hi..
> I suggested a loadable module apporach. I believe it should reduce CPU
> waste (no context switching, no extra job for X), bandwidth waste (no
> talking through X) and probably memory waste (less duplication of code).
> Aaron Seigo said this should not be a very difficult path.
in the ope
Hello everybody!
Here I am again, trying to add my two mexican pesos and turn a flame war
into a constructive discussion. Yes, I have already been told that I am
overoptimistic ;-).
Let me start with a me-too: like most (all?) of you, I too love BB
(that's why I feel concerned), I too find it is
On Wednesday 13 June 2001 20:00, Jamin Collins wrote:
> Considering the flame war that started (and may still be raging) this might
> not be a wise question, but here we go.
>
> Does anyone know of a good quality but very slim IDE for any of the
> following: C,C++, or Java?
>
> I'm asking here be
Jan Schaumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> For a graphical IDE that's good (and nowhere near "slim"),
> try kdevelop
> (http://www.kdevelop.org). It's very neat.
Yea, it's looks good except for the "must have kde" part.
Jamin W. Collins
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Considering the flame war that started (and may still be raging) this might
> not be a wise question, but here we go.
>
> Does anyone know of a good quality but very slim IDE for any of the
> following: C,C++, or Java?
"IDE" and "slim" are mutually excl
I agree with Bill.
Bill Beal wrote:
>
> Eric Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Eric Hanson wrote:
> >
> > As long as there is a wish list going...
> > I wish blackbox could integrate bbpager and a tasklist (or
> > the icon menu) into the taskbar. I like black box as lean
> > mean window ma
Personally, I prefer the 'middle-click the root window pager' of
Blackbox over most graphical pagers.
Glenn wrote:
>
> I second this desire, especailly since lately the left third fo my pager
> has a wierd dark overlay to it.
>
> Glenn
> -
>
> Eric Hanson wrote:
> >
> > Eric Hanson wrote:
Considering the flame war that started (and may still be raging) this might
not be a wise question, but here we go.
Does anyone know of a good quality but very slim IDE for any of the
following: C,C++, or Java?
I'm asking here because regardless of the differing views concern BB and
what to incl
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Edgar Bonet wrote:
> The way I see it, all the problem is about how people want to
> compromise between lightness and features. Some people want BB to be
> as light as possible, others want more features. Personnally I am
> somewhere in between: I can not live without bbkeys,
In the gothic chambers of the underworld on Wed 13 Jun 2001 at 19:11 -0400,
Andy Kopciuch muttered darkly:
> I have been in the forefront of the current email discussion about blackbox.
> Along with quite a few others.
>
> Bill Beal brought up a good point to which I was pondering myself:
> No
I have been in the forefront of the current email discussion about blackbox.
Along with quite a few others.
Bill Beal brought up a good point to which I was pondering myself:
No bb developers ( Brad Hughes ... ) have had anything to say on the matter.
And most likely for good reason, they don'
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 02:55:28PM -0700, Jim Gettys wrote:
> The following diffs adds minimalistic support for X RandR.
Call me dense, but what's the point of all of this?
--
-=|JP|=-"I'm not unemployed, my career's just in a holding pattern"
Jon Pennington | Debian 2.3
grr... darn button... sent it to Edgar instead of the whole list..
blurk.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: Blackbox: which features *you* want?
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:33:27 -0600
From: Aaron J. Seigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Edgar Bonet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
hi...
lurk
Bill Beal wrote:
> The part that makes me giggle is, AFAIK, we've yet to hear
> from a single BB developer on the topic[1]. Whatever the
> reasons, I think that's very telling.
By developer do you mean Brad and Jeff Raven? Or someone who has coded
part of blackbox or created a patch for it? Se
Jamin Collins wrote:
> Now this results in wasted space as each user now has their own installation
> of BB rather than one central installation with each user having a few small
> apps that they choose to use. This is really not practical for a system
> with more than a few users.
Wait, just ch
OK, I lied before when I said "that's all I'm going to say".
:)
Perhaps in the interests of mitigating the resurgent
Features Holy War, all parties involved would do well to
revisit previous crusades. Maybe we'd learn something,
and it would save some time and /var/spool space. The
mailing lis
Eric Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> If blackbox is going to handle any key bindings, it should handle all
> of them. If you don't like keybindings, don't use 'em (an option to
> turn them off might make people happy, but without a config file, why
> bother?). But it won't hurt you
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Eric Hanson wrote:
> "Gregory J. Barlow" wrote:
> > Those of you who want to combine all the helper applications into blackbox
> > need to examine why you are using blackbox at all. You aren't saving any
> > resources when you run all that junk. You would be better off runn
"Gregory J. Barlow" wrote:
> Those of you who want to combine all the helper applications into blackbox
> need to examine why you are using blackbox at all. You aren't saving any
> resources when you run all that junk. You would be better off running
> sawfish with a blackbox theme.
Have you ru
The following diffs adds minimalistic support for X RandR.
By selecting using StructureNotifyMask on the root window, we can get
ConfigureNotify events whenever the size of the screen changes.
This then performs a restart on blackbox.
While this causes screen flicker, at least it works.
Better
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, after beating gile to a bloody pulp, Andy Kopciuch
wrote:
> If people are so unhappy with the way things currently have been developed
> in regards to blackbox, and it's applications, here's a couple of things
to
> think about:
>
> First the are not that many bb apps out the
> Absolutely!
>
> Jamin W. Collins
>
> PS. With our views being so similiar, people may start to think one of us
> actually controls both accounts on the mailing list.
heh
Andy Kopciuch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> If people are so unhappy with the way things currently have
> been developed in regards to blackbox, and it's applications,
> here's a couple of things to think about:
>
> First the are not that many bb apps out there anyway. They
> all have di
> Those who like it light want all the extras to be kept outside of BB, in
> order to keep the binary small. On the other hand, for those who like
> the extras, having separate applications running at the same time is not
> very efficient: there is the X-middleman problem, and I guess the total
>
Hi everybody!
Let me try to summarize the situation and add my 0.2 french francs.
The way I see it, all the problem is about how people want to compromise
between lightness and features. Some people want BB to be as light as
possible, others want more features. Personnally I am somewhere in
betw
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Andy Kopciuch wrote:
> You missed my point. I'll let someone else explain it.
>
> btw. I like being elite. :-)
Mostly Harmless, Deadly, Fugitive, or just Elite? :o)
--
Alex.
Signature carefully reformulated to suit demon.loco.
http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk
After my earlier email, I got to thinking about my statement about key
bindings. I realized that it couldn't be that hard to add them back into
blackbox. So that's what I did. While I haven't gotten around to making
a configuration option which allows you to turn them off and on, this
should do
On Wednesday 13 June 2001 09:35, Eric Hanson wrote:
> Andy Kopciuch wrote:
> > 3. Blackbox isn't for a beginner-average user. If it was, then why
> > don't you see the kids from Dawson's Creek using it to write their love
> > poetry?
>
> Do you think before you type? What does Dawson's Creek
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:47:24PM +0200, jkennis wrote:
> So you can get the wheel-moude patch for Blackbox-0.61.1 from the
> bbtools website (bbtools.thelinuxcommunity.org).
Damn, but this is cool :) I'm not convinced that using the wheel to shadeWindow, but
the workspace-switch thingie i
>
> CONCLUSION: I would really appreciate, and think that it could make
> almost everybody here happy, if blackbox proper remains as lean and
> mean as possible, the other apps remain separate, but, every time it
> is upgraded, some pious soul:
>
> 1) tests it and all the goodies together, setti
Slackware has bb. Debian has bb. RedHat has bb
Not default, but it's there
On Wed 13 Jun 2001, Jamin Collins wrote:
> M.G. Houtman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > I have yet to see a single distro - taking Linux for this
> > matter - which loads Blackbox as it's default WindowManager.
> >
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Immagine having compile time options. These options are set to 'no' by
> > default so you don't have to do anything if you don't want the code in
> > blackbox. Because the code isn't compiled in, you don'
Eric Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Ideally:
> The standalone app could be compiled into blackbox and make use of
> blackbox resources, rather than reinventing the wheel.
This can be done regardless of whether the app is natively part of BB or
not.
> Realistically:
> The user wil
Throughout the time I have used blackbox, debates like this one have
surfaced every so often. Someone who "loves blackbox" for its minimalism
can't live without X feature(s), which any proper window manager should
have. Several others (fresh from aol?) weigh in with a "me too!" Those
who don't
Eric Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Do you think before you type? What does Dawson's Creek have to do
> with anything?
Woa... lets hold on a minute. There's no need to start flinging insults.
This is a discussion (or at least I thought it was) over whether or not we
as users bel
Jamin Collins wrote:
> One question, what then happens when a user of BB that did not include these
> then decides that they would like to use one of them? A recompile of BB
> just to add an app that could (and as we all know by now, in my opinion
> should) be an independent application? Or, are
Andy Kopciuch wrote:
> 3. Blackbox isn't for a beginner-average user. If it was, then why don't
> you see the kids from Dawson's Creek using it to write their love poetry?
Do you think before you type? What does Dawson's Creek have to do
with anything? I would say I am a beginning to averag
Futher to this, I believe the guy who's work wants them to use blackbox
because they're all on one server mentioned that compile time options are
not good because different people will want different options.
This is totally erroneous, because obviosly there'd be an option in your
.blackboxrc to
Eric Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Immagine having compile time options. These options are set to 'no' by
> default so you don't have to do anything if you don't want the code in
> blackbox. Because the code isn't compiled in, you don't get the code
> installed with blackbox. Howeve
You make a good point for combining the apps.
If the code is together, then we know it will always work together. We
don't have to go "Great, new release of blackbox, now we must test X
apps to make sure they still work."
Also, having one rpm to install everything is terrible. I may want to
us
> Marco Fioretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > CONCLUSION: I would really appreciate, and think that it could make
> > almost everybody here happy, if blackbox proper remains as lean and
> > mean as possible, the other apps remain separate, but, every time it
> > is upgraded, some pious so
M.G. Houtman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I have yet to see a single distro - taking Linux for this
> matter - which loads Blackbox as it's default WindowManager.
> Most use either KDE or Gnome. Therefor, I think, only few
> people run BB as their "first" WM. When I used Linux for
> the
Andy Kopciuch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I'll close off with a quote from the Blackbox home page:
>
> "From the time the first line of code was written, Blackbox
> has evolved around one premise, minimalism. It's not meant
> to be Eye Candy, nor the most Featureful, nor the most
> Ado
Marco Fioretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> CONCLUSION: I would really appreciate, and think that it could make
> almost everybody here happy, if blackbox proper remains as lean and
> mean as possible, the other apps remain separate, but, every time it
> is upgraded, some pious soul:
>
> 1
On Wednesday 13 June 2001 03:20, you wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 12:21:11PM -0600, Andy Kopciuch wrote:
> > As for the newbies ease of use. IMO blackbox is very specialized WM, and
> > not for a linux newbie. They would sit around on their hands for 2 hours
> > trying to figure out
Hi.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 12:21:11PM -0600, Andy Kopciuch wrote:
>
> As for the newbies ease of use. IMO blackbox is very specialized WM, and not
> for a linux newbie. They would sit around on their hands for 2 hours trying
> to figure out how to put a shortcut on the desktop. I think bb
Hello,
>From previous posts:
1)
>> I just can't see a good reason to move (extra thing) into BB.
2)
> ...I have found it very annoying to have a zillion of>
> different b-apps..if we had just one program,I wouldn't have
> to compile four different apps
I agree with them both. I love BB
Jamin Collins wrote:
> I think your reading too much into peoples posts. I simply don't see a need
> to have these options compiled into BB rather than having them as external
> applications. In what was does having them external hinder the application?
> Until something of this nature is pointe
48 matches
Mail list logo
