Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work?
Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work? Can an X client work with only the X server?
If an X client doesn't have a window, does whether it can work need a window manager?
If an X client can work without a window manager, does the X client necessarily have no window?
Thanks.
x11 window-manager
edited Dec 29 '18 at 19:31
hkBst
1032
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:36
TimTim
26.5k75252461
|
show 3 more comments
Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work? Can an X client work with only the X server?
If an X client doesn't have a window, does whether it can work need a window manager?
If an X client can work without a window manager, does the X client necessarily have no window?
Thanks.
x11 window-manager
edited Dec 29 '18 at 19:31
hkBst
1032
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:36
TimTim
26.5k75252461
4
When I first encountered X—that is, quite a long time ago—the fact that you don't need a window manager was discussed in most introductory materials. That doesn't seem to be the case these days, but I suppose that someone might think this obvious or an example of laziness.
– dmckee
Dec 27 '18 at 19:38
11
@Tim: You seem to have been around long enough that you should know that a downvote is not intended to communicate "hatred", "evilness", "cruelty", "discrimination" or anything like that at all. A downvote is simply a content rating system, and some content is less valuable than other content. (For the record, I didn't downvote this question: I think this question is great.) See also: Can we make it more obvious to new users that downvotes on the main site are not insults and in fact can help them help themselves? on Meta Stack Overflow.
– Daniel Pryden
Dec 27 '18 at 20:48
5
@Tim Some of your downvoted questions seem not useful to me. The UI (the alt text of the button) encourages users to downvote "not useful" questions. Hatred is not a necessary component. Adding a small hint/assertion that a question could be potentially used in some scenario (even if very marginal/improbable) would mostly prevent that knee-jerk reaction. Your questions that I saw are remarkably similar in that they lack any such hint/assertion.
– kubanczyk
Dec 27 '18 at 23:49
3
Tim, the diamond moderators have access to some tools that detect pattern voting. Flag them and ask them to look into it. /mod on physics.se
– dmckee
Dec 28 '18 at 1:12
1
Parts of your question seem ungrammatical. Worst offender seems to be "does whether it can work need a window manager?".
– hkBst
Dec 29 '18 at 16:40
|
show 3 more comments
Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work? Can an X client work with only the X server?
If an X client doesn't have a window, does whether it can work need a window manager?
If an X client can work without a window manager, does the X client necessarily have no window?
Thanks.
x11 window-manager
edited Dec 29 '18 at 19:31
hkBst
1032
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:36
TimTim
26.5k75252461
Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work? Can an X client work with only the X server?
If an X client doesn't have a window, does whether it can work need a window manager?
If an X client can work without a window manager, does the X client necessarily have no window?
Thanks.
x11 window-manager
x11 window-manager
edited Dec 29 '18 at 19:31
hkBst
1032
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:36
TimTim
26.5k75252461
edited Dec 29 '18 at 19:31
hkBst
1032
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:36
TimTim
26.5k75252461
edited Dec 29 '18 at 19:31
hkBst
1032
edited Dec 29 '18 at 19:31
hkBst
1032
edited Dec 29 '18 at 19:31
hkBst
1032
1032
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:36
TimTim
26.5k75252461
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:36
TimTim
26.5k75252461
asked Dec 27 '18 at 16:36
TimTim
26.5k75252461
26.5k75252461
4
When I first encountered X—that is, quite a long time ago—the fact that you don't need a window manager was discussed in most introductory materials. That doesn't seem to be the case these days, but I suppose that someone might think this obvious or an example of laziness.
– dmckee
Dec 27 '18 at 19:38
11
@Tim: You seem to have been around long enough that you should know that a downvote is not intended to communicate "hatred", "evilness", "cruelty", "discrimination" or anything like that at all. A downvote is simply a content rating system, and some content is less valuable than other content. (For the record, I didn't downvote this question: I think this question is great.) See also: Can we make it more obvious to new users that downvotes on the main site are not insults and in fact can help them help themselves? on Meta Stack Overflow.
– Daniel Pryden
Dec 27 '18 at 20:48
5
@Tim Some of your downvoted questions seem not useful to me. The UI (the alt text of the button) encourages users to downvote "not useful" questions. Hatred is not a necessary component. Adding a small hint/assertion that a question could be potentially used in some scenario (even if very marginal/improbable) would mostly prevent that knee-jerk reaction. Your questions that I saw are remarkably similar in that they lack any such hint/assertion.
– kubanczyk
Dec 27 '18 at 23:49
3
Tim, the diamond moderators have access to some tools that detect pattern voting. Flag them and ask them to look into it. /mod on physics.se
– dmckee
Dec 28 '18 at 1:12
1
Parts of your question seem ungrammatical. Worst offender seems to be "does whether it can work need a window manager?".
– hkBst
Dec 29 '18 at 16:40
|
show 3 more comments
4
When I first encountered X—that is, quite a long time ago—the fact that you don't need a window manager was discussed in most introductory materials. That doesn't seem to be the case these days, but I suppose that someone might think this obvious or an example of laziness.
– dmckee
Dec 27 '18 at 19:38
11
@Tim: You seem to have been around long enough that you should know that a downvote is not intended to communicate "hatred", "evilness", "cruelty", "discrimination" or anything like that at all. A downvote is simply a content rating system, and some content is less valuable than other content. (For the record, I didn't downvote this question: I think this question is great.) See also: Can we make it more obvious to new users that downvotes on the main site are not insults and in fact can help them help themselves? on Meta Stack Overflow.
– Daniel Pryden
Dec 27 '18 at 20:48
5
@Tim Some of your downvoted questions seem not useful to me. The UI (the alt text of the button) encourages users to downvote "not useful" questions. Hatred is not a necessary component. Adding a small hint/assertion that a question could be potentially used in some scenario (even if very marginal/improbable) would mostly prevent that knee-jerk reaction. Your questions that I saw are remarkably similar in that they lack any such hint/assertion.
– kubanczyk
Dec 27 '18 at 23:49
3
Tim, the diamond moderators have access to some tools that detect pattern voting. Flag them and ask them to look into it. /mod on physics.se
– dmckee
Dec 28 '18 at 1:12
1
Parts of your question seem ungrammatical. Worst offender seems to be "does whether it can work need a window manager?".
– hkBst
Dec 29 '18 at 16:40
4
4
When I first encountered X—that is, quite a long time ago—the fact that you don't need a window manager was discussed in most introductory materials. That doesn't seem to be the case these days, but I suppose that someone might think this obvious or an example of laziness.
– dmckee
Dec 27 '18 at 19:38
When I first encountered X—that is, quite a long time ago—the fact that you don't need a window manager was discussed in most introductory materials. That doesn't seem to be the case these days, but I suppose that someone might think this obvious or an example of laziness.
– dmckee
Dec 27 '18 at 19:38
11
11
@Tim: You seem to have been around long enough that you should know that a downvote is not intended to communicate "hatred", "evilness", "cruelty", "discrimination" or anything like that at all. A downvote is simply a content rating system, and some content is less valuable than other content. (For the record, I didn't downvote this question: I think this question is great.) See also: Can we make it more obvious to new users that downvotes on the main site are not insults and in fact can help them help themselves? on Meta Stack Overflow.
– Daniel Pryden
Dec 27 '18 at 20:48
@Tim: You seem to have been around long enough that you should know that a downvote is not intended to communicate "hatred", "evilness", "cruelty", "discrimination" or anything like that at all. A downvote is simply a content rating system, and some content is less valuable than other content. (For the record, I didn't downvote this question: I think this question is great.) See also: Can we make it more obvious to new users that downvotes on the main site are not insults and in fact can help them help themselves? on Meta Stack Overflow.
– Daniel Pryden
Dec 27 '18 at 20:48
5
5
@Tim Some of your downvoted questions seem not useful to me. The UI (the alt text of the button) encourages users to downvote "not useful" questions. Hatred is not a necessary component. Adding a small hint/assertion that a question could be potentially used in some scenario (even if very marginal/improbable) would mostly prevent that knee-jerk reaction. Your questions that I saw are remarkably similar in that they lack any such hint/assertion.
– kubanczyk
Dec 27 '18 at 23:49
@Tim Some of your downvoted questions seem not useful to me. The UI (the alt text of the button) encourages users to downvote "not useful" questions. Hatred is not a necessary component. Adding a small hint/assertion that a question could be potentially used in some scenario (even if very marginal/improbable) would mostly prevent that knee-jerk reaction. Your questions that I saw are remarkably similar in that they lack any such hint/assertion.
– kubanczyk
Dec 27 '18 at 23:49
3
3
Tim, the diamond moderators have access to some tools that detect pattern voting. Flag them and ask them to look into it. /mod on physics.se
– dmckee
Dec 28 '18 at 1:12
Tim, the diamond moderators have access to some tools that detect pattern voting. Flag them and ask them to look into it. /mod on physics.se
– dmckee
Dec 28 '18 at 1:12
1
1
Parts of your question seem ungrammatical. Worst offender seems to be "does whether it can work need a window manager?".
– hkBst
Dec 29 '18 at 16:40
Parts of your question seem ungrammatical. Worst offender seems to be "does whether it can work need a window manager?".
– hkBst
Dec 29 '18 at 16:40
|
show 3 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
No. Well written apps don't need a window manager.
But some "modern" broken apps will not work fine without a window manager (eg. firefox and its address bar suggestions which won't drop down [1]).
Many other subpar apps not only assume a window manager, but to add insult to injury, a click to focus window manager. For instance, it used to be that any java app will simply steal the focus on startup.
If you want to test, install Xephyr (a "nested" X11 server), run it with Xephyr :1, and then start your apps with DISPLAY=:1 in their environment.
[1] the "awesome bar" of Firefox won't open its suggestions pane when typed into or clicked on the history button unless there's a window manager running. The auto-hide menu won't work either.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:59
slm♦
249k66522680
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:26
mosvymosvy
6,6711427
Is there an open bug in firefox for the issue you mentioned? I think firefox's open source nature would be willing to accomodate a bug fix for that issue.
– t3dodson
Dec 27 '18 at 22:27
4
@t3dodson You can trying submitting one, but it's highly doubtful that anybody will care to review a patch fixing that. Running firefox is not really supported without a window manager, session manager, and recently, a pulseaudio server running. Of course, you can fork it, but having to maintain a firefox fork is not something I would wish on my worst enemy ;-)
– mosvy
Dec 28 '18 at 9:24
Imo any answer on this theme is not complete without mentioning Xephyr. +1
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 31 '18 at 9:02
add a comment |
No, you don't need to be running a window manager to allow an X client to work. Some systems provide an option to just run a terminal at startup, and from that you can start additional programs, including window managers. Some kiosk setups which only want one application to run don't need a window manager. Some implementations of X for microsoft windows avoid an X window manager by letting the OS manage the windows.
Without a window manager you typically need to specify the geometry to the programs so you don't have everything placed in the top left corner.
In X, the window manager is just another X client. This was unusual at the time, but made it easy to have different window managers.
Another way to look at the question is to observe that you can change window managers on the fly, so there is a time between the first one stopping and the second one taking control, but as all your applications don't crash they must be able to work without.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:55
icarusicarus
6,01111030
2
Hint: there is a tool called xwit which really helps when experimenting with wm-less configurations.
– rackandboneman
Dec 28 '18 at 14:32
add a comment |
To add to other answers, I have developed and released an open source app which works without a window manager (meaning you can start it directly from xinitrc). There is some extra steps the application should do in this case besides managing geometry and Z-order of its dialogs, but this is totally manageable.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
George Y.George Y.
1613
add a comment |
A window manager is a convenience for users.
In the good^Wbad old days, I used to have a ~/.Xclients file that read:
#!/bin/sh
HOST=`uname -n | sed 's/..*$//'`
xv -root -rmode 5 $HOME/misc/millennium/theme/Wallpaper.gif -quit &
xterm -geometry 80x24+0+85 #52x71-104+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xterm -geometry 80x24+510+429 #52x71-52+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xclock -digital -update 1 -geometry +1059+982 &
xscreensaver -nosplash &
exec /usr/local/lib/X11/fvwm/fvwm
This file would be run when I started X with startx. When this script finishes then the X server will shut down.
Note the last line: exec .../fvwm. This is the line that started my window manager (fvwm). All the previous applications (xv, xterm, xclock, xscreensaver) were running before the window manager started. Because the call to fvwm was the last line and not put in the background it meant that when fvwm terminated then X would close down.
The X startup even had a "fall back" default... if there were no configuration files then start X with a single xterm running. Closing that xterm would end the X session.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:23
Stephen HarrisStephen Harris
25.5k24477
What was the advantage of not backgrounding fvwm?
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 12:48
1
We need the script to not terminate because if it does then the X server terminates; by not backgroundingfvwm(and running it byexec) we ensure there's still a process keeping the X server from shutting down. By making that last processfvwmallows for an "exit" menu item to work as expected.
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:36
Got it. It's been a while since I did much low-level with X. Must say though that fvwm 2 is one of my two favorite window managers (the other being kwin 3).
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
In my case,fvwm-1.24rwas my favourite window manager :-)
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
I hear you on that. I seem to recall that v2 was more customizable than v1 though (with all config options in a single text file and reloadable on-the-fly?). Pretty light-weight too, especially by today's standards. I last used it daily in the P-II era IIRC.
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:47
|
show 3 more comments
There are a lot of good detailed answers here. Here is the simple clear cut answer.
Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work?
No: But without if you will struggle to manage your windows (moving, re-sizing, lowering, raising, etc.). There are other tool that can do this, if you need it.
Can an X client work with only the X server?
Yes
If an X client doesn't have a window, does whether it can work need a window manager?
If it has no windows, then there should be no down-side of having no window-manager.
If an X client can work without a window manager, does the X client necessarily have no window?
No: it can have windows.
Try this.
DISPLAY=:21
vncserver -localhost -geometry 1920x1080 -SecurityTypes None $DISPLAY &
ssvnc $DISPLAY
xterm &
then in the new xterm type fvwm.
You may need to install vncserver, ssvnc, and fvwm, first.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:41
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
11.2k42058
add a comment |
Yes, an X client can work with only the X server. As an example, I give my virtual machines their own virtual console on the host, like this.
# Press CTRL-ALT-F5, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system CentOS -- :4
# Press CTRL-ALT-F6, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system Windows -- :5
The "startx" command starts the Xorg X server on displays :4 and :5 with only virt-viewer as an client.
"CentOS" and "Windows" are the names I gave my virtual machines when I installed them. The -k switch for virt-viewer makes it full screen with minimal controls, so each virtual machine appears to own the machine until I press CTRL-ALT-Fn to switch to a different virtual console.
Of course, CentOS is running a display manager and window manager inside the virtual machine, but that has no connection with the X server running on the host.
answered 7 mins ago
Ken JacksonKen Jackson
1
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491161%2fdoes-an-x-client-necessarily-need-a-window-manager-to-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No. Well written apps don't need a window manager.
But some "modern" broken apps will not work fine without a window manager (eg. firefox and its address bar suggestions which won't drop down [1]).
Many other subpar apps not only assume a window manager, but to add insult to injury, a click to focus window manager. For instance, it used to be that any java app will simply steal the focus on startup.
If you want to test, install Xephyr (a "nested" X11 server), run it with Xephyr :1, and then start your apps with DISPLAY=:1 in their environment.
[1] the "awesome bar" of Firefox won't open its suggestions pane when typed into or clicked on the history button unless there's a window manager running. The auto-hide menu won't work either.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:59
slm♦
249k66522680
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:26
mosvymosvy
6,6711427
Is there an open bug in firefox for the issue you mentioned? I think firefox's open source nature would be willing to accomodate a bug fix for that issue.
– t3dodson
Dec 27 '18 at 22:27
4
@t3dodson You can trying submitting one, but it's highly doubtful that anybody will care to review a patch fixing that. Running firefox is not really supported without a window manager, session manager, and recently, a pulseaudio server running. Of course, you can fork it, but having to maintain a firefox fork is not something I would wish on my worst enemy ;-)
– mosvy
Dec 28 '18 at 9:24
Imo any answer on this theme is not complete without mentioning Xephyr. +1
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 31 '18 at 9:02
add a comment |
No. Well written apps don't need a window manager.
But some "modern" broken apps will not work fine without a window manager (eg. firefox and its address bar suggestions which won't drop down [1]).
Many other subpar apps not only assume a window manager, but to add insult to injury, a click to focus window manager. For instance, it used to be that any java app will simply steal the focus on startup.
If you want to test, install Xephyr (a "nested" X11 server), run it with Xephyr :1, and then start your apps with DISPLAY=:1 in their environment.
[1] the "awesome bar" of Firefox won't open its suggestions pane when typed into or clicked on the history button unless there's a window manager running. The auto-hide menu won't work either.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:59
slm♦
249k66522680
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:26
mosvymosvy
6,6711427
Is there an open bug in firefox for the issue you mentioned? I think firefox's open source nature would be willing to accomodate a bug fix for that issue.
– t3dodson
Dec 27 '18 at 22:27
4
@t3dodson You can trying submitting one, but it's highly doubtful that anybody will care to review a patch fixing that. Running firefox is not really supported without a window manager, session manager, and recently, a pulseaudio server running. Of course, you can fork it, but having to maintain a firefox fork is not something I would wish on my worst enemy ;-)
– mosvy
Dec 28 '18 at 9:24
Imo any answer on this theme is not complete without mentioning Xephyr. +1
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 31 '18 at 9:02
add a comment |
No. Well written apps don't need a window manager.
But some "modern" broken apps will not work fine without a window manager (eg. firefox and its address bar suggestions which won't drop down [1]).
Many other subpar apps not only assume a window manager, but to add insult to injury, a click to focus window manager. For instance, it used to be that any java app will simply steal the focus on startup.
If you want to test, install Xephyr (a "nested" X11 server), run it with Xephyr :1, and then start your apps with DISPLAY=:1 in their environment.
[1] the "awesome bar" of Firefox won't open its suggestions pane when typed into or clicked on the history button unless there's a window manager running. The auto-hide menu won't work either.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:59
slm♦
249k66522680
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:26
mosvymosvy
6,6711427
No. Well written apps don't need a window manager.
But some "modern" broken apps will not work fine without a window manager (eg. firefox and its address bar suggestions which won't drop down [1]).
Many other subpar apps not only assume a window manager, but to add insult to injury, a click to focus window manager. For instance, it used to be that any java app will simply steal the focus on startup.
If you want to test, install Xephyr (a "nested" X11 server), run it with Xephyr :1, and then start your apps with DISPLAY=:1 in their environment.
[1] the "awesome bar" of Firefox won't open its suggestions pane when typed into or clicked on the history button unless there's a window manager running. The auto-hide menu won't work either.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:59
slm♦
249k66522680
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:26
mosvymosvy
6,6711427
edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:59
slm♦
249k66522680
edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:59
slm♦
249k66522680
edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:59
slm♦
249k66522680
249k66522680
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:26
mosvymosvy
6,6711427
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:26
mosvymosvy
6,6711427
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:26
mosvymosvy
6,6711427
6,6711427
Is there an open bug in firefox for the issue you mentioned? I think firefox's open source nature would be willing to accomodate a bug fix for that issue.
– t3dodson
Dec 27 '18 at 22:27
4
@t3dodson You can trying submitting one, but it's highly doubtful that anybody will care to review a patch fixing that. Running firefox is not really supported without a window manager, session manager, and recently, a pulseaudio server running. Of course, you can fork it, but having to maintain a firefox fork is not something I would wish on my worst enemy ;-)
– mosvy
Dec 28 '18 at 9:24
Imo any answer on this theme is not complete without mentioning Xephyr. +1
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 31 '18 at 9:02
add a comment |
Is there an open bug in firefox for the issue you mentioned? I think firefox's open source nature would be willing to accomodate a bug fix for that issue.
– t3dodson
Dec 27 '18 at 22:27
4
@t3dodson You can trying submitting one, but it's highly doubtful that anybody will care to review a patch fixing that. Running firefox is not really supported without a window manager, session manager, and recently, a pulseaudio server running. Of course, you can fork it, but having to maintain a firefox fork is not something I would wish on my worst enemy ;-)
– mosvy
Dec 28 '18 at 9:24
Imo any answer on this theme is not complete without mentioning Xephyr. +1
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 31 '18 at 9:02
Is there an open bug in firefox for the issue you mentioned? I think firefox's open source nature would be willing to accomodate a bug fix for that issue.
– t3dodson
Dec 27 '18 at 22:27
Is there an open bug in firefox for the issue you mentioned? I think firefox's open source nature would be willing to accomodate a bug fix for that issue.
– t3dodson
Dec 27 '18 at 22:27
4
4
@t3dodson You can trying submitting one, but it's highly doubtful that anybody will care to review a patch fixing that. Running firefox is not really supported without a window manager, session manager, and recently, a pulseaudio server running. Of course, you can fork it, but having to maintain a firefox fork is not something I would wish on my worst enemy ;-)
– mosvy
Dec 28 '18 at 9:24
@t3dodson You can trying submitting one, but it's highly doubtful that anybody will care to review a patch fixing that. Running firefox is not really supported without a window manager, session manager, and recently, a pulseaudio server running. Of course, you can fork it, but having to maintain a firefox fork is not something I would wish on my worst enemy ;-)
– mosvy
Dec 28 '18 at 9:24
Imo any answer on this theme is not complete without mentioning Xephyr. +1
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 31 '18 at 9:02
Imo any answer on this theme is not complete without mentioning Xephyr. +1
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 31 '18 at 9:02
add a comment |
No, you don't need to be running a window manager to allow an X client to work. Some systems provide an option to just run a terminal at startup, and from that you can start additional programs, including window managers. Some kiosk setups which only want one application to run don't need a window manager. Some implementations of X for microsoft windows avoid an X window manager by letting the OS manage the windows.
Without a window manager you typically need to specify the geometry to the programs so you don't have everything placed in the top left corner.
In X, the window manager is just another X client. This was unusual at the time, but made it easy to have different window managers.
Another way to look at the question is to observe that you can change window managers on the fly, so there is a time between the first one stopping and the second one taking control, but as all your applications don't crash they must be able to work without.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:55
icarusicarus
6,01111030
2
Hint: there is a tool called xwit which really helps when experimenting with wm-less configurations.
– rackandboneman
Dec 28 '18 at 14:32
add a comment |
No, you don't need to be running a window manager to allow an X client to work. Some systems provide an option to just run a terminal at startup, and from that you can start additional programs, including window managers. Some kiosk setups which only want one application to run don't need a window manager. Some implementations of X for microsoft windows avoid an X window manager by letting the OS manage the windows.
Without a window manager you typically need to specify the geometry to the programs so you don't have everything placed in the top left corner.
In X, the window manager is just another X client. This was unusual at the time, but made it easy to have different window managers.
Another way to look at the question is to observe that you can change window managers on the fly, so there is a time between the first one stopping and the second one taking control, but as all your applications don't crash they must be able to work without.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:55
icarusicarus
6,01111030
2
Hint: there is a tool called xwit which really helps when experimenting with wm-less configurations.
– rackandboneman
Dec 28 '18 at 14:32
add a comment |
No, you don't need to be running a window manager to allow an X client to work. Some systems provide an option to just run a terminal at startup, and from that you can start additional programs, including window managers. Some kiosk setups which only want one application to run don't need a window manager. Some implementations of X for microsoft windows avoid an X window manager by letting the OS manage the windows.
Without a window manager you typically need to specify the geometry to the programs so you don't have everything placed in the top left corner.
In X, the window manager is just another X client. This was unusual at the time, but made it easy to have different window managers.
Another way to look at the question is to observe that you can change window managers on the fly, so there is a time between the first one stopping and the second one taking control, but as all your applications don't crash they must be able to work without.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:55
icarusicarus
6,01111030
No, you don't need to be running a window manager to allow an X client to work. Some systems provide an option to just run a terminal at startup, and from that you can start additional programs, including window managers. Some kiosk setups which only want one application to run don't need a window manager. Some implementations of X for microsoft windows avoid an X window manager by letting the OS manage the windows.
Without a window manager you typically need to specify the geometry to the programs so you don't have everything placed in the top left corner.
In X, the window manager is just another X client. This was unusual at the time, but made it easy to have different window managers.
Another way to look at the question is to observe that you can change window managers on the fly, so there is a time between the first one stopping and the second one taking control, but as all your applications don't crash they must be able to work without.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:55
icarusicarus
6,01111030
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:55
icarusicarus
6,01111030
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:55
icarusicarus
6,01111030
answered Dec 27 '18 at 16:55
icarusicarus
6,01111030
6,01111030
2
Hint: there is a tool called xwit which really helps when experimenting with wm-less configurations.
– rackandboneman
Dec 28 '18 at 14:32
add a comment |
2
Hint: there is a tool called xwit which really helps when experimenting with wm-less configurations.
– rackandboneman
Dec 28 '18 at 14:32
2
2
Hint: there is a tool called xwit which really helps when experimenting with wm-less configurations.
– rackandboneman
Dec 28 '18 at 14:32
Hint: there is a tool called xwit which really helps when experimenting with wm-less configurations.
– rackandboneman
Dec 28 '18 at 14:32
add a comment |
To add to other answers, I have developed and released an open source app which works without a window manager (meaning you can start it directly from xinitrc). There is some extra steps the application should do in this case besides managing geometry and Z-order of its dialogs, but this is totally manageable.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
George Y.George Y.
1613
add a comment |
To add to other answers, I have developed and released an open source app which works without a window manager (meaning you can start it directly from xinitrc). There is some extra steps the application should do in this case besides managing geometry and Z-order of its dialogs, but this is totally manageable.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
George Y.George Y.
1613
add a comment |
To add to other answers, I have developed and released an open source app which works without a window manager (meaning you can start it directly from xinitrc). There is some extra steps the application should do in this case besides managing geometry and Z-order of its dialogs, but this is totally manageable.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
George Y.George Y.
1613
To add to other answers, I have developed and released an open source app which works without a window manager (meaning you can start it directly from xinitrc). There is some extra steps the application should do in this case besides managing geometry and Z-order of its dialogs, but this is totally manageable.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
George Y.George Y.
1613
answered Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
George Y.George Y.
1613
answered Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
George Y.George Y.
1613
answered Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
George Y.George Y.
1613
1613
add a comment |
add a comment |
A window manager is a convenience for users.
In the good^Wbad old days, I used to have a ~/.Xclients file that read:
#!/bin/sh
HOST=`uname -n | sed 's/..*$//'`
xv -root -rmode 5 $HOME/misc/millennium/theme/Wallpaper.gif -quit &
xterm -geometry 80x24+0+85 #52x71-104+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xterm -geometry 80x24+510+429 #52x71-52+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xclock -digital -update 1 -geometry +1059+982 &
xscreensaver -nosplash &
exec /usr/local/lib/X11/fvwm/fvwm
This file would be run when I started X with startx. When this script finishes then the X server will shut down.
Note the last line: exec .../fvwm. This is the line that started my window manager (fvwm). All the previous applications (xv, xterm, xclock, xscreensaver) were running before the window manager started. Because the call to fvwm was the last line and not put in the background it meant that when fvwm terminated then X would close down.
The X startup even had a "fall back" default... if there were no configuration files then start X with a single xterm running. Closing that xterm would end the X session.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:23
Stephen HarrisStephen Harris
25.5k24477
What was the advantage of not backgrounding fvwm?
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 12:48
1
We need the script to not terminate because if it does then the X server terminates; by not backgroundingfvwm(and running it byexec) we ensure there's still a process keeping the X server from shutting down. By making that last processfvwmallows for an "exit" menu item to work as expected.
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:36
Got it. It's been a while since I did much low-level with X. Must say though that fvwm 2 is one of my two favorite window managers (the other being kwin 3).
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
In my case,fvwm-1.24rwas my favourite window manager :-)
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
I hear you on that. I seem to recall that v2 was more customizable than v1 though (with all config options in a single text file and reloadable on-the-fly?). Pretty light-weight too, especially by today's standards. I last used it daily in the P-II era IIRC.
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:47
|
show 3 more comments
A window manager is a convenience for users.
In the good^Wbad old days, I used to have a ~/.Xclients file that read:
#!/bin/sh
HOST=`uname -n | sed 's/..*$//'`
xv -root -rmode 5 $HOME/misc/millennium/theme/Wallpaper.gif -quit &
xterm -geometry 80x24+0+85 #52x71-104+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xterm -geometry 80x24+510+429 #52x71-52+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xclock -digital -update 1 -geometry +1059+982 &
xscreensaver -nosplash &
exec /usr/local/lib/X11/fvwm/fvwm
This file would be run when I started X with startx. When this script finishes then the X server will shut down.
Note the last line: exec .../fvwm. This is the line that started my window manager (fvwm). All the previous applications (xv, xterm, xclock, xscreensaver) were running before the window manager started. Because the call to fvwm was the last line and not put in the background it meant that when fvwm terminated then X would close down.
The X startup even had a "fall back" default... if there were no configuration files then start X with a single xterm running. Closing that xterm would end the X session.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:23
Stephen HarrisStephen Harris
25.5k24477
What was the advantage of not backgrounding fvwm?
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 12:48
1
We need the script to not terminate because if it does then the X server terminates; by not backgroundingfvwm(and running it byexec) we ensure there's still a process keeping the X server from shutting down. By making that last processfvwmallows for an "exit" menu item to work as expected.
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:36
Got it. It's been a while since I did much low-level with X. Must say though that fvwm 2 is one of my two favorite window managers (the other being kwin 3).
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
In my case,fvwm-1.24rwas my favourite window manager :-)
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
I hear you on that. I seem to recall that v2 was more customizable than v1 though (with all config options in a single text file and reloadable on-the-fly?). Pretty light-weight too, especially by today's standards. I last used it daily in the P-II era IIRC.
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:47
|
show 3 more comments
A window manager is a convenience for users.
In the good^Wbad old days, I used to have a ~/.Xclients file that read:
#!/bin/sh
HOST=`uname -n | sed 's/..*$//'`
xv -root -rmode 5 $HOME/misc/millennium/theme/Wallpaper.gif -quit &
xterm -geometry 80x24+0+85 #52x71-104+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xterm -geometry 80x24+510+429 #52x71-52+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xclock -digital -update 1 -geometry +1059+982 &
xscreensaver -nosplash &
exec /usr/local/lib/X11/fvwm/fvwm
This file would be run when I started X with startx. When this script finishes then the X server will shut down.
Note the last line: exec .../fvwm. This is the line that started my window manager (fvwm). All the previous applications (xv, xterm, xclock, xscreensaver) were running before the window manager started. Because the call to fvwm was the last line and not put in the background it meant that when fvwm terminated then X would close down.
The X startup even had a "fall back" default... if there were no configuration files then start X with a single xterm running. Closing that xterm would end the X session.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:23
Stephen HarrisStephen Harris
25.5k24477
A window manager is a convenience for users.
In the good^Wbad old days, I used to have a ~/.Xclients file that read:
#!/bin/sh
HOST=`uname -n | sed 's/..*$//'`
xv -root -rmode 5 $HOME/misc/millennium/theme/Wallpaper.gif -quit &
xterm -geometry 80x24+0+85 #52x71-104+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xterm -geometry 80x24+510+429 #52x71-52+0 -n $HOST -T $HOST &
xclock -digital -update 1 -geometry +1059+982 &
xscreensaver -nosplash &
exec /usr/local/lib/X11/fvwm/fvwm
This file would be run when I started X with startx. When this script finishes then the X server will shut down.
Note the last line: exec .../fvwm. This is the line that started my window manager (fvwm). All the previous applications (xv, xterm, xclock, xscreensaver) were running before the window manager started. Because the call to fvwm was the last line and not put in the background it meant that when fvwm terminated then X would close down.
The X startup even had a "fall back" default... if there were no configuration files then start X with a single xterm running. Closing that xterm would end the X session.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:23
Stephen HarrisStephen Harris
25.5k24477
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:23
Stephen HarrisStephen Harris
25.5k24477
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:23
Stephen HarrisStephen Harris
25.5k24477
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:23
Stephen HarrisStephen Harris
25.5k24477
25.5k24477
What was the advantage of not backgrounding fvwm?
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 12:48
1
We need the script to not terminate because if it does then the X server terminates; by not backgroundingfvwm(and running it byexec) we ensure there's still a process keeping the X server from shutting down. By making that last processfvwmallows for an "exit" menu item to work as expected.
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:36
Got it. It's been a while since I did much low-level with X. Must say though that fvwm 2 is one of my two favorite window managers (the other being kwin 3).
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
In my case,fvwm-1.24rwas my favourite window manager :-)
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
I hear you on that. I seem to recall that v2 was more customizable than v1 though (with all config options in a single text file and reloadable on-the-fly?). Pretty light-weight too, especially by today's standards. I last used it daily in the P-II era IIRC.
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:47
|
show 3 more comments
What was the advantage of not backgrounding fvwm?
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 12:48
1
We need the script to not terminate because if it does then the X server terminates; by not backgroundingfvwm(and running it byexec) we ensure there's still a process keeping the X server from shutting down. By making that last processfvwmallows for an "exit" menu item to work as expected.
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:36
Got it. It's been a while since I did much low-level with X. Must say though that fvwm 2 is one of my two favorite window managers (the other being kwin 3).
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
In my case,fvwm-1.24rwas my favourite window manager :-)
– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
I hear you on that. I seem to recall that v2 was more customizable than v1 though (with all config options in a single text file and reloadable on-the-fly?). Pretty light-weight too, especially by today's standards. I last used it daily in the P-II era IIRC.
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:47
What was the advantage of not backgrounding fvwm?
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 12:48
What was the advantage of not backgrounding fvwm?
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 12:48
1
1
We need the script to not terminate because if it does then the X server terminates; by not backgrounding
fvwm (and running it by exec) we ensure there's still a process keeping the X server from shutting down. By making that last process fvwm allows for an "exit" menu item to work as expected.– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:36
We need the script to not terminate because if it does then the X server terminates; by not backgrounding
fvwm (and running it by exec) we ensure there's still a process keeping the X server from shutting down. By making that last process fvwm allows for an "exit" menu item to work as expected.– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:36
Got it. It's been a while since I did much low-level with X. Must say though that fvwm 2 is one of my two favorite window managers (the other being kwin 3).
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
Got it. It's been a while since I did much low-level with X. Must say though that fvwm 2 is one of my two favorite window managers (the other being kwin 3).
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
In my case,
fvwm-1.24r was my favourite window manager :-)– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
In my case,
fvwm-1.24r was my favourite window manager :-)– Stephen Harris
Dec 29 '18 at 13:43
I hear you on that. I seem to recall that v2 was more customizable than v1 though (with all config options in a single text file and reloadable on-the-fly?). Pretty light-weight too, especially by today's standards. I last used it daily in the P-II era IIRC.
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:47
I hear you on that. I seem to recall that v2 was more customizable than v1 though (with all config options in a single text file and reloadable on-the-fly?). Pretty light-weight too, especially by today's standards. I last used it daily in the P-II era IIRC.
– Alex Hajnal
Dec 29 '18 at 13:47
|
show 3 more comments
There are a lot of good detailed answers here. Here is the simple clear cut answer.
Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work?
No: But without if you will struggle to manage your windows (moving, re-sizing, lowering, raising, etc.). There are other tool that can do this, if you need it.
Can an X client work with only the X server?
Yes
If an X client doesn't have a window, does whether it can work need a window manager?
If it has no windows, then there should be no down-side of having no window-manager.
If an X client can work without a window manager, does the X client necessarily have no window?
No: it can have windows.
Try this.
DISPLAY=:21
vncserver -localhost -geometry 1920x1080 -SecurityTypes None $DISPLAY &
ssvnc $DISPLAY
xterm &
then in the new xterm type fvwm.
You may need to install vncserver, ssvnc, and fvwm, first.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:41
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
11.2k42058
add a comment |
There are a lot of good detailed answers here. Here is the simple clear cut answer.
Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work?
No: But without if you will struggle to manage your windows (moving, re-sizing, lowering, raising, etc.). There are other tool that can do this, if you need it.
Can an X client work with only the X server?
Yes
If an X client doesn't have a window, does whether it can work need a window manager?
If it has no windows, then there should be no down-side of having no window-manager.
If an X client can work without a window manager, does the X client necessarily have no window?
No: it can have windows.
Try this.
DISPLAY=:21
vncserver -localhost -geometry 1920x1080 -SecurityTypes None $DISPLAY &
ssvnc $DISPLAY
xterm &
then in the new xterm type fvwm.
You may need to install vncserver, ssvnc, and fvwm, first.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:41
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
11.2k42058
add a comment |
There are a lot of good detailed answers here. Here is the simple clear cut answer.
Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work?
No: But without if you will struggle to manage your windows (moving, re-sizing, lowering, raising, etc.). There are other tool that can do this, if you need it.
Can an X client work with only the X server?
Yes
If an X client doesn't have a window, does whether it can work need a window manager?
If it has no windows, then there should be no down-side of having no window-manager.
If an X client can work without a window manager, does the X client necessarily have no window?
No: it can have windows.
Try this.
DISPLAY=:21
vncserver -localhost -geometry 1920x1080 -SecurityTypes None $DISPLAY &
ssvnc $DISPLAY
xterm &
then in the new xterm type fvwm.
You may need to install vncserver, ssvnc, and fvwm, first.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:41
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
11.2k42058
There are a lot of good detailed answers here. Here is the simple clear cut answer.
Does an X client necessarily need a window manager to work?
No: But without if you will struggle to manage your windows (moving, re-sizing, lowering, raising, etc.). There are other tool that can do this, if you need it.
Can an X client work with only the X server?
Yes
If an X client doesn't have a window, does whether it can work need a window manager?
If it has no windows, then there should be no down-side of having no window-manager.
If an X client can work without a window manager, does the X client necessarily have no window?
No: it can have windows.
Try this.
DISPLAY=:21
vncserver -localhost -geometry 1920x1080 -SecurityTypes None $DISPLAY &
ssvnc $DISPLAY
xterm &
then in the new xterm type fvwm.
You may need to install vncserver, ssvnc, and fvwm, first.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:41
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
11.2k42058
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:41
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
11.2k42058
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:41
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
11.2k42058
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:41
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
11.2k42058
11.2k42058
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yes, an X client can work with only the X server. As an example, I give my virtual machines their own virtual console on the host, like this.
# Press CTRL-ALT-F5, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system CentOS -- :4
# Press CTRL-ALT-F6, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system Windows -- :5
The "startx" command starts the Xorg X server on displays :4 and :5 with only virt-viewer as an client.
"CentOS" and "Windows" are the names I gave my virtual machines when I installed them. The -k switch for virt-viewer makes it full screen with minimal controls, so each virtual machine appears to own the machine until I press CTRL-ALT-Fn to switch to a different virtual console.
Of course, CentOS is running a display manager and window manager inside the virtual machine, but that has no connection with the X server running on the host.
answered 7 mins ago
Ken JacksonKen Jackson
1
add a comment |
Yes, an X client can work with only the X server. As an example, I give my virtual machines their own virtual console on the host, like this.
# Press CTRL-ALT-F5, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system CentOS -- :4
# Press CTRL-ALT-F6, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system Windows -- :5
The "startx" command starts the Xorg X server on displays :4 and :5 with only virt-viewer as an client.
"CentOS" and "Windows" are the names I gave my virtual machines when I installed them. The -k switch for virt-viewer makes it full screen with minimal controls, so each virtual machine appears to own the machine until I press CTRL-ALT-Fn to switch to a different virtual console.
Of course, CentOS is running a display manager and window manager inside the virtual machine, but that has no connection with the X server running on the host.
answered 7 mins ago
Ken JacksonKen Jackson
1
add a comment |
Yes, an X client can work with only the X server. As an example, I give my virtual machines their own virtual console on the host, like this.
# Press CTRL-ALT-F5, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system CentOS -- :4
# Press CTRL-ALT-F6, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system Windows -- :5
The "startx" command starts the Xorg X server on displays :4 and :5 with only virt-viewer as an client.
"CentOS" and "Windows" are the names I gave my virtual machines when I installed them. The -k switch for virt-viewer makes it full screen with minimal controls, so each virtual machine appears to own the machine until I press CTRL-ALT-Fn to switch to a different virtual console.
Of course, CentOS is running a display manager and window manager inside the virtual machine, but that has no connection with the X server running on the host.
answered 7 mins ago
Ken JacksonKen Jackson
1
Yes, an X client can work with only the X server. As an example, I give my virtual machines their own virtual console on the host, like this.
# Press CTRL-ALT-F5, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system CentOS -- :4
# Press CTRL-ALT-F6, login and enter this command:
startx /usr/bin/virt-viewer -a -k -r -w -c qemu:///system Windows -- :5
The "startx" command starts the Xorg X server on displays :4 and :5 with only virt-viewer as an client.
"CentOS" and "Windows" are the names I gave my virtual machines when I installed them. The -k switch for virt-viewer makes it full screen with minimal controls, so each virtual machine appears to own the machine until I press CTRL-ALT-Fn to switch to a different virtual console.
Of course, CentOS is running a display manager and window manager inside the virtual machine, but that has no connection with the X server running on the host.
answered 7 mins ago
Ken JacksonKen Jackson
1
answered 7 mins ago
Ken JacksonKen Jackson
1
answered 7 mins ago
Ken JacksonKen Jackson
1
answered 7 mins ago
Ken JacksonKen Jackson
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491161%2fdoes-an-x-client-necessarily-need-a-window-manager-to-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
When I first encountered X—that is, quite a long time ago—the fact that you don't need a window manager was discussed in most introductory materials. That doesn't seem to be the case these days, but I suppose that someone might think this obvious or an example of laziness.
– dmckee
Dec 27 '18 at 19:38
11
@Tim: You seem to have been around long enough that you should know that a downvote is not intended to communicate "hatred", "evilness", "cruelty", "discrimination" or anything like that at all. A downvote is simply a content rating system, and some content is less valuable than other content. (For the record, I didn't downvote this question: I think this question is great.) See also: Can we make it more obvious to new users that downvotes on the main site are not insults and in fact can help them help themselves? on Meta Stack Overflow.
– Daniel Pryden
Dec 27 '18 at 20:48
5
@Tim Some of your downvoted questions seem not useful to me. The UI (the alt text of the button) encourages users to downvote "not useful" questions. Hatred is not a necessary component. Adding a small hint/assertion that a question could be potentially used in some scenario (even if very marginal/improbable) would mostly prevent that knee-jerk reaction. Your questions that I saw are remarkably similar in that they lack any such hint/assertion.
– kubanczyk
Dec 27 '18 at 23:49
3
Tim, the diamond moderators have access to some tools that detect pattern voting. Flag them and ask them to look into it. /mod on physics.se
– dmckee
Dec 28 '18 at 1:12
1
Parts of your question seem ungrammatical. Worst offender seems to be "does whether it can work need a window manager?".
– hkBst
Dec 29 '18 at 16:40