On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 16:46, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:54:08 -0500 BAM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
>
> > Due to E16's poor support for Xnest (read: X crashes), I found myself
> > using pekwm.
>
> i might be inclined to rephrase that as "due to xnest being unstable and buggy,
> i decided to change software unrelated to its real stability issues just to
> avoid the problem, and not to help fix it".
I had originally put something to that effect, but rephrased it in what
I thought was a more lighthearted way.
> if xnest crashes - guess what? it's xnest's fault.
Yes, I believe I said "X" (not E) "crashes". E actually deserves kudos
for trying its best to be Xnest friendly, popping up big helpful dialogs
(the MIT SHM one in particular).
> i use xnest often - and it works well most of the time, has some weird behaviors
> and has some severe performance issues.
>
> on the other hand E isnt perfect - it crashes too :) but thats not the problem
> at hand :)
OK, everybody, I never meant to cast aspirations on E, I apologize for
doing so, and throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Would you please tell me what's wrong with my patch now instead of that
one throwaway line?
--
BAM - "We live in a place where policy discussion is conducted with
money."
-- Eben Moglen
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: The SF.net Donation Program.
Do you like what SourceForge.net is doing for the Open
Source Community? Make a contribution, and help us add new
features and functionality. Click here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
