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 care about feature X and others who are simply tired of the
feature creep whining then respond with the usual counter argument. In
the end, said feature usually ends up in blackbox or one of its many
companion programs. What keeps the minimalists happy is that a lot of the
fluffy features get pushed to separate applications, to simply be avoided.
In the past, I have been one of the loudest voices against feature creep.
Not to say I am against changing blackbox, I feel 0.6x.x is far better
than 0.5x.x in many ways. I just don't feel the need for all the bells
and whistles people seem to want. I hate bbkeys. I never wanted to
configure my key bindings in the first place.
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.
Compile time options are also not an answer. Compile time options are
problematic for network installations, because a user is unable to alter
the options compiled in. As for enabling/disabling parts in the
blackboxrc, that doesn't change the binary size.
My preference would be for the simple key bindings in 0.5x.x to be
returned to blackbox. Should one wish to configure key bindings, the
built in bindings should be able to be disabled, and a program like bbkeys
used. As for the other tools, they should remain separate as they are
currently. For those who disagree with me, I again suggest you examine
exactly why you are using blackbox.
--
Gregory J. Barlow http://barlow.ncssm.net
NCSSM 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NC State [EMAIL PROTECTED]
