[openbox] Having transparency "issues"

Bartosz Oudekerk bartosz-openbox at unreachablehost.net
Thu Jul 3 10:21:24 EDT 2008

Doug Barton wrote on 30/06/2008 08:56 -0700:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Bartosz Oudekerk wrote:
> >Doug Barton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>To see if it's application/type specific I also tried roxterm and that
> >>>did not work, but aterm transparency does work. Weird.
> >
> >IIRC, aterms transparency isn't real transparency. Can you actually see
> >other windows behind it, or just the background?
> Just the background of course.
> >If the latter, than you have, contrary to your conclusion, *not*
> >established if transparency works or not.
> Dude, no reason for the hostility. I didn't say that I had established 

It wasn't meant to sound hostile. I thought you were drawing wrong
conclusions and wanted to point that out, because in my experience
wrong assumptions don't really help in getting to the source of a problem.

> whether transparency was working or not. I probably should have said 
> "aterm 'transparency'" above, but my point is that REAL transparency 
> doesn't work at all.

I've reread your original post, and can't find anything that hints at
you knowing the difference. But I guess this is all moot as others have
showed you the solution.

Bartosz Oudekerk
I think a better name for PAM might be SCAM, for Swiss Cheese Authentication
Modules, and have never felt that the small amount of convenience it provides
is worth the great loss of system security.   -- Patrick Volkerding

More information about the openbox mailing list