umm JWM 1.7?
Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: umm JWM 1.7?
started by: doodle77
Posted by doodle77 on June 11 2006,23:55
I just noticed that DSL uses JWM 0.24, while the current version is 1.7. I dont think the size of the program has increased much, and its only true dependency is libx, so why does DSL have 0.24?
Posted by ZoOp on June 12 2006,04:53
Hi, because nobody made a new .dsl package...
yours
z
Posted by doodle77 on June 14 2006,21:03
im wondering why the livecd still has the old one for no reason.
Posted by mikshaw on June 14 2006,21:24
zoop: <baleted>I'm just speculating, but there are a number of possible reasons.
Your idea of not much size increase might not be shared with the DSL developers.
There might be things which cause incompatibility with DSL...the true dependency on libx may not be true...i've seen a few programs which claim to need only X, yet still fail to work for whatever reason, usually one or more dependencies that are either missing or incompatible with the program.
Maybe Robert just doesn't think it's necessary. Fluxbox 0.1.14 has been out for over 4 years, and has been unsupported for something like 2 years, yet it is still in DSL because it works.
Posted by roberts on June 15 2006,01:29
First we are not using a stock 0.24 jwm.Jwm jumped from 0.24 to 1.0 and I did take a look see.
First thing I noticed that jwm wanted mini icons
Those mini icons use alot of space and provide nothing except eye candy. The option to say "no thanks" left menus looking very bad with space still allocated for those icons. Second, the task bar was changed to accomodate some kind of new builtins that did not allow the flexibility that we had. Example click on the date and I can call our datetool. Not anymore with 1.0 jwm. The only thing that I liked was a right click menu that was implemented in 1.0. So I back ported the code to have right click on root menu in the version that I am using the DSL. Honestly, I have not had time to evaluate each new release of jwm, or others. Example, I have also modified xtdesk to allow a choice of single or double click icons. Our custom jwm is currently filling the need that we have. Maybe a jwm1.7 extension can be put together will all the eye candy one could ask for. We have a newer fluxbox extension, so why not a newer jwm. But that would be a request to the community.
Posted by ZoOp on June 15 2006,05:49
mikshaw: sorry to have been misunderstood; actually, my post didn't mean that jwm doesn't exist in the base .iso, instead, it suggested that someone competent could make a .dsl extension of it as there is an extension of fluxbox, although it is in the base .iso. Yet, Robert gives reasons enough for me to remain with the actual jwm given with the based .iso file. I find jwm a very great WM, light, simple, perfect for my needs.yours
z
Posted by mikshaw on June 15 2006,13:55
Got it, and corrected my bad. Thanks for setting me straight.
Posted by ZoOp on June 15 2006,14:06
thanks for giving me a lot to learn
fine to be there!
yours
z