Starts with an absolutely clear desktop which I think confusing.
Has few menu items, none except "exit" works.
Gnome/openbox isn't obviously different from gnome.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:55:51AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Starts with an absolutely clear desktop which I think confusing.
Has few menu items, none except "exit" works.
Gnome/openbox isn't obviously different from gnome.
That's pretty standard for OpenBox, no? I have a page on it, though it's mostly written for people who've been using fluxbox, but it gives some useful (imho) keyboard bindings. http://home.nyc.rr.com/computertaijutsu/fluxopen.html
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:55:51AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Starts with an absolutely clear desktop which I think confusing.
Has few menu items, none except "exit" works.
Gnome/openbox isn't obviously different from gnome.
That's pretty standard for OpenBox, no?
I was wondering what to do with my F9<almost> system. I'd been having trouble with xen f8 and gone to rawhide which lead to much tribulation, and I'd just discovered that updated Xen Dom0 support isn't going to happen until F10.
While ponding where to go next, whether to risk the same problems with *suse or *ntu, I idly ran "apt-cache search 'window manager'" and installed the likely candidates.
However it is supposed to work, starting with a blank screen is unattractive.
I haven't figured out ratpoison either. Instead, I decided to play with KVM sans libvirt.
I have a page on it, though it's mostly written for people who've been using fluxbox, but it gives some useful (imho) keyboard bindings. http://home.nyc.rr.com/computertaijutsu/fluxopen.html
If openbox (etc) is doing what it ought, that's fine. It seems very strange to me, and not something I care a lot about:-)
Now, what happened to xfce?
John Summerfield wrote:
If openbox (etc) is doing what it ought, that's fine. It seems very strange to me, and not something I care a lot about:-)
Now, what happened to xfce?
What do you mean by that? Xfce is in the repository. Also do file bug reports on these issues while posting to the list.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
If openbox (etc) is doing what it ought, that's fine. It seems very strange to me, and not something I care a lot about:-)
Now, what happened to xfce?
What do you mean by that? Xfce is in the repository. Also do file bug
I meant xfwm4.
reports on these issues while posting to the list.
Let's decide whether it is a bug first, and what the bug really is. Unfortunately, I'm not always right.
More eyes here.
John Summerfield wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
If openbox (etc) is doing what it ought, that's fine. It seems very strange to me, and not something I care a lot about:-)
Now, what happened to xfce?
What do you mean by that? Xfce is in the repository. Also do file bug
I meant xfwm4.
Again, what about it? It is in the repository too along with the rest of the Xfce components.
# yum info xfwm4 Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit Installed Packages Name : xfwm4 Arch : i386 Version : 4.4.2 Release : 3.fc9 Size : 2.5 M Repo : installed Summary : Next generation window manager for Xfce URL : http://www.xfce.org/ License : GPLv2+ Description: xfwm4 is a window manager compatible with GNOME, GNOME2, KDE2, KDE3 : and Xfce.
Rahul
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 05:08:35PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
If openbox (etc) is doing what it ought, that's fine. It seems very strange to me, and not something I care a lot about:-)
Now, what happened to xfce?
What do you mean by that? Xfce is in the repository. Also do file bug reports on these issues while posting to the list.
Openbox is fine, there are no bugs there that I've noticed. It comes with a very small default menu, which may or may not consist of items the user has installed. It has some default config files which are where they're supposed to be.
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 05:08:35PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
If openbox (etc) is doing what it ought, that's fine. It seems very strange to me, and not something I care a lot about:-)
Now, what happened to xfce?
What do you mean by that? Xfce is in the repository. Also do file bug reports on these issues while posting to the list.
Openbox is fine, there are no bugs there that I've noticed. It comes with a very small default menu, which may or may not consist of items the user has installed. It has some default config files which are where
Menu items that don't work seem like bugs to me. Especially when one of them appears to be its configuration tool.
they're supposed to be.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:34:40PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 05:08:35PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
If openbox (etc) is doing what it ought, that's fine. It seems very strange to me, and not something I care a lot about:-)
Openbox is fine, there are no bugs there that I've noticed. It comes with a very small default menu, which may or may not consist of items the user has installed. It has some default config files which are where
Menu items that don't work seem like bugs to me. Especially when one of them appears to be its configuration tool.
Heh, I see your point. However, in this case, I believe it would be an Openbox bug rather than Fedora's. Anyway, that openbox config thing doesn't do very much, I think it gives a choice of themes. Keys and menu items are done by hand-editing xml files.
There is a fine line between bug and feature--for example, Openbox deliberately dropped the toolbar when upgrading from 2 to 3 (or perhaps somewhere in the 3.x series.) I'd consider it a regression, but others think it's a good thing. <shrug>
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:34:40PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 05:08:35PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
If openbox (etc) is doing what it ought, that's fine. It seems very strange to me, and not something I care a lot about:-)
Openbox is fine, there are no bugs there that I've noticed. It comes with a very small default menu, which may or may not consist of items the user has installed. It has some default config files which are where
Menu items that don't work seem like bugs to me. Especially when one of them appears to be its configuration tool.
Heh, I see your point. However, in this case, I believe it would be an Openbox bug rather than Fedora's. Anyway, that openbox config thing
Either way, it bugzilla.redhat.com would be the place to report it. Actually, I'd lay the task of fixing that at Fedora's door; upstream can't be expected to know what browsers and email clients are installed, that needs to be set by the packager. Unless standards at freedesktop.org say otherwise.
doesn't do very much, I think it gives a choice of themes. Keys and menu items are done by hand-editing xml files.
I was thinking about that overnight. I've never seen the point of hand-edited xml, and you yourself highlighted why: it's hard to maintain. For exchanging data between machines, that's different.
There is a fine line between bug and feature--for example, Openbox deliberately dropped the toolbar when upgrading from 2 to 3 (or perhaps somewhere in the 3.x series.) I'd consider it a regression, but others think it's a good thing. <shrug>
There's been a fair bit of fuss and bother over things vanished from kde4 compared with 3.5. There's a lot of popular stuff I do not use, and a lot relatively unpopular stuff I do, and where there are choices I tend to exercise several of them. I like toolbars, and have at times had several of them. On OS/2 we had a launchpad, a bit like wharf in X-Windows. I had two of those. (one of its nice features was that one could close it. If it was closed, or merely hidden, a double-click on the desktop would bring it to the top).
John Summerfield wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
doesn't do very much, I think it gives a choice of themes. Keys and menu items are done by hand-editing xml files.
I was thinking about that overnight. I've never seen the point of hand-edited xml, and you yourself highlighted why: it's hard to maintain. For exchanging data between machines, that's different.
I thought the primary goal of the *box window managers was to be as difficult to use as possible so you feel impressive once they are working. ;)
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:28:01PM -0700, Andrew Farris wrote:
I thought the primary goal of the *box window managers was to be as difficult to use as possible so you feel impressive once they are working. ;)
Well, that too of course. :) (Stifles comeback about these darn developers who use Gnome and tie the whole distro to it, figuring that with my luck, Andrew probably uses twm.)
Intuitive means, "What you're used to using." I'm so used to Fluxbox that it's very quick for me to do my minimal configurations.
I find it easier to create my default keybindings with it, and all I really need from a wm is something to open up my usually used GUI apps with keystrokes. Note that I'm talking about Fluxbox here, not Openbox. A Fluxbox keybinding is like
Mod4 r :ExecCommand urxvt
Shucks, I note that a lot of people on this list use mutt.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:55:51AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Starts with an absolutely clear desktop which I think confusing.
s/confusing/enlightening/ ;)
Has few menu items, none except "exit" works.
This problem has been resolved...
* Wed May 14 2008 Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com - 3.4.7.2-1 - Update to 3.4.7.2 - Use gnome menus by default (Luke Macken) (#443548) - Force setting number of desktops (#444135)
With just a few lines of a code, I was able to throw together a dynamic openbox pipe menu for displaying the gnome menus.
luke