default look and feel is horrible for someone not used to <censored> unix guis.
Also, at emergencies, I’ve (tried) to use twm. I don’t know much about it but the only thing I manage to do with it is open a xterm. I can’t even close a window…
There is that there is a piece of software that runs very well on 7 MHz computers with 0.5MB RAM and takes up very little space. It’s called Workbench and runs on almost 20 years old Amigas.
WB is not only a window manager but more like a desktop environment and is very easy to use. It also looks good and has a lot of features.
My point is that there is not excuse for fvwm, twm and friends to be so ugly and hard to use and configure. (Other than designed by monkeys that is.) If usability is crap then the window manager is crap.
If it’s not ugly as hell, isn’t based upon incredibly crude and dated GUI technology, doesn’t require an MS in comp sci to configure, and provides only the functionality set required by xterm wonks and emacs monkeys, then it’s not REAL software. FVWM forever!
Has anyone ported ANY of these GUI’s (MGR, FWVM, XFree86, etc.) to Minix?
don’t bash and critisize FVWM sure it is no KDE or Gnome by a longshot, but there are *some of us Linux users that prefer light WMs, personally i prefer WindowMaker or Blackbox, maybe someone else prefers FVWM…
different smokes for different folks, i am glad this WM is making progress and staying current, where would we be without choice with Linux, then it may as well be another Windoze OS…
some peopleconsider KDE & Gnome the “Training wheels” of Linux ROFLMAO!!! (flame the hell out of me for that one, i don’t give a hoot)
Actually originated with NeXTSTEP in 1987
My point is that there is not excuse for fvwm, twm and friends to be so ugly and hard to use and configure. (Other than designed by monkeys that is.) If usability is crap then the window manager is crap.
I disagree wholeheartedly. While I completely understand that the vast majority of people would not like to spend the time to learn how to use and configure such now horribly cryptic window managers as FVWM, calling such pieces of software crap is hopelessly naive. You may prefer a desktop that just *works*; probably one whose customizability ends with changing the theme or color scheme. That’s fine — you have the self-proclaimed interface gurus and an absolutely overwhelming majority of computer users on your side. However, a small majority find it enjoyable to tweak our window manager, twisting it and contorting it into any shape we envision; FVWM is what I use to accomplish this, along with many others. I love FVWM, and have used it daily for a long time. I certainly would never think of calling it crap! Perhaps you should respect differing tastes a bit more.
Yes, yes, I made a typo… you can replace small majority with small minority. Sorry, folks. =)
“that is cool that the project is still worked on, but if it is so old, why is it only on version 2? ”
The Linux kernel is old, and it’s only on version 2
You can’t compare a kernel version to a window manager, the amount of work that goes into the linux kernel by far exceeds that of any gui.
There is no VSB (Versioning Standard Base). Number of version has nothing to do with the time, or the amount of work that goes in the project, or the number of developpers. It has to do with what the person in charge decides. Look at the last KDE version, the last WindowMaker or Enlightenment versions. And look at the respective ages of these projects.
“You can’t compare a kernel version to a window manager, the amount of work that goes into the linux kernel by far exceeds that of any gui.
”
Hmmm. You sure? I could be wrong, but I think that KDE as a whole is probably a lot more complex than the Linux kernel.
But the comparision is invalid anyway. You can’t say that something is old just because its only on version 2 whereas something else is on version 3 or 4 or 5. It just doesn’t work that way. After all, it’s not like there is an industry standard for version numbers. Slackware for example, because of the “higher version number makes us look better” syndrome, made a jump from version 3.5 to version 7, their logic being that other distros were making to many major version jumps without using enough decimals.
Generally, a major version jump is only made when major new features have been added. (I don’t think the jump from KDE 2 to KDE 3 was justified for example. They are similar enough that I don’t think it deserved an entire integer jump. On the other hand, Linux kernel 2.4 added enough new features that I personally think it should have been released as kernel 3.0.)
My point is that there is not excuse for fvwm, twm and friends to be so ugly and hard to use and configure. (Other than designed by monkeys that is.) If usability is crap then the window manager is crap.
Ugly is purely subjective. If you want to look at a pretty picture, get yourself a pretty picture and quit bitching.
As for ease of use and configuration, judging all 100 or so UN*X window managers based on the traits of a couple is known as stereotyping. The goal of stereotyping is not understanding, and is considered by most to be a character flaw. I would have suggested some alternatives had you not made it plain that you were only posturing about how good some long extinct product was. Ho hum.
Well, EVERYTHING in X is ugly.
Is it just X, or because these people don’t know how to make something that looks/feels decent?
>Well, EVERYTHING in X is ugly.
>
>Is it just X, or because these people don’t know how to make >something that looks/feels decent?
I’ve often wondered the same thing. Could the ugly pixmaps be simply replaced with ones that are better looking?
>>FVWM, the window manager that’s cool if you’re an old geek >>who thinks the 80’s were the pinnacle of computing.
>No, all we’re doing is giving credit where credit is due.
>I’m sure that’s just youthful envy speaking on your part, >but the truth is that some of the older, cruder window >managers have their place. Because they were developed long >before the age of gigaHertz machines, these window managers >were designed to perform well on machines that are tens, >hundreds and even thousands of times slower than today’s >machines. Today they’re a great way to put some new life >into those older machines.
Well, at thirty I’m not exactly what some would call youthful. I view computers and their interfaces as being in their infancy. I believe we have a long ways to go before there is a system that is both secure, powerful, and easy to use for anyone — and no, I don’t believe the saying that only a fool would want to use a system that is foolproof. Therefore, I feel a mild contempt for people who think things should stay the way they have been for twenty or thirty years. Hence, my dislike of FVWM, which seems positively stuck in time. I take back some of what I said, however: it’s true, the 80’s probably were a more exciting time for computers, and a lot more fun.
Also, I understand the need for a window manager that uses low resources. At this moment, I’m using Oroborus, which at 42 kilobytes is as minimal as it gets. And, it looks good. Imagine that!
LOL, I wouldn’t go that far myself! But I do admire the elegance of the design. I was using the OS/2 PM dock before I ever had access to a real UNIX workstation, and came to appreciate the drawer approach. Notice that even Apple has *cough* “innovated” *cough* a dock of their own. Of course my XFce dock works well on an old 166MHz box…
The CDE panel/dock/whatever looks the same as Apple OS X’s Dock, but UI wise, it is every different. OS X Dock is the same as OpenStep’s Dock, except it is on the botton of the screen by default, and all “dockpletes” are joined together. I have used XFce a lot, a used Solaris version of CDE before, and believe me, OS X didn’t rip off the UI of the dock from old CDE. But if you would ask me which I would prefer, I would pick CDE’s.
You can’t compare a kernel version to a window manager, the amount of work that goes into the linux kernel by far exceeds that of any gui.
Sawfish has more code than the Linux kernel…. I’m guessing more work went into Sawfish.
I view computers and their interfaces as being in their infancy. … Therefore, I feel a mild contempt for people who think things should stay the way they have been for twenty or thirty years. Hence, my dislike of FVWM, which seems positively stuck in time.
First of all, I never advocated reactionary thought. You’re blowing what I did say way out of proportion, way out of context. Further inaccuracies involve the length of time that FVWM has been around. X itself is less than 20 years old!
Also, I understand the need for a window manager that uses low resources. At this moment, I’m using Oroborus, which at 42 kilobytes is as minimal as it gets. And, it looks good. Imagine that!
Yeah, you support my point. I prefer the newer ones too, but I’m not going to be hyper-judgemental about others’ choice of a more conservative look.