On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:01:52 -0500
xOr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 06:18:46PM -0400, Jason 'vanRijn' Kasper wrote:
Yay! Inherited bug! =:D
I don't think this is a bug at all. If X doesn't recognise the
keypresses how are the applications supposed to get a key press
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 10:39:58PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
Could always add another 9 lines and make it an option in the Window
Placement menu.. :)
Ignore Sticky Windows would go well beside Ignore Full-Maximized
Windows.
you'll actually have a patch for this coming
Okay, so this has really nothing to do with the development or use of a
window manager, but it's something I've been curious about in my 2.5+
years of Linux experience:
Why do most of the good X window managers have 0.xx versions after years
of development?
For example, I've used Enlightenment
On 05 Jun 2002 11:27:50 -0400
Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do most of the good X window managers have 0.xx versions after years
of development?
For example, I've used Enlightenment (various versions from 0.14.x
through 0.16.5), WindowMaker (from versions 0.75 -
What are the developers' thoughts on the matter?
what makes 1.0 sound better than 0.60.2 or 10.3.1 or ab.de.e.4? In my
experience the only important thing is that you can look at the version and
compare it to the one you have and that there is a new revision somewhat often
(depends on the
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 11:46, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
What are the developers' thoughts on the matter?
what makes 1.0 sound better than 0.60.2 or 10.3.1 or ab.de.e.4? In my
experience the only important thing is that you can look at the version and
compare it to the one you have
On 05-Jun-2002 Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 11:46, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
What are the developers' thoughts on the matter?
what makes 1.0 sound better than 0.60.2 or 10.3.1 or ab.de.e.4? In my
experience the only important thing is that you can look at
True, but it seems many folks won't put themselves into a position to deal with it at
all when they
see all these 0.x versions. When i first started researching open source projects a
couple years
ago, I thought What the heck? Does no one have a stable program finished?
It took a while
Saw all the negative reactions to the new layout feature, and thought
I'd chime in with a positive one. I much prefer this method of layout
to the old one. If I've shaded a window, I don't want it to figure
into the layout calculations.
--
david bonner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05-Jun-2002 David Bonner wrote:
Saw all the negative reactions to the new layout feature, and thought
I'd chime in with a positive one. I much prefer this method of layout
to the old one. If I've shaded a window, I don't want it to figure
into the layout calculations.
It seems that
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 15:44:21 -0400
David Bonner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Saw all the negative reactions to the new layout feature, and thought
I'd chime in with a positive one. I much prefer this method of layout
to the old one. If I've shaded a window, I don't want it to figure
into the
it sure seems like people are somewhat passionate about their window shading and
placement prefreences. sounds like a toggleable config option would please everyone :)
dan
* David Bonner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Saw all the negative reactions to the new layout feature, and thought
I'd
On Wed, Jun05,02 14:46, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 15:44:21 -0400
David Bonner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Saw all the negative reactions to the new layout feature, and thought
I'd chime in with a positive one. I much prefer this method of layout
to the old one. If I've
I haven't used it yet (just been too lazy to try out any of the CVS'), but I
KNOW I'll like this.
I do make alpha releases for a reason (-:
On 05-Jun-2002 dan radom wrote:
it sure seems like people are somewhat passionate about their window shading
and placement prefreences. sounds like a toggleable config option would
please everyone :)
more to the point, no matter what we change there will always be some group of
people who
On Wed, Jun05,02 12:58, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
I haven't used it yet (just been too lazy to try out any of the CVS'), but I
KNOW I'll like this.
I do make alpha releases for a reason (-:
heh... yeah... unfortunately, my window manager doesn't affect me much these
days. I've
On Wed, 05 Jun 2002 13:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But as long as we hear praise or complaint it means people are still
using Blackbox and Brad and I are not entirely wasting our time.
Don't let the praise/complaints confuse you. These are just automated
On 05-Jun-2002 Sascha Huedepohl wrote:
Hi,
first i would like to apologize for my bad englisch :)
I think i found a bug in the latest blackbox alpha8.
And i'm not proud of it ;) I like Blackbox verry much!
I do the following:
- start Blackbox
- wait until all the Dockapps fire up
-
mikshaw wrote:
True, but it seems many folks won't put themselves into a position to deal with it
at all when they
see all these 0.x versions. When i first started researching open source projects a
couple years
ago, I thought What the heck? Does no one have a stable program finished?
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
On 05-Jun-2002 dan radom wrote:
it sure seems like people are somewhat passionate about their window shading
and placement prefreences. sounds like a toggleable config option would
please everyone :)
more to the point, no matter what we change there will
Hi all
Just noted an odd effect on the icon menu. If I hover the mouse over an
item there for more than a second or two, the style effect for mouse-over
disappears - ie. it appears unselected again. To explain what I mean
(don't know the technical terms), try setting style to 'Minimal' and
k... I'm running it... yes, it does seem snappier... sweeet.
I really do like that ignore-shaded change... makes alot more sense. also
REALLY love the new struct... is there some quick way I could redefine it? I
have bbpager down in the bottom right, and I'd absolutely love it if
'maximize'
Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turned off after the resize).
However, if I maximize the window, then MOVE it, maximization is not turned
off. For consistency sake, wouldn't that be a good idea... it also seems
On Thu, Jun06,02 06:25, Martin Rowe wrote:
Hi all
Just noted an odd effect on the icon menu. If I hover the mouse over an
item there for more than a second or two, the style effect for mouse-over
disappears - ie. it appears unselected again. To explain what I mean
(don't know the
ok... another thought. Would it be desired to have resizing snap to the
screen (well, the struct) edges?
agreed, that would make a lot of sense (not to mention be very useful)
also, how about opaque resizing, like opaque moving?
Matt.
On Thu, Jun06,02 17:49, Matt Wilson wrote:
Just noted an odd effect on the icon menu. If I hover the mouse over an
item there for more than a second or two, the style effect for mouse-over
disappears - ie. it appears unselected again. To explain what I mean
(don't know the technical
On Thu, Jun06,02 17:50, Matt Wilson wrote:
ok... another thought. Would it be desired to have resizing snap to the
screen (well, the struct) edges?
agreed, that would make a lot of sense (not to mention be very useful)
also, how about opaque resizing, like opaque moving?
Matt.
That
27 matches
Mail list logo
