On Sunday 29 April 2012 17:22:03 Mag. Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> I don't get the point of this prolonged discussion: let's state somebody
> would really want to trade twin for something else, why should he use kwin?
> What's the benefit? As I see it, there's simply no point to prefer kwin to
> e.g. fvwm or openbox.
well using fvwm or openbox is a completely different kettle. Of course you can
question whether it makes sense to use KWin or TWin at all. A good reference
for comparison is of course [1]. (Note that KWin is the only window manager
having a yes in all listed categories)
The Trinity Desktop Environment is a fork of KDE 3.5. KDE 3.5 used as desktop
shell KDesktop and Kicker and as a window manager KWin. TWin is the fork of
this version of KWin. Obviously KWin is very well integrated with the rest of
the desktop environment (e.g. uses same toolkit) and has been developed
especially for the needs of this environment in comparison to things like
openbox which is actually a standalone window manager and includes things you
don't need. Using openbox will therefore result in higher RAM consumption than
using KWin.
So to me the question whether openbox or fvwm should be used instead of KWin
or TWin is just invalid.
This means the question is what are the advantages of using KWin over TWin.
Well I'm not going to repeat what I have written in the past [2].
Cheers
Martin
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_window_managers
[2]: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::4312
Attachments: