Re: Idle comments was Re: BB newbie questions
BB is as close to perfect as i'd want in a WM, but i do have one major gripe that i'd love to see fixed. The behaviour of ALT+clicking on the interior of a window. It only works when the Keyboard locks (Num, caps, scroll-lock) are off. I really wish that ALT+click would always bring the window forward, regardless of the status of the Keyboard locks. yeah, that nearly drove me insain, until i found a patch at http://blackbox.thelinuxcommunity.org/patches.html right near the bottom of the page, called window resizing and button gra jerrold.
Re: BB newbie questions.
Umm. I'm not sure I agree with your statement, but that's beside the
point. There's no way that fluxbox will ever make its way into blackbox.
On 2001.11.08 23:07 Christian Dysthe wrote:
Hi,
I have Fluxbox running now. This is what BB would have been if it had
been actively developed. I like it. I would like to know if we are going
to see two parallel projects here, or if actually Fluxbox is going to end
up becoming the continuation of Blackbox.
And I guess Fluxbox will be off topic on this list? :)
On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 23:01:21 -0800
Justin Rebelo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|Blackbox is not being currently developed. It doesn't need much work,
|though, anyways. However, some people have picked up the code and
|started a new project called Fluxbox with it. I know how stubborn bb
|users are (since I am one), but this really is a cool project. It's
|identical to current version of BB but with extra features added, such
|as having bbkeys built in so that you dont have to run a second app to
|manage keybinds. Also, the application tabs are awesome. I would not
|accept them at first because I am so conservative with my WMs, but this
|stuff is really great, it helps alot for keeping things minimal. Alot of
|screenshots make flux look ass ugly, but thats just coincidence. You can
|compare them on my desktop screenshots running the same theme, one in bb
|and one in flux. Check em out at
|
|http://www.rebelo.ca/fluxbox/
|
|You can get flux and more info from fluxbox.sourceforge.net.
|
|And no, I am not a developer plugging my own app, I am just a user who
|really thinks you guys should check this out.
|
|Justin Rebelo
|
|Mark Hill wrote:
|
|On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 11:02:23PM -0600, Christian Dysthe wrote:
|
|Hi,
|
|I am fairly new to BB and the documentation on the BB site isn't very
helpful. Lots of dead links. Is Blackbox out of development, or is it a
new site somewhere that I am not aware of?
|
|A couple of questions:
|
|1. Is it possible to set it so that a doubleclick on the top bar of a
window maximizes it instead of shading it?
|
|2. I tried to compile the bbapm app, but it fails. I am not able get
the compile completed. Are there binaries available somewhere?
|
|3. Is it a way to open bbkeys without anything showing on the desktop?
I do not need the keyhole, but I need the functionality. :)
|
|TIA
|
|
|I don't believe blackbox is current development, but there are patches
|around to enhance bb.
|
|3. run bbkeys with the -i option. I have this in my ~/.xinitrc to start
|bbkeys:
|
|bbkeys -i
|
|
--
Kind Regards,
Christian Dysthe.
--
%--%
Jason Kasper (vanRijn)
bash$ :(){ :|:};:
Numbers 6:24-26
Re: BB newbie questions.
Hi,
I was not saying that I thought it should be a part of Blackbox. My statements
clarified:
1. This is what Blackbox would have been under continued development. I mean, what is
added here is the keyboard support and a taskbar. Both these features has been
offered as patches for BB on the BB site, and is functionality that a lot of people
need (and some don't).
2. I was asking if Blackbox and Fluxbox are going to be two separate projects, or if
Fluxbox actually is/will be the continuation of the Blackbox project (this based on
somewhat conflicting postings in this thread). I have no strong opinion on this, I
just wanted to know how Blackbox and Fluxbox are related :)
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:34:48 -0500
Jason vanRijn Kasper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|Umm. I'm not sure I agree with your statement, but that's beside the
|point. There's no way that fluxbox will ever make its way into blackbox.
|
|
|On 2001.11.08 23:07 Christian Dysthe wrote:
| Hi,
|
| I have Fluxbox running now. This is what BB would have been if it had
| been actively developed. I like it. I would like to know if we are going
| to see two parallel projects here, or if actually Fluxbox is going to end
| up becoming the continuation of Blackbox.
|
| And I guess Fluxbox will be off topic on this list? :)
|
| On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 23:01:21 -0800
| Justin Rebelo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| |Blackbox is not being currently developed. It doesn't need much work,
| |though, anyways. However, some people have picked up the code and
| |started a new project called Fluxbox with it. I know how stubborn bb
| |users are (since I am one), but this really is a cool project. It's
| |identical to current version of BB but with extra features added, such
| |as having bbkeys built in so that you dont have to run a second app to
| |manage keybinds. Also, the application tabs are awesome. I would not
| |accept them at first because I am so conservative with my WMs, but this
| |stuff is really great, it helps alot for keeping things minimal. Alot of
|
| |screenshots make flux look ass ugly, but thats just coincidence. You can
|
| |compare them on my desktop screenshots running the same theme, one in bb
|
| |and one in flux. Check em out at
| |
| |http://www.rebelo.ca/fluxbox/
| |
| |You can get flux and more info from fluxbox.sourceforge.net.
| |
| |And no, I am not a developer plugging my own app, I am just a user who
| |really thinks you guys should check this out.
| |
| |Justin Rebelo
| |
| |Mark Hill wrote:
| |
| |On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 11:02:23PM -0600, Christian Dysthe wrote:
| |
| |Hi,
| |
| |I am fairly new to BB and the documentation on the BB site isn't very
| helpful. Lots of dead links. Is Blackbox out of development, or is it a
| new site somewhere that I am not aware of?
| |
| |A couple of questions:
| |
| |1. Is it possible to set it so that a doubleclick on the top bar of a
| window maximizes it instead of shading it?
| |
| |2. I tried to compile the bbapm app, but it fails. I am not able get
| the compile completed. Are there binaries available somewhere?
| |
| |3. Is it a way to open bbkeys without anything showing on the desktop?
| I do not need the keyhole, but I need the functionality. :)
| |
| |TIA
| |
| |
| |I don't believe blackbox is current development, but there are patches
| |around to enhance bb.
| |
| |3. run bbkeys with the -i option. I have this in my ~/.xinitrc to start
| |bbkeys:
| |
| |bbkeys -i
| |
| |
|
|
| --
| Kind Regards,
| Christian Dysthe.
|
|--
|%--%
|Jason Kasper (vanRijn)
|bash$ :(){ :|:};:
|Numbers 6:24-26
|
--
Christian Dysthe
http://www.dysthe.net
ICQ: 3945810
Registered Linux User #228949
Two wrongs doesn't make a right, but three lefts do.
[no subject]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Bcc: Subject: Re: BB newbie questions. Reply-To: In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Uptime: 12:31:53 up 2 days, 10:46, 5 users, load average: 0.03, 0.17, 0.16 * Christian Dysthe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi, I was not saying that I thought it should be a part of Blackbox. My statements clarified: 1. This is what Blackbox would have been under continued development. I mean, what is added here is the keyboard support and a taskbar. Both these features has been offered as patches for BB on the BB site, and is functionality that a lot of people need (and some don't). Blackbox used to include keyboard binding support, but it was pretty poor and would be more maintainable in a separate app. So, in short, fluxbox is the devolution of blackbox. Also, you have the source to both, and the patches. Feel free to make Dysthebox, just don't claim it is blackbox 1.0. 2. I was asking if Blackbox and Fluxbox are going to be two separate projects, or if Fluxbox actually is/will be the continuation of the Blackbox project (this based on somewhat conflicting postings in this thread). I have no strong opinion on this, I just wanted to know how Blackbox and Fluxbox are related :) I think there is a significant number of blackbox users who will resist any attempt to replace it with fluxbox. Whether this means that Fluxbox development will continue independently of blackbox, or if it will continue taking patches developed for blackbox and using them is still mystery. scott -- Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes msg03704/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
On 2001.11.09 12:44 Scott Moynes wrote:
Blackbox used to include keyboard binding support, but it was pretty
poor and would be more maintainable in a separate app. So, in short,
fluxbox is the devolution of blackbox.
This I completely agree with. Not to mention the fact that bbkeys is
still in active development and enhancements. And why it was chosen to
swallow an immediately out-of-date bbkeys into fluxbox rather than
allowing it to remain a standalone app is beyond me. You've just
complicated things rather than simplified them--blackbox and fluxbox could
very easily have co-existed with bbkeys, and both would benefit from the
separation of function. If keybindings had been left to bbkeys, fluxbox
would have been a consideration for me. As it stands now, unless the
fluxbox author intends to keep up with the still-{evolving,improving}
bbkeys, or he removes keybindings from fluxbox, I have no interest in
playing with it.
-- %--%
Jason Kasper (vanRijn)
bash$ :(){ :|:};:
Numbers 6:24-26
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
\begin{logic}
* Richard B Mahoney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At best, this is poor logic. First, you appear to assume that the
removal of key binding functions from a window manager is
`development.' This is not necessarily so. Second, you also appear to
assume that Fluxbox has poor key binding functionality. This is not
the case. Fluxbox reads my existing bbkeys-0.8.3 ~/.bbkeysrc file and
behaves in the same way.
When one compares the number of updates and changes to bbkeys and
compares it to the number of updates and changes to blackbox in the
last several months, one can see why it was a wise decision to remove
it. I've always advocated shipping the blackbox source with
bbkeys. This allows users to have easy keybinding support out of the
box, and still be able to update bbkeys independently. Also, this will
allow users to not have to worry about their windowmanager doing
things other than managing windows when they don't need it to.
Now what happens when bbkeys-0.9 comes out that has a small fix to
keybinding support? Is everyone expected to download a new fluxbox,
compile it and go through all the hoops that might involve. Frankly, I
think that a separate app to do a separate job is The Right Thing,
and, not coincidently, also the Unix Way.
\end{reason}
Additionally, don't assume what I think. I always knew that fluxbox
stole several thousand lines of code from other developers, and then
claimed it was a visionary development.
Cordially,
scott
--
Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes
msg03708/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Scott Moynes wrote: When one compares the number of updates and changes to bbkeys and compares it to the number of updates and changes to blackbox in the last several months, one can see why it was a wise decision to remove Nothing wrong with providing several updates to blackbox. One way or another you choose to download and rebuild something. it. I've always advocated shipping the blackbox source with bbkeys. This allows users to have easy keybinding support out of the It was easier before (but with less functionality too). I am sure hundreds of users trying blackbox had problems because of missing keybinding functionality since new blackbox versions. box, and still be able to update bbkeys independently. Also, this will allow users to not have to worry about their windowmanager doing things other than managing windows when they don't need it to. If that is case, blackbox could have a build-time (and maybe a run-time) configuration to choose this. .. and, not coincidently, also the Unix Way. Using lots of simple tools (versus bloatware) is not always the best, most stable, or easiest way. Additionally, don't assume what I think. I always knew that fluxbox stole several thousand lines of code from other developers, and then claimed it was a visionary development. Tell us about this thievery. I haven't looked at the fluxbox source -- does it give credit where credit is due? On that note, I see that bbkeys is viral GPL'd and our great blackbox is using the noble BSD-style license. As it is, bbkeys can not (should not) go back into blackbox. (Which is sad -- because I like bbkeys functionality, but I prefer it to be part of blackbox.) Jeremy C. Reed .. ISP-FAQ.com -- find answers to your questions http://www.isp-faq.com/
The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
Jeremy C. Reed wrote: Using lots of simple tools (versus bloatware) is not always the best, most stable, or easiest way. There have been a few people that have claimed this. However, I've yet to see any sound examples where the simple tools combined together for a task were not better at it than some (as you put it) bloatware package. I'm sure it goes without saying, but just to make 100% we are comparing best-of-breed applications here right? On that note, I see that bbkeys is viral GPL'd and our great blackbox is using the noble BSD-style license. As it is, bbkeys can not (should not) go back into blackbox. (Which is sad -- because I like bbkeys functionality, but I prefer it to be part of blackbox.) What is so bad about GPL'ing something? Personally, if I decide to give away my code (which I have), I like knowing that any enhancements to it are public domain. Just curious. Jamin W. Collins
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeremy C. Reed wrote: Using lots of simple tools (versus bloatware) is not always the best, most stable, or easiest way. There have been a few people that have claimed this. However, I've yet to see any sound examples where the simple tools combined together for a task were not better at it than some (as you put it) bloatware package. I'm sure it goes without saying, but just to make 100% we are comparing best-of-breed applications here right? standard-counter-example for=unix-way-argument Emacs. /standard-counter-example What is so bad about GPL'ing something? Personally, if I decide to give away my code (which I have), I like knowing that any enhancements to it are public domain. Different ideologies. BSD style is nicer in that it says here it is, enjoy. In a perfect world, it's be the ideal license. GPL poses restrictions on the user. Best argument I've heard so far for BSD style license: since MS used so much BSD licensed code, they have a hard time condemming Open Source per se, and instead can only focus on GPL and eventually look ridicolous. But more people have had heated arguments about this - try google to get an idea of the arguments for either side. -Jan
Re: Blackbox on iPAQ
It was until version 0.5. Now they use Ion I believe.. (I have it installed on mine, and just upgraded from 0.4) -Ben - Original Message - From: David S Cargo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:05 PM Subject: Blackbox on iPAQ I don't remember if this has been mentioned or not, but BlackBox is the window manager installed by default on the Compaq iPAQ with the Linux installed using a distribution from Familiar. http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=1780/urm0111b/0111b.htm escargo
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
* Jeremy C. Reed ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Nothing wrong with providing several updates to blackbox. One way or another you choose to download and rebuild something. Not if you don't use bbkeys. Tell us about this thievery. I haven't looked at the fluxbox source -- does it give credit where credit is due? On that note, I see that bbkeys is viral GPL'd and our great blackbox is using the noble BSD-style license. As it is, bbkeys can not (should not) go back into blackbox. (Which is sad -- because I like bbkeys functionality, but I prefer it to be part of blackbox.) This is where it gets interesting. You see, bbkeys is GPLd, and fluxbox is not. It under the noble BSD licence. src/Keys.cc includes some reference to the GPL, and a couple copyright notices, but does not include a copy of the GPL, and also changes the licence. I am not sure that Jason Kasper and Ben Jansens allowed for this, but I pretty certain they did not. How noble. scott -- Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes msg03715/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Jamin W. Collins wrote: Jeremy C. Reed wrote: Using lots of simple tools (versus bloatware) is not always the best, most stable, or easiest way. There have been a few people that have claimed this. However, I've yet to see any sound examples where the simple tools combined together for a task were not better at it than some (as you put it) bloatware package. I'm sure it goes without saying, but just to make 100% we are comparing best-of-breed applications here right? I am not sure of the definition or examples of 'best-of-breed' applications. But, as an example, in some cases, using perl (bloatware) is easier than using a bunch of Bourne scripts, awk scripts, sed scripts, etc. to do the same job. Another example: In many situations, using Netscape Navigator or KDE's Konqueror is easier or more pleasant (but not more stable) than using links, w3m or lynx. (Or should I compare lynx with w3get?) (I use links for most of my surfing!) And another: Using Exim to handle mail transfer, filtering and delivery is easier and usually faster than trying to combine a variety of MTA, procmail (and like tools). On that note, I see that bbkeys is viral GPL'd and our great blackbox is using the noble BSD-style license. As it is, bbkeys can not (should not) go back into blackbox. (Which is sad -- because I like bbkeys functionality, but I prefer it to be part of blackbox.) What is so bad about GPL'ing something? Personally, if I decide to give away my code (which I have), I like knowing that any enhancements to it are public domain. Public domain is great!!! I am glad you chose public domain; be sure your code says public domain. GPL is NOT public domain. Spend some time reading about GPL, public domain, BSD licensing. http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/bsd/license.html and search via google. Jeremy C. Reed .. ISP-FAQ.com -- find answers to your questions http://www.isp-faq.com/
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
* Jan Schaumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: standard-counter-example for=unix-way-argument Emacs. /standard-counter-example I don't think emacs violates this. It includes a whole bunch of lisp source files, that can be removed, and provide a bunch of small functions that can be chained together for just about any goal. -- Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes msg03717/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Scott Moynes wrote: * Jeremy C. Reed ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Nothing wrong with providing several updates to blackbox. One way or another you choose to download and rebuild something. Not if you don't use bbkeys. True. Does anyone use blackbox without keygrab support? Let's count :) .. This is where it gets interesting. You see, bbkeys is GPLd, and fluxbox is not. It under the noble BSD licence. src/Keys.cc includes Ouch :( I don't agree with stealing code. Jeremy C. Reed .. ISP-FAQ.com -- find answers to your questions http://www.isp-faq.com/
RE: fluxbox, blackbox
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Craig Thrall wrote: On that note, I see that bbkeys is viral GPL'd and our great blackbox is using the noble BSD-style license. As it is, bbkeys can not (should not) go back into blackbox. (Which is sad -- because I like bbkeys functionality, but I prefer it to be part of blackbox.) I don't think the fact that bbkeys is GPL'd would prevent anybody from distributing it with blackbox. bbkeys is arguably a derivation of blackbox, I am not talking about distributing *with* blackbox -- but merging/integrating it into blackbox. not the other way around. I know. I have used blackbox for a couple years before bbkeys was needed. Jeremy C. Reed .. ISP-FAQ.com -- find answers to your questions http://www.isp-faq.com/
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
On Friday 09 November 2001 18:43, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: snip Does anyone use blackbox without keygrab support? Let's count :) I don't use keygrab. Not sure what I'm missing. Everything works fine. Gino -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ghazalpage.net
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
Jeremy C. Reed wrote: Public domain is great!!! I am glad you chose public domain; be sure your code says public domain. GPL is NOT public domain. Spend some time reading about GPL, public domain, BSD licensing. http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/bsd/license.html and search via google. So, you claim because enhancements/changes/derived works have to be given back to the public, the GPL is not Public Domain? Not following you here. It would seem to me that the fact that it does have to be given back makes it more Public Domain than the BSD licenses of here do what you will. Does the BSD license grant more rights to the user? Yes, at least one I don't care for. The right to take what I released to the public and close it away. No thanks. Jamin W. Collins
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
* Aaron J. Seigo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: some clarification regarding konqi: it isn't a monolithic bloatware app. konqi is a (very small) framework app wherein _every_ _single_ piece is a loaded part that does one thing, does it well (hopefully =), and interoperates with every other part that is loadable. it is very much a tribute to the multiple small components concept that makes the UNIX CLI such a dream to use. so it actually doesn't uphold your theory at all and in fact supports the other school of thought. tongue.in(cheek); So then just about any modern object-oriented or component based application should also be in the UNIX way. Everything from our dear blackbox all the way past konqi and mozilla through to Microsoft Office. :D -- Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes msg03725/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
Jamin W. Collins wrote: So, you claim because enhancements/changes/derived works have to be given back to the public, the GPL is not Public Domain? Not following you here. Oops, I'll check myself before someone else does (hopefully). It would seem that Mr. Reed is correct. The term Public Domain carries a bit of legal ramification with it: quote Public domain software is software that is not copyrighted. It is a special case of non-copylefted free software http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware, which means that some copies or modified versions may not be free at all. Sometimes people use the term ``public domain'' in a loose fashion to mean ``free'' http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#FreeSoftware or ``available gratis.'' However, ``public domain'' is a legal term and means, precisely, ``not copyrighted''. For clarity, we recommend using ``public domain'' for that meaning only, and using other terms to convey the other meanings. /quote This is not quite what I intended. I mis-spoke and apologize. Jamin W. Collins
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Jamin W. Collins wrote: Public domain is great!!! I am glad you chose public domain; be sure your code says public domain. GPL is NOT public domain. Spend some time reading about GPL, public domain, BSD licensing. http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/bsd/license.html and search via google. So, you claim because enhancements/changes/derived works have to be given back to the public, the GPL is not Public Domain? Not following Public domain has no valid/active copyright (such as old books) and can be used for any purpose. GPL can not be used for any purpose. BSD can be used for any purpose as long as the simple disclaimer and copyright is included. you here. It would seem to me that the fact that it does have to be given back makes it more Public Domain than the BSD licenses of here do what you will. Again: public domain is do what you will. Does the BSD license grant more rights to the user? Yes, at least one I don't care for. The right to take what I released to the public and close it away. No thanks. You misunderstand: just because someone makes a closed derivative, it doesn't mean that the original is not available. Consider that a lot of code included with commercial SunOS, Windows NT, free Linux distributions and other operating systems and software is BSD licensed -- it is widely used. Jeremy C. Reed .. ISP-FAQ.com -- find answers to your questions http://www.isp-faq.com/
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Jamin W. Collins wrote: quote Public domain software is software that is not copyrighted. It is a special case of non-copylefted free software http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware, which means that some copies or modified versions may not be free at all. This is Stallman's definition of free. His definition is different than mine and definitely different than the real world. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#FreeSoftware or Many people dislike the GPL more than they dislike Microsoft/Windows. Now back to blackbox ... Jeremy C. Reed Blackbox FAQ: http://www.reedmedia.net/misc/blackbox/faq.html
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
I have heard this. But I have not seen it. Everytime I have installed konqueror, I (believe I) was required to also install a large amount of other QT and KDE libraries and components. kinda like how you need to install a kernel and glibc and a shell and all that other trash just to be able to use 'ls', huh? ;-) I look forward to using a non-bloated konqueror. Feel free to point me to some docs that show how I can quickly install and use it without the QT and KDE baggage. (I guess this is similar to the projects that use the mozilla base.) there is a konqi that uses only Qt (no KDE).. i forget the name of it off-hand, but it does exist. however, that isn't really the point of your post. the point is that it is a collection of independant parts that work together, not a monolithic piece of software. -- Aaron Seigo
Fluxbox Licensing
I've attempted to contact the author of Fluxbox to clarify the licensing concern over the Keys.cc file. It would appear that grab_defs.hh also bares the GPL license. Jamin W. Collins
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
Does anyone use blackbox without keygrab support? Let's count :) I don't use keygrab. Not sure what I'm missing. Everything works fine. Just curios, how do you guys alt tab? How do you change desktops, or do guys just use the mouse? Personally, I hate taking my hands off the keyboard, and every app that I use is bounded to a key, so I don't have to use that silly menu to launch my apps, but i guess that's personal choice. Atleast you guys get to free up 1.5megs of memory space :) Jerrold.
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: I look forward to using a non-bloated konqueror. Feel free to point me to some docs that show how I can quickly install and use it without the QT and KDE baggage. (I guess this is similar to the projects that use the mozilla base.) [Off topic, I guess but here goes.. ] Mozilla on UNIX platforms only requires the addition of the GTK libraries, and ORBit (primarily for the IDL stuff) library, which is a lot better than having to install QT KDE (or even GNOME!) For security, you may use the OpenSSL library as well. After compiling and packing for distribution, you end up with a ~10 megabyte tarball. Installing it takes up ~30MB of disk space, which compares very favourably with M$ Internet Exploder and its ilk. Since most UNIX-based GUI programs uses the X11 software, it's an indispenable part of most distributions. What I'm not sure of is whether Mozilla can be compiled on a UNIX platform using the GTK console framebuffer toolkit. Maybe I'll give that a try, Ghods only knows how bored I am on a Friday night! It's a shame that a lot of software requires the use of GNOME or KDE. I won't install GNOME or KDE on my box, because I don't feel it necessary, when one can get by using just the GTK library with Blackbox. -- Come the revolution, humourless gits'll be first up against the wall. http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
hi.. tongue.in(cheek); So then just about any modern object-oriented or component based application should also be in the UNIX way. Everything from our dear blackbox all the way past konqi and mozilla through to Microsoft Office. :D not at all... konqueror is just a GUI within which all the GUI, I/O and various other extensions in KDE (which are becoming quite numerous and varied) can come together visually in accordance with the user's desire at that moment. konqi contains very little functionality in and of itself. even the menus and toolbars are extended/modified by the loaded parts. in turn all these parts can be used by any other KDE app, such as the html, dir tree, console, finder, text viewer, koffice, cervisia, INSERT PART HERE parts and the IOSlaves. konqueror : kparts :: bash : command line apps this is particularly different when compared with the state of things on MS Windows or MacOS. simply having a component model does not guarentee interoperability between components in an ad hoc manner as the UNIX CLI does. GNOME's bonobo + gnomevfs will give similar benefits to the GNOME desktop. -- Aaron Seigo -- Aaron Seigo
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Scott Moynes wrote: * Aaron J. Seigo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: some clarification regarding konqi: it isn't a monolithic bloatware app. konqi is a (very small) framework app wherein _every_ _single_ piece is a loaded part that does one thing, does it well (hopefully =), and interoperates with every other part that is loadable. it is very much a tribute to the multiple small components concept that makes the UNIX CLI such a dream to use. so it actually doesn't uphold your theory at all and in fact supports the other school of thought. tongue.in(cheek); So then just about any modern object-oriented or component based application should also be in the UNIX way. Everything from our dear blackbox all the way past konqi and mozilla through to Microsoft Office. :D Yea, Office could in fact be seen in this light. It's built of a huge amount of 'components', 'active x controls' whatever you want to call them, and each does its own job, and each can be reused :) I think this argument is becoming rather moot. xOr - -- I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE77Jhy8mPQRGtSu14RAiBdAJ9AGiV+1vsftzrLJGEYhMA0WBaShACfe5Zw zMAh5SMMe9NQGgTX2+3kKDE= =lFQV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Alex Buell wrote: On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: I look forward to using a non-bloated konqueror. Feel free to point me to some docs that show how I can quickly install and use it without the QT and KDE baggage. (I guess this is similar to the projects that use the mozilla base.) [Off topic, I guess but here goes.. ] Mozilla on UNIX platforms only requires the addition of the GTK libraries, and ORBit (primarily for the IDL stuff) library, which is a lot better than having to install QT KDE (or even GNOME!) For security, you may use the OpenSSL library as well. After compiling and packing for distribution, you end up with a ~10 megabyte tarball. Installing it takes up ~30MB of disk space, which compares very favourably with M$ Internet Exploder and its ilk. Since most UNIX-based GUI programs uses the X11 software, it's an indispenable part of most distributions. What I'm not sure of is whether Mozilla can be compiled on a UNIX platform using the GTK console framebuffer toolkit. Maybe I'll give that a try, Ghods only knows how bored I am on a Friday night! It's a shame that a lot of software requires the use of GNOME or KDE. I won't install GNOME or KDE on my box, because I don't feel it necessary, when one can get by using just the GTK library with Blackbox. You're missing the point by so far. The do one thing and do it well approach that is so good to unix, and the open source community in general usually, is the exact opposite of what mozilla does. The fact that most software uses GTK or QT is a *good thing*. They don't have to rewrite all of that code again. You have 3 GTK apps running, you only need one copy of the libgtk in ram. If you have 3 programs each with all their own tookit code, they each have taken 5 times as long to develop, are half as usable, are less stable, and/or look like ass, and each one has to be loaded into ram fully, now occupying far more ram than did the 3 GTK apps, which are each considerably smaller on their own that the 3 custom toolkit apps. Etc etc etc.. The mozilla project started at pretty much nothing, and rewrote a lot of code that already exists. Its barely even componentized to be reused, or to be worked on separately from all I can tell. Other projects have managed to use just the rendering engine with GTK etc. Theres are a much better example of the UNIX way than mozilla. Instead of trying to do everything associated with web browsing, they do one thing - design and provide an interface for browsing to the user (but not rewriting the toolkit, building on GTK - and leave the rest up to over peices of software, such as GTK and the gecko engine. The idea is not to, from what i gather, to always have as many small programs, where you have to interact with them all to get the job done, as possible. This is good on the command line, but does not hold up in a GUI environment. This causes clutter, its slow, and its annoying. Rathe the approach should be to take what exists, use it and add you own bit of code that does what it needs to do, and do it well. Don't rewrite it all, e.g. mozilla, in a huge monolithic application that cannot or will not be reused in the way that GTK or QT can and will be. Gnome and KDE provide a lot of functionality that would otherwise need to be rewritten, or wouldnt be rewritten, and so we'd end up with far less functional software. You don;t need to run the gnome environment to use a gnome app, and then only the libs it strictly requires will be loaded. Which are sure to be no smaller than if the app's authors had taken the 10 years to write all that same code for it. Or, like i said, maybe they wouldn't do that and the app would just be far less functional. Building on what's there is a good idea, and not done often enough. And I'm out of shit to spit, so I'll stop now. xOr - -- I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE77J4i8mPQRGtSu14RAqpfAKCOQus6WIErN8MWA3QpHVOC7ZOKeACfTfzf lXHDLu5RFbpOWbM/NTiM6mw= =AsLT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
standard-counter-example for=unix-way-argument Emacs. /standard-counter-example isn't unix a program that runs on emacs? aloha, dave
gtk
This is a bit off topic, but since so much has been said about GTK toolkit and how great it is, does anyone out there know if there's a program like bbconf (or old toolbox) that allows one to build gtk themes from GUI environment? I think GTK-BB combination is perfect ... Timofei Piatenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
What version of bb? Fran :):):) On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 15:48, you wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 03:04:54PM +1300, jerrold poh wrote: Does anyone use blackbox without keygrab support? Let's count :) I don't use keygrab. Not sure what I'm missing. Everything works fine. Just curios, how do you guys alt tab? How do you change desktops, or do guys just use the mouse? Personally, I hate taking my hands off the keyboard, and every app that I use is bounded to a key, so I don't have to use that silly menu to launch my apps, but i guess that's personal choice. Atleast you guys get to free up 1.5megs of memory space :) For the curious 8-) Ctl + Alt + right arrow/left arrow or Ctl + Alt + 1/2/3/4/5 etc. Many regards, Richard The Memory Conscious
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
Dear Fran, On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 06:19:29PM +1300, Fran wrote: What version of bb? Fran :):):) Just curios, how do you guys alt tab? How do you change desktops, or do guys just use the mouse? [snip] For the curious 8-) Ctl + Alt + right arrow/left arrow or Ctl + Alt + 1/2/3/4/5 etc. Until a few days ago, i.e., until I converted the that nameless Other, I _was_ using : Blackbox 0.61.1 bbkeys 0.8.3 The .bbkeysrc read something like this : KeyToGrab(1), WithModifier(control+mod1), WithAction(Workspace1) KeyToGrab(Right), WithModifier(control+mod1), WithAction(NextWorkspace) Of course, I am still doing the same thing now. 8-) Many regards, Richard -- +--- Richard Mahoney ---+ | 78 Jeffreys Rd +64-3-351-5831 | | Christchurch New Zealand | +--[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]---+ msg03741/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The *nix way (was Re: fluxbox, blackbox)
Emacs is the OS, Linux is the device driver. Fran :):):) On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 16:58, you wrote: standard-counter-example for=unix-way-argument Emacs. /standard-counter-example isn't unix a program that runs on emacs? aloha, dave
Re: fluxbox, blackbox
Ahhh. So you're not using bb _without_ bbkeys. Fran :):):) On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 19:48, Richard B Mahoney wrote: Dear Fran, On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 06:19:29PM +1300, Fran wrote: What version of bb? Fran :):):) : Just curios, how do you guys alt tab? How do you change desktops, or do guys just use the mouse? [snip] For the curious 8-) Ctl + Alt + right arrow/left arrow or Ctl + Alt + 1/2/3/4/5 etc. Until a few days ago, i.e., until I converted the that nameless Other, I _was_ using : Blackbox 0.61.1 bbkeys 0.8.3 The .bbkeysrc read something like this : KeyToGrab(1), WithModifier(control+mod1), WithAction(Workspace1) KeyToGrab(Right), WithModifier(control+mod1), WithAction(NextWorkspace) Of course, I am still doing the same thing now. 8-) Many regards, Richard Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; charset=us-ascii; name=Attachment: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description:
