On 14-Jul-2002 Gerrit Hoetzel wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 10:51:35PM +0200 > Tig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> crazy throught, no idea about programming possiblities and all that... I >> see this kind of thing a bit. Someone has any idea, seems resonable to a >> number of people, not so useful or even wanted by others. Here is my >> idea, what about a 'plugins' option for black box (in the future). >> > > "Blackbox is that fast, light window manager you have been looking > for..." > > Plugins? > Supporting plugins usually means plenty of code and probably will slow down > the fast wm. > > Plugin support might be a nice feature, but at what cost? > Modules which are compiled against the source code (just like loadable > modules to the kernel) if need be. > But this is again very similar to compile time options. > And compile time options is what Sean dislikes... >
It all boils down to goals. Blackbox first and foremost is about simplicity. I like a LOT of what Havoc has to say about Metacity. Many of his comments also apply here. My stance may cost this project a few users. But then again, leaving out pixmap support for the widgets loses us users too. Every choice is a balancing act. In the end it is about what Brad and I want and are willing to code and support. Please, do not bring up plugins around him, please (-: His day job at Trolltech has forced him to code support for plugins in Qt. On the subject he has many comments not all of them fit for typing. Plugins are nifty, they solve some problems. However that is not what Blackbox is all about. At the same time do not take my comments to mean we are ignoring user requests. Much of the work over the last 8 months has been user driven and this will continue. We are just willing to say no now and then.
