[openbox] Openbox focus on dualhead system
dpb at clara.co.uk
Sun Sep 26 15:22:27 EDT 2004
On Sun, 2004-09-26 at 10:54 -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 01:05:42AM +0000, David Barr wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-09-25 at 13:23 -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > >
> > > No, that would be reading something "into" my message, that I didn't
> > > write. As for qouting the part about him trying the other window
> > > managers. Well, um, _I_ did:
> > >
> > > http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?24:mss:2971:ngecnbgmjbjnhblddcfj
> > >
> > > You'll note that I quoted the entire message just for _that_ reason.
> > > Because my response was relevant to his _entire_ message.
> > >
> > > It was when David Barr decided to flame me for something I didn't
> > > write the relevant section of the original post was removed.
> > forgive me for editing down the previous post but i did not mean it to
> > be "censorship" - i meant to save space, but i do not think your
> > comment was constructive or valid, however, should the shoe be on the
> > other foot; i would consider it "bad form" for a similar comment to be
> > made on the blackbox mailing list by an openbox user, do you not
> > agree?
> No, I don't agree. I see it as nothing more than a valid
> troubleshooting step. I know that Blackbox is not the window manager
> for everyone, just as Openbox isn't either. You seem very defensive of
> anything that suggests a deficiency in Openbox that may not also exist
> in Blackbox (or other window managers) why is that?
Ok so maybe i over-reacted, however, i still think i have a valid point,
even if i went about it in the wrong way. i also understand that it is
only natural to compare the two, if they are your main frame of
reference, the comparison gets tiresome though.
> > i do not consider your input to be benificial to anyone (let's be
> > honest, it is ambiguous at best?) and to be degrading to the 'blackbox
> > community' i used blackbox for many years before openbox, i have a lot
> > of respect for it. i think blackbox is noble windowmanger and that is
> > often misrepresented, at best, by its somewhat stalwart users.
> How was my suggestion in any way "degrading" to Blackbox users?
> Blackbox does in fact support Dual Head systems natively. A single
> instance of Blackbox would manage both heads (I've done so many times).
> So, again how is suggesting that the OP give Blackbox a shot since it
> supports Dual Head well degrading in any way?
> > bradley has done some sterling work with it, i am very impressed with
> > its develeopment since he has re-started development on it, i wish it
> > only the best in the future, i do not believe openbox shares its
> > goals.
> Who said they shared any goals?
> > i hope that in future, as has clearly not been possible in the past,
> > that openbox and blackbox can co-exist peacefully (this includes not
> > spamming each others mailing lists :).
> I still don't see how I in any way "spammed" the Openbox list. I use
> both window managers on different systems of mine. I am both an Openbox
> and Blackbox user and was merely trying to assist another Openbox user
> isolate the cause/root of their problem.
I still think it was poor etiquette, i do not think it very proper to
use the mailing list of one application to promote another similar
application. i believe there is a difference between reasoned comparing
of features (case in point; marc's email) and using a mailinglist as a
soapbox (hoho) I appreciate that this may not have been your primary
Of course if i had raised my objections in a more polite and considered
fashion, in the first place we could have had less crappy mail to read.
in short i am just bored with the direct blackbox/openbox comparison,
which is something i will have to live - i just don't see the same thing
happening on teh bbml nearly as much as it does on the obml.
More information about the openbox