And, let me just say, nice job Luke! =:) I'd had bbconf in mind for
the last year (didn't know there was a whiteBOX in the world) before I
wrote it, and if it wasn't for xOr's help, bbconf would have taken MUCH
longer than the month we took to crank out the first release. So, I
definitely understand and appreciate the hard work you've put into your
app. To be applauded, for sure!! =:)
On Thu, 2002-01-24 at 20:26, Luke Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 11:56, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > Not to jab, but other than it being GTK based, why not use bbconf?
>
>
> Well, if you are looking purely at the configuration aspects (menu/style
> editors) of blackbox there is no real difference between bbconf and
> whiteBOX. I think as a menu editor and style editor they are pretty much
> evenly matched.
>
> bbconf does feature an excellent frontend for bbkeys, a feature which is
> still under development for whiteBOX, but not currently included. So ..
> maybe thats a reason to use bbconf.
>
> My main emphasis was to employ plugins which are bb specific first
> (menu/style), and then start moving on to plugins which, whilst not bb
> specific, allowed the user to customise their desktop. I had already
> developed the background tool as a standalone earlier and decided it
> could be useful in enhancing ones desktop (more easily).
>
> But, I suppose it really comes down to whether or not you like GTK or
> QT, like you said. Personally I prefer GTK to QT purely because i like
> the GTK LnF and I regularly have trouble compiling them on RedHat
> (coincidence?).
>
> I think you should probably try both and decide for yourself. Variety is
> generally always a good thing ...
>
> -luke
>
--
----%<----------%<----
Jason Kasper (vanRijn)
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
Numbers 6:24-26
