On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 07:58:01AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
Now this is something I really don't get. I took a look at the KDE patch
since I use a lot of KDE apps. It's very small and doesn't need any KDE
libraries. Afaics there's absolutely no bloat in the patch, only a
On Thursday 07 February 2002 16:20, xOr wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Jan Schaumann wrote:
Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb07,02 10:42, Marco Fioretti wrote:
Head on over to
Now this is something I really don't get. I took a look at the KDE patch
since I use a lot of KDE apps. It's very small and doesn't need any KDE
libraries. Afaics there's absolutely no bloat in the patch, only a feature
that some people find nice. I simply can't see why a patch like this
Now this is something I really don't get. I took a look at the KDE patch
since I use a lot of KDE apps. It's very small and doesn't need any KDE
libraries. Afaics there's absolutely no bloat in the patch, only a feature
that some people find nice. I simply can't see why a patch like this
Head on over to
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-02-06-010-20-RV-DT-SW
and check out the fluxbox review. While I suppose fluxbox is nice, he
really doesn't get it, does he?
--
Marc Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.cox.net/msw
On Thu, Feb07,02 10:42, Marco Fioretti wrote:
Head on over to
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-02-06-010-20-RV-DT-SW
and check out the fluxbox review. While I suppose fluxbox is nice,
he really doesn't get it, does he?
He the reviewer? Or fluxbox itself? What
Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb07,02 10:42, Marco Fioretti wrote:
Head on over to
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-02-06-010-20-RV-DT-SW
And then, aside from that... I'm curious... the author states this:
Fluxbox also adds a native key grabber
On Thu, Feb07,02 10:06, Jan Schaumann wrote:
Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb07,02 10:42, Marco Fioretti wrote:
Head on over to
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-02-06-010-20-RV-DT-SW
And then, aside from that... I'm curious... the author
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Jan Schaumann wrote:
Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb07,02 10:42, Marco Fioretti wrote:
Head on over to
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-02-06-010-20-RV-DT-SW
And then, aside from that... I'm
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:10:27AM -0500, Derek Cunningham wrote:
On Thu, Feb07,02 10:06, Jan Schaumann wrote:
Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb07,02 10:42, Marco Fioretti wrote:
Head on over to
On 07-Feb-2002 Marc Wilson wrote:
Head on over to
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-02-06-010-20-RV-DT-SW
and check out the fluxbox review. While I suppose fluxbox is nice, he
really doesn't get it, does he?
Wow, I had heard the tabs were ugly but jeez . (-:
I
the fluxbox review. While I suppose fluxbox is nice,
he really doesn't get it, does he?
He the reviewer? Or fluxbox itself? What doesn't he get exactly?
Marco Fioretti
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:20:06AM -0600, xOr wrote:
He spends a whole paragraph (I think the biggest one in teh article) on
this, and Blackbox has always (well, for a long time anyways) handles
wmaker dock apps just fine. This annoys me to no end, get it right, you
know..? Oh well.
any
any chance that one of the more articulate blackbox users/developers
would be able to write a rebuttal review? there are some good comments
from bb users pointing out errors, but it'd be great if we could show
all the new work going into bb and point out why we like it better than
fluxbox
Personally, I think it's great that people like BB enough to start making
spin-off WM's. Another interesting article would take a look at BB and its
progeny - you could say that it's possible to both keep the minimalist look
n' feel in BB yet provide a launching point for those who want some of
15 matches
Mail list logo
