Talk:Motif Window Manager

Biased?
This description of MWM appears to be biased to the negative. Phrases like "by today's standards", "but little else", and "plain" referring to text editor, twice appear biased. Xml files can also be edited in a "plain" text editor. It appears to look down on mwm, when compared to articles like BRIEF, which provide an upbeat nastalga for an app that would pales in comparison to editors like vim/emacs/jedit, "by today's standards". There is also no mention of libXM, the widgets set, openGL sample apps like "paperplane.c", an excellent demo of basic openGL app without glut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brief_(text_editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.226.168 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're confused. To me, those parts read like positive bias, if anything. And plain text is a neutral technical term. Finally, text editors and Motif openGL-based demos are irrelevant to the windows manager. JöG (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not just Unix
Note that Motif is not just for Unix - CDE is the standard X interface on OpenVMS as well, for example - David Gerard 08:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsuitable screenshot
Someone with access to this window manager should make a new screenshot that shows more of the actual window manager and less of a plain almost fullscreen browser window. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipatron (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

nicer motif shot, done


(mosaic / mozilla are shown were / are in motif). Anyway motif does not "make apps look drab": it allows presentation quality documents and apps. Developers tend to use motif's "rapid developement" qualities and don't do they eye candy. already the CDE wiki had nicer Motif desktops shots - but old looking, not newish like a "web browser"

(web browser, cough, if you call that new: i call it outdated by more powerful front-ends since 1985, and the web turning into a disaster of hacking and incompatibility with itself, poor engineering)

wikipedia has a NASTY issue of enabling political rats to run around deleting content and adding biased content. i don't doubt they'll hire someone with a fake name to delete it

WHILE leaving a suspicious post in talk saying someone WANTS it

you know? tell me i'm all ears.

Rewrite Needed
This article needs a complete re-write. It's riddled with grammatical errors, biases and poor referencing. It's C grade at best. Were the people responsible for writing the bulk of this article at all proficient in English? Oecology (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)