Re: Is Sawfish lightweighted?

Given what sawfish does, I think it's on the light-weight side.
On low end laptops, it performs well, as good or better than
fvwm2.  I tried OpenBox, but didn't use it very long.  It didn't
have what I consider the most minimal customizations.

I guess I don't get too excited about these kind of
classification.  Light-weight isn't precise.  A essential
feature is something you need, a useless feature is something
someone else needs ;-)  The nice think about a scriptable program
like Sawfish is it make it easier to add features that only add
weight when they are used.


Teika Kazura <teika lavabit com> writes:
> Do you think Sawfish is lightweighted? In my opinion, not so
> much. Openbox for example in my opinion can be deemed
> lightweighted. Do you know any "heavy" WMs? (On PC, / tablet ...)
> It's because Sawfish introduction phrases say "Sawfish is
> lightweighted", but I'd like to be honest and precise.
> I tried Openbox the other day, and even though I expected so, I was a
> bit shocked that it started very fast. Memory usage doesn't seem to
> vary much; 9M by sawfish vs 8M by openbox, comparing "RES" field in
> htop.
> # Openbox is barely customizable contrary to their claim, viewed from
> # "the" Sawfish standard. Yet we can learn from it.
> Regards,
> Teika (Teika kazura)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]