Rich Lafferty wrote:
>
> You have the option of using whichever window manager meets your
> requirements; that doesn't mean that other people are going to
> implement features they not only don't want, but *actively* don't
> want. You also have the option of maintaining patches to make it
> GNOME-compliant.
Of course I have the option of moving on. My point was that I don't want
to. I happen to enjoy BB for, apparently, the sale reasons you do.
Namely that it's an updated twm or mwm.
I just think the days of ignoring Gnome are fading. I don't think we'll
be able to do it much longer.
> Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the option of using a window manager that
> isn't unnecessarily bloated in order to conform to a
> poorly-thought-out and underdocumented specification.
Perhaps Gnome is poorly thought out and I wish American politics wasn't
what it was, but you have to live in the real world. Gnome exists, Gnome
has effectively be made the GUI standard, and the assorted Unix's are
moving towards a GUI environment.
> (Personally, I conceive Blackbox as a much-needed 21st-century
> conceptual update of twm, which is just about all I could ask for in a
> window manager. I understand that others may disagree on this, but I
> can't help but think that a GNOME-compliant Blackbox is sort of
> missing the point.)
I think it isn't. I'd love the continued simplicity of BB but with the
ability to run Gnome. Especially the Gnome of a year from now. If I
wanted sound effcts, I'd be on E.
Jonathan
--
/* Jonathan Gift
[EMAIL PROTECTED] */
