[crux-devel] A case against blackbox
richard.poettler at gmail.com
Wed Oct 29 07:43:42 UTC 2008
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Johannes Winkelmann <jw at smts.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Johannes Winkelmann <jw at 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).
More information about the crux-devel