Hey there, Currently, we're shipping Blackbox in the ISO, which is definitely a good example for a KISS window manager; personally, I've used it exclusively for the past 6+ years. However two issues made me recently reconsider this (I haven't switched yet), and I think the same applies also for shipping it as default WM on the ISO: * Unmaintained upstream: We already patch it to compile with gcc 4.3; patches for this, along with other bugfixes, have been submitted to the sourceforge bugtracker quite some time ago, and it appears there's no one integrating these. * No support for numerous X features Blackbox lacks support for both Xinerama (patch in the sourceforge bugtracker since end of 2005 :-)) and xrandr, thus making dual screen setups more painful than it should be. Due to the lack of upstream maintenance, this is unlikely to change for any new features to come. Given that we want to avoid playing upstream in our ports, and that our secondary focus is supporting recent technologies, I think it's time to discuss whether blackbox is the best choice today. I wouldn't necessarily build a new ISO just for this, but if we are then we might as well do it for 2.5 already. As for alternatives, openbox is high on my list, but has some more dependencies (which are all already on the ISO though), but maybe others can comment on that and suggest their preference; I guess any reasonably lightweight WM in opt that is used by more than just one maintainer (= would stay in opt even if the current maintainer leaves) would qualify. Cheers, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann jw@smts.ch
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 08:47:58AM +0100, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
As for alternatives, openbox is high on my list, but has some more dependencies (which are all already on the ISO though), but maybe others can comment on that and suggest their preference; I guess any reasonably lightweight WM in opt that is used by more than just one maintainer (= would stay in opt even if the current maintainer leaves) would qualify.
fluxbox is my WM of choice. Its a shame it's not in opt. Thankfully tek has done a good job resurrecting it to contrib! -- /Fredrik Rinnestam This email was spied upon by FRA - Sweden's own STASI. Enjoy!
Hi, On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Johannes Winkelmann <jw@smts.ch> wrote: [...]
As for alternatives, openbox is high on my list, but has some more dependencies (which are all already on the ISO though), but maybe others can comment on that and suggest their preference;
I got a private mail pointing out that asking for the preference in WM is somewhat similar to a asking for one's favorite editor or programming language which is not what I intended, so I assume that the wording was unfortunate. I didn't mean to ask about personal preference, but wanted to see which WM might fit best for as a "default setup", and would fit the requirements; more like "best for this particular use case", not "personal favorite";
I guess any reasonably lightweight WM in opt that is used by more than just one maintainer (= would stay in opt even if the current maintainer leaves) would qualify. Given the "default setup" use, it wouldn't hurt if it was a reasonably intuitive one :-).
Sorry for the confusion, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann jw@smts.ch
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Johannes Winkelmann <jw@smts.ch> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Johannes Winkelmann <jw@smts.ch> wrote: [...]
As for alternatives, openbox is high on my list, but has some more dependencies (which are all already on the ISO though), but maybe others can comment on that and suggest their preference;
I got a private mail pointing out that asking for the preference in WM is somewhat similar to a asking for one's favorite editor or programming language which is not what I intended, so I assume that the wording was unfortunate. I didn't mean to ask about personal preference, but wanted to see which WM might fit best for as a "default setup", and would fit the requirements; more like "best for this particular use case", not "personal favorite";
Oops, the private email was mine - I am still not used to answer mailinglist mails with gmail... As pointed out in the email, I wouldn't include a wm in the install iso. Since for me, the install iso is used only to install/upgrade the system, wich takes ~10min. But that's only my usecase.
I guess any reasonably lightweight WM in opt that is used by more than just one maintainer (= would stay in opt even if the current maintainer leaves) would qualify. Given the "default setup" use, it wouldn't hurt if it was a reasonably intuitive one :-).
Hm, if a wm is included, why not pick openbox? It seems to be under active development and some kind of slim (the source tarball has 808kb). Couldn't find much more wms in opt (beside evilwm which had it's last release at 2007-06-18). bye richi (namenlos)
+1 openbox, libxml has to be installed but it really does express imo the crux mentality :) Best Regards, JJ Asghar phone: 1318B7682 On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Antti Nykänen <aon@iki.fi> wrote:
Hi,
On 2008-10-28 at 08:47, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
As for alternatives, openbox is high on my list, but has some more dependencies (which are all already on the ISO though), but maybe others can comment on that and suggest their preference
+1 for Openbox
- Antti _______________________________________________ crux-devel mailing list crux-devel@lists.crux.nu http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux-devel
participants (5)
-
Antti Nykänen -
Fredrik Rinnestam -
JJ Asghar -
Johannes Winkelmann -
Richard Pöttler