OESF Portables Forum

Everything Else => Zaurus Distro Support and Discussion => Distros, Development, and Model Specific Forums => Archived Forums => Ubuntu => Topic started by: adf on April 20, 2009, 11:20:52 pm

Title: Jwm As In Puppy?
Post by: adf on April 20, 2009, 11:20:52 pm
Has anyone considered running jwm in jaunty?  I tried it with default settings from the icewm menu, and it clearly needed some keymapping and tweaks, but I seem to recall that jwm is actually lighter than ice, and might be worth the effort.
Title: Jwm As In Puppy?
Post by: Capn_Fish on April 21, 2009, 02:52:00 pm
JWM is about the same heaviness as IceWM, IIRC. It also lacks some things (like full-screen maximization), leading me to dump it.

If you want light, go EvilWM. You need to edit the source to reconfigure keybindings, but it works wonders.

Also know that some of the heaviness/slowness you may be feeling is due to Ubuntu not using Zaurus-friendly optimizations.

Hope that helps.
Title: Jwm As In Puppy?
Post by: adf on April 21, 2009, 11:46:17 pm
Quote from: Capn_Fish
JWM is about the same heaviness as IceWM, IIRC. It also lacks some things (like full-screen maximization), leading me to dump it.

If you want light, go EvilWM. You need to edit the source to reconfigure keybindings, but it works wonders.

Also know that some of the heaviness/slowness you may be feeling is due to Ubuntu not using Zaurus-friendly optimizations.

Hope that helps.

Ice is fine, I simply seemed to recall jwm being actually lighter and looking pretty similar.Quite possibly I am mistaken.

 I wouldn't mind desktop icons and better matching of input with the Z though
Title: Jwm As In Puppy?
Post by: Capn_Fish on April 22, 2009, 07:17:07 pm
I don't think either IceWM or JWM has desktop icons. You could use something like PCManFM to do it, which shouldn't eat TOO much memory.

I may be wrong about my RAM usage/lightness comparisons, but I seem to recall that JWM, IceWM, and EvilWM actually used similar amounts of RAM (as reported by top). Fluxbox was ever so slightly heavier. Like I said, the speed differences are likely more due to lack of optimization and/or what tasks are running at the time.

What do you mean by "better matching of input with the Z?"
Title: Jwm As In Puppy?
Post by: adf on April 24, 2009, 11:32:47 pm
Quote from: Capn_Fish
I don't think either IceWM or JWM has desktop icons. You could use something like PCManFM to do it, which shouldn't eat TOO much memory.

I may be wrong about my RAM usage/lightness comparisons, but I seem to recall that JWM, IceWM, and EvilWM actually used similar amounts of RAM (as reported by top). Fluxbox was ever so slightly heavier. Like I said, the speed differences are likely more due to lack of optimization and/or what tasks are running at the time.

What do you mean by "better matching of input with the Z?"

I didn't think JWM supported icons, just mentioning it as something handy.

Better input matching meant menu keymapping, ability to use the "screen buttons," that sort of thing. I'm sure much of it can be done manually.
Title: Jwm As In Puppy?
Post by: Capn_Fish on April 28, 2009, 01:46:11 pm
Well, having the menu hotkeyed would require a program that interfaces with the menubar/WM (eg, Fluxbox's fluxbox-remote) or some WM hotkey file (eg, ~/.fluxbox/keys). I don't think JWM has that (I haven't looked recently, though), and I have no clue about IceWM.

The silkscreen keys are another thing altogether. I believe Angstrom supports them, so if you use their kernel, they should at least give X events. From there it's just a keymapping process.