Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:09:28 -0800 (PST)
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As we move forward in the code reorganization, I would like to remove
> some of the precompiler cruft.
>
> Which brings me to the following questions:
>
> a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like
> to remove the OS/2 cruft if possible.
OS/2? wussat? *8^)
> b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a
> little silly. How many of you actually compile with the slit turned
> off? How many of those would care if the slit was still in the code,
> but only active if an app was actually in it? In other words, why are
> you disabling the slit?
It's not like compile-time {in|ex}clusion is going to make a major
difference in binary size. Frankly, I've always considered the slit to
be one of the 'base' features of blackbox.
/me ponders: blackbox without a slit seems much like a performance
automobile without a dashboard..
> c) all of the above
>
> d) none of the above
see above
> e) xOr's mom
Parents as a compile-time option.. what a concept!
--
Registered Linux User Number 195825
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=140066
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Monday 21 January 2002 08:39, it is widely held that Alexander Volovics wrote: > What has always surprised me with blackbox is that the 'toolbar' has > no functionality to speak of: you can switch workspaces, see the time > and see which window has the focus. > > If you do have a toolbar why not a toolbar with some extra functionality: > - the possibility to have things like the bbkeys "keyhole" icon ON the > toolbar. - a built in "battery load" icon on the toolbar for laptop users. > - the functionality on the toolbar supplied by the > "blackbox-taskbar-patch". (which is of course broken for blackbox-0.62). Personally, the only thing I would like from the Toolbar is the addition of the date to the time. I can simulate a "functional" toolbar with the Workspace Menu. Things I don't want to see I iconify and recall if needed. Oh yes, I won't miss the OS/2 stuff & I don't use the slit. Douglas
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
Let's put the toolbar in the slit and the slit in the toolbar, so we can be cool and have the first doubly-recursive FEATURE, as opposed to the lame, traditional acronyms. Yah? On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 12:53:47AM +0100, Alexander Volovics wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:30:54PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > > On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 14:19, Robin Jury wrote: > > > b) I always use the slit. The toolbar however, I ignore. How about any > > > functionality that people want from the toolbar be put in the slit, and that > > > can be placed wherever? Does anybody feel any strong need to have both at > > > the same time? > > > I like this idea. It satisfies almost everyone involved. If all three > > options (Workspace Cycle, Active Window Cycle, and Date display) were > > slit options (I know they can be gathered with external applications, > > but is this minimal?) > > > In short, I'm for the removal of the Toolbar and functionality moved to > > the Slit.
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:30:54PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 14:19, Robin Jury wrote: > > b) I always use the slit. The toolbar however, I ignore. How about any > > functionality that people want from the toolbar be put in the slit, and that > > can be placed wherever? Does anybody feel any strong need to have both at > > the same time? > I like this idea. It satisfies almost everyone involved. If all three > options (Workspace Cycle, Active Window Cycle, and Date display) were > slit options (I know they can be gathered with external applications, > but is this minimal?) > In short, I'm for the removal of the Toolbar and functionality moved to > the Slit. There are at least 2 types of arguments for/against both toolbar/slit: 1) functional arguments: - it is probably possible to gather all the functionality of the toolbar in the slit - it is probably possible to gather all or allmost all the functionality of the slit in the toolbar. But neither of these extreme solutions gives the best functionality under all conditions and at all times. A number of reasons why the toolbar remains handy have already been given by others so I won't repeat them. Given that both the toolbar and the slit can be 'autohidden' I see no reason why either should be removed. Keep both in! 2) aesthetic arguments: Some of us really care about the appearance of the desktop. I personally like a very sparse desktop with absolutely no icons on it and just a small, narrow toolbar. The theme should be refined, with a good colour scheme (like allmost all the blackbox themes). The only pagers I find acceptable are the Enlightenment pagers (under certain nice themes). Something like GKrellM has the effect of putting a blaring jukebox with flashing lights in your room to play Gesualdo's madrigals. WindowMaker is an excellent functional desktop but very crude and ugly under all themes I have seen (ugly big icons). Judging from the pictures on the blackbox sites I find the looks of the tools icons not to my taste. And they are probably quite big. (And that, big and a crude appearance, is certainly true for WindowMaker dockapps and KDE applets). The big advantage of using only a toolbaar from my point of view is that it is very 'refined' (under allmost all the excellent blackbox themes) and you only need "text", "colors" and "relief" for the available functionality. (Even a battery monitor for laptop users on the toolbar would only need to use text). This makes it much easier to generate a tastefull personal desktop. There are bound to be almost as many arguments for or against keeping or removing the toolbar or slit as there are blackbox users. I would plead to keep both. With autohide functionality. This will certainly not make blackbox a plodding memory hogg with millions of lines of code. Alexander > Jamin W. Collins
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:30:54PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 14:19, Robin Jury wrote: > > b) I always use the slit. The toolbar however, I ignore. How about any > > functionality that people want from the toolbar be put in the slit, and that> > >can be placed wherever? Does anybody feel any strong need to have both at > > the same time? > I like this idea. It satisfies almost everyone involved. If all three > options (Workspace Cycle, Active Window Cycle, and Date display) were > slit options (I know they can be gathered with external applications, > but is this minimal?) > In short, I'm for the removal of the Toolbar and functionality moved to > the Slit. There are at least 2 types of arguments for/against both toolbar/slit: 1) functional arguments: - it is probably possible to gather all the functionality of the toolbar in the slit - it is probably possible to gather all or allmost all the functionality of the slit in the toolbar. But neither of these extreme solutions gives the best functionality under all conditions and at all times. A number of reasons why the toolbar remains handy have already been given by others so I won't repeat them. Given that both the toolbar and the slit can be 'autohidden' I see no reason why either should be removed. Keep both in! 2) aesthetic arguments: Some of us really care about the appearance of the desktop. I personally like a very sparse desktop with absolutely no icons on it and just a small, narrow toolbar. The theme should be refined, with a good colour scheme (like a lot of the blackbox themes). The only pagers I find acceptable are the Enlightenment pagers (under certain nice themes). Something like GKrellM has the effect of putting a blaring jukebox with flashing lights in your room to play Gesualdo madrigals. WindowMaker is an excellent functional desktop but very crude and ugly under all themes I have seen (ugly big icons). Judging from the pictures on the blackbox sites I find the looks of the bbtools icons not to my taste. And they are probably quite big. (And that, big and a crude appearance, is certainly true for WindowMaker dockapps and KDE applets). The big advantage of using only a toolbaar from my point of view is that it is very 'refined' (under allmost all the excellent blackbox themes) and you only need "text", "colors" and "relief" for the available functionality. (Even a battery monitor for laptop users on the toolbar would only need to use text). This makes it much easier to generate a tastefull personal desktop. There are bound to be almost as many arguments for or against keeping or removing the toolbar or slit as there are blackbox users. I would plead to keep both. With autohide functionality. Or, if possible, a choice at compilation time. Alexander
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 16:36, Mads Martin Jørgensen wrote: > > In short, I'm for the removal of the Toolbar and functionality moved to > > the Slit. > > As long as one not would be stuck with anything unwanted in the slit. Certainly not. I didn't intend to imply that anyone would be forced, to have them in the slit, rather that they could have them in the slit. Perhaps as configuration options? Jamin W. Collins
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
* Jamin W. Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 21. 2002 23:32]: > On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 14:19, Robin Jury wrote: > > b) I always use the slit. The toolbar however, I ignore. How about any > > functionality that people want from the toolbar be put in the slit, and that > > can be placed wherever? Does anybody feel any strong need to have both at > > the same time? > > I like this idea. It satisfies almost everyone involved. If all three > options (Workspace Cycle, Active Window Cycle, and Date display) were > slit options (I know they can be gathered with external applications, > but is this minimal?) > > In short, I'm for the removal of the Toolbar and functionality moved to > the Slit. As long as one not would be stuck with anything unwanted in the slit. -- Mads Martin Jørgensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort?" -- A. P. J.
RE: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 14:19, Robin Jury wrote: > b) I always use the slit. The toolbar however, I ignore. How about any > functionality that people want from the toolbar be put in the slit, and that > can be placed wherever? Does anybody feel any strong need to have both at > the same time? I like this idea. It satisfies almost everyone involved. If all three options (Workspace Cycle, Active Window Cycle, and Date display) were slit options (I know they can be gathered with external applications, but is this minimal?) In short, I'm for the removal of the Toolbar and functionality moved to the Slit. Jamin W. Collins
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
I've been trying to stay out of this mess since I've contributed precious little to the project so far (my estimate puts it at 0 lines of contributed and about 50 lines of code that should never see the light of day) but I really have to jump in here. > b) I always use the slit. The toolbar however, I ignore. How about any > functionality that people want from the toolbar be put in the slit, > and that can be placed wherever? Does anybody feel any strong need to > have both at the same time? I do. No I'll admit, there is nothing I use the toolbar for that couldn't be part of the slit. But then again, if you really had a mind to, you could eventually embed mozilla's rendering engine in the slit and have an always-on web browser. I guess what I'm saying is this: I use them both together and I like it. The toolbar gives me two things no other window-manager I've ever used did: 1) a place to glance at that tells me what workspace I'm currently in (and yes, that is particularly valuable when you have ten xterms open in each workspace and they all look similar, but you're doing very different stuff in each) and 2) A decent, lightweight, non-offensive way to change workspaces with the mouse and to walk my focus through windows without rattling them all around doing raise/lower keystrokes. Sure, nothing spectacular, but I like it and to do something similar in the slit would just be a pain in the butt for me. Not impossible, just a pain. My 2 cents. -Joe. -- Joe MacDonald :wq
RE: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
No ignorance, I'm well aware of the uses of OS/2. However as a desktop environment for users who have a choice on the matter (let alone loading blackbox)it is not popular. Don't take it so seriously, we are only talking about computers, not something important. cheers Robin > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott Moynes > Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2002 9:28 a.m. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes > > > * Robin Jury ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > For my vote, > > > > a) clean the code. Of the three people in the world still using OS/2, I > > doubt any are using blackbox. > > Your ignorance is brilliant. I am certain that you probably are an > indirect user of OS/2 without even realising it. > > -- > Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 09:19:07 at 09:19:07AM +1300, Robin Jury wrote: > > b) I always use the slit. The toolbar however, I ignore. How about any > functionality that people want from the toolbar be put in the slit, and that > can be placed wherever? Does anybody feel any strong need to have both at > the same time? No, because they mostly do the same thing (see message "again on blackbox/slit redundancy") Marco -- Reality is an illusion - perception is what counts.
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
* Robin Jury ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > For my vote, > > a) clean the code. Of the three people in the world still using OS/2, I > doubt any are using blackbox. Your ignorance is brilliant. I am certain that you probably are an indirect user of OS/2 without even realising it. -- Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes msg05051/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
For my vote, a) clean the code. Of the three people in the world still using OS/2, I doubt any are using blackbox. b) I always use the slit. The toolbar however, I ignore. How about any functionality that people want from the toolbar be put in the slit, and that can be placed wherever? Does anybody feel any strong need to have both at the same time? cheers Robin > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sean 'Shaleh' Perry > Sent: Monday, 21 January 2002 11:09 p.m. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes > > > As we move forward in the code reorganization, I would like to > remove some of > the precompiler cruft. > > Which brings me to the following questions: > > a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would > like to remove > the OS/2 cruft if possible. > > b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a > little silly. > How many of you actually compile with the slit turned off? How > many of those > would care if the slit was still in the code, but only active if > an app was > actually in it? In other words, why are you disabling the slit? >
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 13:33:26 at 01:33:26PM -0500, Jan Schaumann wrote: > Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The reason I want to remove the compile time option is because working around > > all of the > > > > #ifdef SLIT or BLAH > > > > in the code is just annoying. > > True. I actually do believe that the best way would be to remove those > and instead offer the appropriate patches. Should make everybody happy > (I know I am :). > Not really. Why should one be forced to get patches and recompile to get this? Marco -- We shall serve God, family and country, in that order, because without the one before it, each would perish.
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
Jan Schaumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Um. I may be completely confused (quite possible--probability rather
> > high considering nobody else has thought of this), but isn't this
> > already possible by using the slit in a horizontal manner and docking
> > the mentioned apps? It seems to me that you'd end up with a horizontal
> > bar that looks and feels exactly like a custom-constructed toolbar. And
> > I understand that the missing piece for you seems to be bbdate not doing
> > strftime
>
> D'uh! The reason I forgot about this is that I used to have licq in the
> slit, which then makes bbmail (being a lot smaller in size than the
> licq-dockapp-thiny) look ugly in the slit. But just those in the slit
> gets me what I want (except for strftime, but that should be easy enough
> to include). Thanks.
Just for completeness' sake, attached are two patches:
one to remove the toolbar alltogether from BB, and one to allow bbdate
to use strftime-format (so that it accepts "bbdate.strftimeFormat: %k:%M
%Y-%m-%d %a", for example, in its config-file).
I think I really dig this :) With my three bbapps snug in the slit, I
can place them around the screen as I like.
See http://www.netmeister.org/screenshots/bb_no_toolbar.png
-Jan
--
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -burN bbdate-0.2.1-orig/LinkedList.hh bbdate-0.2.1/LinkedList.hh
--- bbdate-0.2.1-orig/LinkedList.hh Mon May 3 16:24:53 1999
+++ bbdate-0.2.1/LinkedList.hh Mon Jan 21 13:13:18 2002
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
int elements;
__llist_node *_first, *_last;
- friend __llist_iterator;
+ friend class __llist_iterator;
protected:
diff -burN bbdate-0.2.1-orig/bbdate.cc bbdate-0.2.1/bbdate.cc
--- bbdate-0.2.1-orig/bbdate.cc Mon May 3 16:24:53 1999
+++ bbdate-0.2.1/bbdate.cc Mon Jan 21 13:15:38 2002
@@ -70,9 +70,15 @@
unsigned long create_mask = CWBackPixmap|
CWOverrideRedirect |CWCursor|CWEventMask;
- frame.width=XTextWidth(resource->label.font," mm/dd/yy ",
+ if (resource->report.strftimeFormat)
+ frame.width=XTextWidth(resource->label.font,
+resource->report.strftimeFormat,
+
+strlen(resource->report.strftimeFormat)) +
+resource->frame.bevelWidth*4;
+ else
+ frame.width=XTextWidth(resource->label.font, " mm/dd/yy ",
strlen(" mm/dd/yy ")) +
resource->frame.bevelWidth*4;
+
label.width=frame.width-2*resource->frame.bevelWidth;
frame.height=resource->label.font->ascent+
resource->label.font->descent+4*resource->frame.bevelWidth;
@@ -200,12 +206,23 @@
void ToolWindow::Redraw()
{
-char date[12];
+time_t tmp;
+struct tm *tt;
+
+char date[1024];
+if ((tmp = time(NULL)) != -1)
+ {
+ tt = localtime(&tmp);
+ if (! ((resource->report.strftimeFormat) &&
+ (strftime(date, 1024, resource->report.strftimeFormat, tt
+ {
if (resource->report.euStyle)
sprintf(date, " %02d/%02d/%02d ", day, month, year);
else
sprintf(date, " %02d/%02d/%02d ", month, day, year);
+ }
+ }
XClearWindow(dpy, labelwin);
XDrawString(dpy, labelwin, frameGC, resource->frame.bevelWidth,
diff -burN bbdate-0.2.1-orig/resource.cc bbdate-0.2.1/resource.cc
--- bbdate-0.2.1-orig/resource.cc Sat May 8 06:55:26 1999
+++ bbdate-0.2.1/resource.ccMon Jan 21 13:13:18 2002
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
#include "resource.hh"
#include "blackboxstyle.hh"
+
Resource::Resource(ToolWindow *toolwindow):
BaseResource(toolwindow)
{
@@ -307,5 +308,16 @@
else
report.euStyle = False;
+ if (XrmGetResource(resource_db, "bbdate.strftimeFormat",
+"Bbdate.strftimeFormat", &value_type, &value))
+ {
+ report.euStyle = False;
+ report.strftimeFormat = (char *) malloc((value.size + 1) *
+sizeof(char));
+ memset(report.strftimeFormat, '\0', value.size + 1);
+ strncpy(report.strftimeFormat, value.addr, value.size);
+ }
+ else
+ report.strftimeFormat = NULL;
+
/* what to show.resources */
}
diff -burN bbdate-0.2.1-orig/resource.hh bbdate-0.2.1/resource.hh
--- bbdate-0.2.1-orig/resource.hh Mon May 3 16:24:53 1999
+++ bbdate-0.2.1/resource.hhMon Jan 21 13:13:18 2002
@@ -69,6 +69,7 @@
bool auto_raise;
unsigned int check_delay;
bool euStyle;
+ char *strftimeFormat;
};
diff -burN blackbox-0.62.0-orig/Makefile.in blackbox-0.62.0/Makefile.in
--- blackbox-0.62.0-orig/Makefile.inSat Jan 19 14:10:47 2002
+++ blackbox-0.62.0/Makefile.in Mon Jan 21 12:09:15 2002
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
PACKA
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reason I want to remove the compile time option is because working around > all of the > > #ifdef SLIT or BLAH > > in the code is just annoying. True. I actually do believe that the best way would be to remove those and instead offer the appropriate patches. Should make everybody happy (I know I am :). -Jan -- finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On 21-Jan-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote: > On Mon, Jan21,02 09:15, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: >> I am not found of the icon on toolbar idea. It turns the toolbar into more >> of a >> panel and well, there are already plenty of those. >> >> As for the battery load idea, I like it and have considered it know and then >> before I became the blackbox hacker. > > OK. I can see one problem with this: where does it stop? > which is why the code is not there. The only sensible way to do this would be a plugin system. I have no plans to abuse blackbox in that way. No, I think I will hack a apm meter up and make it an unofficial patch like so many other feature additions in blackbox history. If I still used my laptop every day like I did a year or two ago I would have done this already. But lately I have spent all of my time with my 21" monitor and PII 450 system.
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, Jan21,02 09:15, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > I am not found of the icon on toolbar idea. It turns the toolbar into more of a > panel and well, there are already plenty of those. > > As for the battery load idea, I like it and have considered it know and then > before I became the blackbox hacker. OK. I can see one problem with this: where does it stop? _You_ like the battery load idea... what about the bbcpu app? the bbmem app? what about ? Sure, you're the main developer now, so you can kind of choose what goes, and what doesn't... but the inclusion of just one of the apps necessitates the ability to choose which app it is, and therefore moves you to developing a panel. Sure, it'd be one kickass panel because it's a bb panel, but why doesn't someone just develop a sparate bbpanel that plays nicely with bb? Then you could also have the option (run time!) to disable the toolbar. THAT makes alot more sense to me. DC -- Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All men by nature desire to know." -- Aristotle. Registered Linux User Number 195825
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On 21-Jan-2002 Jan Schaumann wrote: > Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like to >> remove >> the OS/2 cruft if possible. > > Never having used OS/2, I don't care either way, but it's an almost > philosphical question: should support for any Operating System be > dropped if the usernumber falls below a certain number? I guess since > OS/2's basically dead, it really doesn't matter. > The issue is the comments in the README and elsewhere have been asking 'does this work?' since before Brad left. > > In short: my vote is to keep both slit and toolbar as compile-time > options. After all, BB *is* trying to be (watch out, used-up > standard-argument) minimalist. > The reason I want to remove the compile time option is because working around all of the #ifdef SLIT or BLAH in the code is just annoying.
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On 21-Jan-2002 Markus Ottenbacher wrote: > Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: >> b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a little >> silly. >> How many of you actually compile with the slit turned off? How many of >> those >> would care if the slit was still in the code, but only active if an app was >> actually in it? In other words, why are you disabling the slit? > > I find the slit extremely useful in conjunction with KDE- and > WindowMaker-apps. Dan Williams' dockslit-patch (allows the use of > KDE-utilities like knotes, kppp,... in the slit) works with bb 0.62.0. I > would even consider making this patch a compile-time option instead of > the slit itself. > could you add a feature request on sf.net with a URL to this patch?
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
> > What has always surprised me with blackbox is that the 'toolbar' has > no functionality to speak of: you can switch workspaces, see the time > and see which window has the focus. > The toolbar is one of the things that makes blackbox unique. I like the very minimal and resource friendly clock, sometimes the 'what window has focus' is actually useful. > If you do have a toolbar why not a toolbar with some extra functionality: > - the possibility to have things like the bbkeys "keyhole" icon ON the > toolbar. > - a built in "battery load" icon on the toolbar for laptop users. > - the functionality on the toolbar supplied by the "blackbox-taskbar-patch". > (which is of course broken for blackbox-0.62). > I am not found of the icon on toolbar idea. It turns the toolbar into more of a panel and well, there are already plenty of those. As for the battery load idea, I like it and have considered it know and then before I became the blackbox hacker.
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
Jason 'vanRijn' Kasper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Toolbar I only use for the date's advanced capabilities (strftime) > > over bbdate. If the Toolbar could be a compile-time option[1], I'd leave > > it out and adjust bbdate to support strftime and construct my own > > Toolbar-lookalike from bbmail, bbdate and bbweather. > > > > Um. I may be completely confused (quite possible--probability rather > high considering nobody else has thought of this), but isn't this > already possible by using the slit in a horizontal manner and docking > the mentioned apps? It seems to me that you'd end up with a horizontal > bar that looks and feels exactly like a custom-constructed toolbar. And > I understand that the missing piece for you seems to be bbdate not doing > strftime D'uh! The reason I forgot about this is that I used to have licq in the slit, which then makes bbmail (being a lot smaller in size than the licq-dockapp-thiny) look ugly in the slit. But just those in the slit gets me what I want (except for strftime, but that should be easy enough to include). Thanks. -Jan -- finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 10:41, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like to remove
> > the OS/2 cruft if possible.
>
> Never having used OS/2, I don't care either way, but it's an almost
> philosphical question: should support for any Operating System be
> dropped if the usernumber falls below a certain number? I guess since
> OS/2's basically dead, it really doesn't matter.
I vote for removing the cruft related to OS/2. The fact that I've not
come across one person using OS/2 and blackbox--or having questions
related to--in the 4+years *scratching head at how long it's been really
since I first used Brad's blackbox with pixmap icons in #linux* that
I've been using blackbox tells me there's not all that much interest in
it anyway. =:)
>
> > b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a little silly.
> > How many of you actually compile with the slit turned off? How many of those
> > would care if the slit was still in the code, but only active if an app was
> > actually in it? In other words, why are you disabling the slit?
>
> At home I use the slit with one or two dockapps - at work I don't use
> the slit at all, and even though I never recompiled bb to exclude the
> slit (I would if I didn't use it at home, but can't as at work I don't
> want to have a copy of BB separate from the systemwide install), I think
> it's a good idea to have it be a compile-time option.
>
Um. I disagree. Having this as a compile-time option has always seemed
silly to me. I think this should always be enabled. If you don't put
anything there, it won't show up. If you use dock apps at all, then you
need it to be there. It seems to me that it just complicates things
going forward leaving it as a compile-time option--makes maintenance a
more difficult task.
> The Toolbar I only use for the date's advanced capabilities (strftime)
> over bbdate. If the Toolbar could be a compile-time option[1], I'd leave
> it out and adjust bbdate to support strftime and construct my own
> Toolbar-lookalike from bbmail, bbdate and bbweather.
>
Um. I may be completely confused (quite possible--probability rather
high considering nobody else has thought of this), but isn't this
already possible by using the slit in a horizontal manner and docking
the mentioned apps? It seems to me that you'd end up with a horizontal
bar that looks and feels exactly like a custom-constructed toolbar. And
I understand that the missing piece for you seems to be bbdate not doing
strftime
--
%<--%<
Jason Kasper (vanRijn)
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
Numbers 6:24-26
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like to remove > the OS/2 cruft if possible. Never having used OS/2, I don't care either way, but it's an almost philosphical question: should support for any Operating System be dropped if the usernumber falls below a certain number? I guess since OS/2's basically dead, it really doesn't matter. > b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a little silly. > How many of you actually compile with the slit turned off? How many of those > would care if the slit was still in the code, but only active if an app was > actually in it? In other words, why are you disabling the slit? At home I use the slit with one or two dockapps - at work I don't use the slit at all, and even though I never recompiled bb to exclude the slit (I would if I didn't use it at home, but can't as at work I don't want to have a copy of BB separate from the systemwide install), I think it's a good idea to have it be a compile-time option. The Toolbar I only use for the date's advanced capabilities (strftime) over bbdate. If the Toolbar could be a compile-time option[1], I'd leave it out and adjust bbdate to support strftime and construct my own Toolbar-lookalike from bbmail, bbdate and bbweather. In short: my vote is to keep both slit and toolbar as compile-time options. After all, BB *is* trying to be (watch out, used-up standard-argument) minimalist. -Jan [1] Yes, thre's a patch for that - I might try it some day. -- finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a little silly. > How many of you actually compile with the slit turned off? How many of those > would care if the slit was still in the code, but only active if an app was > actually in it? In other words, why are you disabling the slit? I find the slit extremely useful in conjunction with KDE- and WindowMaker-apps. Dan Williams' dockslit-patch (allows the use of KDE-utilities like knotes, kppp,... in the slit) works with bb 0.62.0. I would even consider making this patch a compile-time option instead of the slit itself. markus -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 02:09:28AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > As we move forward in the code reorganization, I would like to remove some of > the precompiler cruft. > Which brings me to the following questions: > a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like to >remove the OS/2 cruft if possible. My OS/2 days are a fading memory. You can remove everything. > b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a little silly. How many of you actually compile with the slit turned off? How many of those would care if the slit was still in the code, but only active if an app was actually in it? In other words, why are you disabling the slit? I compile with the slit. But except for 'bbkeys' I do not use it. I do not like icons of any kind on the 'screen', only a narrow, minimal toolbar. The only reason I use it with bbkeys is to have an easy way to put bbkeys in the top right corner (and 'autohide' it). I have no real use for the slit. What has always surprised me with blackbox is that the 'toolbar' has no functionality to speak of: you can switch workspaces, see the time and see which window has the focus. If you do have a toolbar why not a toolbar with some extra functionality: - the possibility to have things like the bbkeys "keyhole" icon ON the toolbar. - a built in "battery load" icon on the toolbar for laptop users. - the functionality on the toolbar supplied by the "blackbox-taskbar-patch". (which is of course broken for blackbox-0.62). These additions (if possible without adding too much complexity), would enable people like me to make an aesthetically pleasing spartan "desktop' without any ugly icons floating around. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sean and the others for the nicely working 0.62. Alexander
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
In message: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) on 21/01/2002 (Mon 02:09) Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like > to remove the OS/2 cruft if possible. Nope, but if I were, I'd definitely need to use _some_ other window-manager. The OS/2 one is too ugly for words. *shudder* > b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a > little silly. Agreed. > c) all of the above > > d) none of the above > > e) xOr's mom These are questions? I'm pretty sure all of the above. None of the above I'm not so confident about. And I'm willing to put money on xOr having a mom. -Joe. -- Joe MacDonald :wq
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:09:28 -0800 (PST) "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like to remove > the OS/2 cruft if possible. Never tried it. And from what I heard, I never want to. Happy with Linux. > b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a little > silly. How many of you actually compile with the slit turned off? How many of > those would care if the slit was still in the code, but only active if an app > was actually in it? In other words, why are you disabling the slit? I *always* use the slit, with GKrellM, bbpager, licq, etc. I also have bbkeys in there, because I have sometimes cycled through windows and suddenly had a little icon on my desktop which takes up an alt+tab position. Also, it helps me to see that it's vanished at times. Not often, but easier to check if it's in the slit. Now to have a way to turn off the toolbar. That would be nice. Just having it hidden can still cause small annoyances. I don't mind either of these still compiled in and active, but it would make sense that they can be turned off at run time. RPM's tend to have *everything* compiled in. I look forward to many years of Blackbox. Speedy -- Of all the things you can accomplish by screwing up your face and swearing into a darkened room, sleep is not one of them.
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:09:28 -0800 (PST) > "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like > > to remove the OS/2 cruft if possible. No, thanks. > > > b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a > > little silly. How many of you actually compile with the slit turned > > off? How many of those would care if the slit was still in the code, > > but only active if an app was actually in it? OK for me. I'd rather do without the toolbar, afaic.. >I run bbkeys iconified (imho it needs no visible interface) I think so too! Marco
Re: Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:09:28 -0800 (PST) "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As we move forward in the code reorganization, I would like to > remove some of the precompiler cruft. > > Which brings me to the following questions: > > a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like > to remove the OS/2 cruft if possible. not here :) > b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a > little silly. How many of you actually compile with the slit turned > off? How many of those would care if the slit was still in the code, > but only active if an app was actually in it? In other words, why > are you disabling the slit? I never disabled slit. Maybe there is a way to merge slit and toolbar in a meaningful way. I use slit only for bbmail btw. I run bbkeys iconified (imho it needs no visible interface) Sean and others, thanks for your work to make 0.62 a good release! CUL8R, Wilbert -- Wilbert Berendsen (http://www.xs4all.nl/~wbsoft/)
Comments desired regarding possible upcoming changes
As we move forward in the code reorganization, I would like to remove some of the precompiler cruft. Which brings me to the following questions: a) are there any OS/2 people out there using blackbox. I would like to remove the OS/2 cruft if possible. b) the slit is currently a compile time option which I think is a little silly. How many of you actually compile with the slit turned off? How many of those would care if the slit was still in the code, but only active if an app was actually in it? In other words, why are you disabling the slit? c) all of the above d) none of the above e) xOr's mom
