Fixing a 20-year-old bug in Enlightenment E16

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A 20-year-old bug fix in the Enlightenment E16 window manager has revived interest in one of Linux’s most iconic and heavily themed desktops from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Commenters reminisce about how Enlightenment, Slackware, and early theming culture drew them into Linux, while contrasting E16’s once-heavy eye candy with its now–lightweight footprint compared to modern KDE and GNOME. The thread also highlights enduring strengths of open source—being able to keep using and even improve decades-old software, experiment with advanced terminal features, and fork projects when mainstream desktops change direction.

Nostalgia and historical impact

  • Many commenters recall E16 as their entry point into Linux/BSD in the late 1990s–early 2000s, often via Slackware, SuSE, mailed CDs, and themes.org.
  • It was associated with striking screenshots, heavy theming, and “elite” desktops; some say they mostly set it up, took screenshots, then went back to more conventional environments.
  • Others remember it as genuinely usable and formative, preceding later moves to Window Maker, AfterStep, KDE 3, GNOME, or ultimately macOS/Windows.

Lightweight vs heavy

  • Historically, E16 was considered resource‑hungry eye candy on low‑end Pentiums; some saw KDE/GNOME 1.x as more usable on minimal hardware.
  • In today’s context it’s widely described as lightweight compared to modern GNOME/KDE and browser‑heavy workflows.

Current usage and derivatives

  • Several people still run Enlightenment (including e27) as a daily driver or occasional “play” environment.
  • Forks and derivatives are noted: Moksha (Bodhi Linux), Enlightenment-based AV Linux variants, and E used in niche or constrained environments (VNC, high‑latency X, old 32‑bit hardware).

Terminal, media, and configurability debates

  • A long subthread debates Enlightenment’s Terminology terminal and EFL’s ability to display images/video, embed GUI‑like widgets, and handle file transfers directly in the terminal.
  • Proponents argue:
    • It removes context switches to separate apps, is fast and lightweight, and enables richer terminal‑GUI hybrids.
    • High configurability (e.g., scrollbar behavior) empowers users over “one true way” design trends.
  • Skeptics argue:
    • This stacks graphical indirection on top of terminals instead of improving native GUI tools.
    • Terminal ecosystems are already messy (colors, emojis, escape codes), and richer graphics add complexity with niche payoff.
    • Good GUI apps with strong keyboard support would solve the same problems more cleanly.

Debugging, determinism, and longevity

  • The fixed bug’s determinism is seen as both “sad” (it forced immediate debugging during real work) and “lucky” (reproducible, testable).
  • Commenters praise how open source lets a 1997 window manager still be used and improved by someone born years later.

Security, DE politics, and toolkit choices

  • Some link this story to trust in “old, boring” software versus bleeding‑edge stacks, referencing the xz backdoor and the trade‑off between updating for security and supply‑chain risk.
  • GNOME/GTK changes (e.g., GTK4, libadwaita, removed menubars) are criticized as making non‑GNOME usage harder, though forks like MATE and Cinnamon are cited as open‑source escape valves.