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 checking something. Having each user have thier own blackbox
is waste of space? Ok. Then is each user having thier own copy of
bbkeys, bbpager, bbdate, ad nausuem, is NOT a waste of space?
Cool, I guess I had things completely backwards there.
Alot of this discussion has centered on different arguemnts,
minimalism, speed, ICCCM complience, packaging, bbkeys, bbpager, network
vs single user usage, level of linux competence to run blackbox, and
worst of all, forking of a project.
What the h### are you people thinking in suggest a project fork? I
agree that open source software is great but I think the "Cathedral and
Bazarr" book makes an excellent case for the dangers of project
forking. Usually both projects die. Personalize programs, don't
advocate the splitting of a small development/user base.
I think it is fair to ask that blackbox handle key input. I think it
is fair to ask that you can substitute the builtin pager with bbpager,
and not have to run both. How this is implemented (compile time option,
module, seperate app) isn't important. Thats all I want. I think it
would be cool if blackbox provided a app dock type device. I think
popular opinion might be against it, but I don't know if anything has
been resolved through this discussion (which all started in a wish list,
which I guess shows that only certain wishes are OK).
Sorry to have pissed so many people off,
Eric H.
