On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:46:37AM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > On Friday, August 16, 2013, David Coppa wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > > > > > My list (amd64, plain GENERIC.MP) looks a lot like sthen's: > > > > ... > > > > > x11/blackbox > > > > IMHO this is a candidate for the Attic. > > > boo! i use it :( > > > > Latest release is dated Nov 3rd, 2005. > > There're valid and more up-to-date alternatives in our tree, like > > fluxbox or openbox.
just because software hasn't had a release in awhile doesn't always mean its not usable! ;) fluxbox, while i haven't tried it in quite awhile, used to be quite crash-happy and it seemed like the project was generally managed in a 'just get the features in, ignore fixing bugs' type fashion and it made me avoid it like the plague > both are shit alts. openbox is xml-ifed nightmare wrt its config files > (last time i looked, admitedly ages ago). fluxbox is better, but its > behavior is quite different than blackbox. openbox is what I use presently, as it is just as stable as blackbox was for me, with a few more useful features. the xmlified confs and menu ticked me off as well, but tbh imo its a shitty reason to write off an entire piece of software. generally only need to configure it once, or use the silly obconf/obmenu gui programs to speed up the process ;) theme files from blackbox are generally pretty easy to get going here, as they probably are with flux as well. i -have- thought about using openbox as a reason to experiment doing larger changes to software and revert it to bb-style confs again, the standard way to make a change to software these days is to just fork on github anyhow isn't it? ;) </2cents> -ryan > > -pk > > > Ciao, > > David > > > >
