openbox on fedora-release-9-2.

[John Summerfield]

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.

[Scott Robbins]

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

[John Summerfield]

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?

[Rahul Sundaram]

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

[John Summerfield]

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.

[Rahul Sundaram]

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

[Scott Robbins]

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.

[John Summerfield]

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.

[Scott Robbins]

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>

[John Summerfield]

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).
>

[Andrew Farris]

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. ;)

[Scott Robbins]

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.

[Luke Macken]

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  - 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