On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Scott Moynes wrote:
> 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
Nothing wrong with providing several updates to blackbox. One way or
another you choose to download and rebuild something.
> it. I've always advocated shipping the blackbox source with
> bbkeys. This allows users to have easy keybinding support out of the
It was easier before (but with less functionality too). I am sure hundreds
of users trying blackbox had problems because of "missing" keybinding
functionality since new blackbox versions.
> 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.
If that is case, blackbox could have a build-time (and maybe a run-time)
configuration to choose this.
..
> and, not coincidently, also the Unix Way.
Using lots of simple tools (versus bloatware) is not always the best, most
stable, or easiest way.
> 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.
Tell us about this thievery. I haven't looked at the fluxbox source --
does it give credit where credit is due?
On that note, I see that bbkeys is viral GPL'd and our great blackbox is
using the noble BSD-style license. As it is, bbkeys can not (should not)
go back into blackbox. (Which is sad -- because I like bbkeys
functionality, but I prefer it to be part of blackbox.)
Jeremy C. Reed
......................................................
ISP-FAQ.com -- find answers to your questions
http://www.isp-faq.com/
