I agree that waiting for patches to catch up, especially those that are not constantly maintained is a pain in the ass. Especially for those of us that do not have the technical knowledge or time to fix it.
However, I think what seperates blackbox from the crowds is its VERY minimalist nature. I have had no problems with the setting the background in blackbox since discovering BBRB by Stcey Keast. I like the idea of using tools such as xv or whatever to set the background. While I would have to say that I find it logical for the WM to responsible for keyboard commands, since using blackbox & bbkeys together I have liked the seperation of powers. (I am not trying to start this debate again) I must admit that configuration options at compile time are the best way around alot of the debate that has been on this list for a while in regards to the features that people do and do not want implemented. Personally I have no problems with the taskbar-patches beening put into the main code of blackbox, on two conditions.. 1. I can disable it at compile time (perhaps even disable by default) 2. It is not difficult to develop / maintain. P.S - I personally like the using the workspaces menu, it allows me to minimise something and then open it up in a completely different workspace & keeps my taskbar clean. P.P.S - How does using xv / script with Eterm cause problems?? I'm just curious -- Regards, John Kennison Bachelor of Business (Management Information Systems) On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Alexander Volovics wrote: > Hello, > > I have been using bb-0.61 on my laptop now for some time. > I have tried it with and without the 'blackbox-taskbar-patches' > of Ignacio Thayer. > > Personally I much prefer being able to immediately see which apps/windows > I have iconized on the toolbar and to open them again from the toolbar > then to have to pop up the "workspaces menu" every time just to see > what I have iconized and to open them from there. > > It would also be very nice to have the option of setting a background > pixmap in the styles definitions next to 'solid', 'mod' and 'gradient'. > (and more elegant than using xv or display + some kind of script). > Especially for Eterm users like myself. > > It should be possible to include both of these extensions without > straining the minimal qualities of blackbox very much (and they > could be made optional at compile time). ..SNIP.. > Are extensions like these being considered for possible inclusion? > > Alexander
