\begin{logic}
* Richard B Mahoney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At best, this is poor logic. First, you appear to assume that the
> removal of key binding functions from a window manager is
> `development.' This is not necessarily so. Second, you also appear to
> assume that Fluxbox has poor key binding functionality. This is not
> the case. Fluxbox reads my existing bbkeys-0.8.3 ~/.bbkeysrc file and
> behaves in the same way.
When one compares the number of updates and changes to bbkeys and
compares it to the number of updates and changes to blackbox in the
last several months, one can see why it was a wise decision to remove
it. I've always advocated shipping the blackbox source with
bbkeys. This allows users to have easy keybinding support out of the
box, and still be able to update bbkeys independently. Also, this will
allow users to not have to worry about their windowmanager doing
things other than managing windows when they don't need it to.
Now what happens when bbkeys-0.9 comes out that has a small fix to
keybinding support? Is everyone expected to download a new fluxbox,
compile it and go through all the hoops that might involve. Frankly, I
think that a separate app to do a separate job is The Right Thing,
and, not coincidently, also the Unix Way.
\end{reason}
Additionally, don't assume what I think. I always knew that fluxbox
stole several thousand lines of code from other developers, and then
claimed it was a visionary development.
Cordially,
scott
--
Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes
msg03708/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
