Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
Pages: (7) </ [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

 reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Two versions of DSL, Fluxbox and jwm< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
meo Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: April 2004
Posted: Oct. 06 2007,19:22 QUOTE
Hi!

Since it seems kind of hard to make both window managers work without snags and hinches I suggest the making of two versions of DSL. One with the Fluxbox window manager and the other one with Jwm. Just a suggestion because I always use Fluxbox and don't have any interest in Jwm. I guess that others do though but this is my personal opinion. I think that DSL would benefit from this approach.

Have fun Y'all,
meo

--------------
"Live and let live"   Treat others the way you want to be treated because that's what you should expect from them.

"All that is very well," answered Candide, "but let us cultivate our garden." - Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire
Back to top
Profile PM 
mikshaw Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 4856
Joined: July 2004
Posted: Oct. 06 2007,19:44 QUOTE
If we're talking about personal opinions here, I think it would be easier for DSL development if there was simply no wm-specific behaviors included in DSL base. I can think of only a couple of things that might be causing troubles, though...one being the slit in Fluxbox and the other being desktop menus. If both of these compatibility issues were simply ignored and left up to the user (as is the case in most distros anyway), it wouldn't matter what wm was being used. The wm in DSL base could change arbitrarily, or the user could pop in something entirely different, and the only incompatibility issues might be from wm-specific files in the user's backup (again, something I'd consider the user's responsibility).

Ultimately, though, I don't see how developing 2 different DSLs simply for WM choice could be any simpler than the current situation. It would likely be more complicated.

--------------
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/index.html
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
spotslayer Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: April 2005
Posted: Oct. 07 2007,12:41 QUOTE
Quote (mikshaw @ Oct. 06 2007,14:44)
If we're talking about personal opinions here, I think it would be easier for DSL development if there was simply no wm-specific behaviors included in DSL base. I can think of only a couple of things that might be causing troubles, though...one being the slit in Fluxbox and the other being desktop menus. If both of these compatibility issues were simply ignored and left up to the user (as is the case in most distros anyway), it wouldn't matter what wm was being used. The wm in DSL base could change arbitrarily, or the user could pop in something entirely different, and the only incompatibility issues might be from wm-specific files in the user's backup (again, something I'd consider the user's responsibility).

Ultimately, though, I don't see how developing 2 different DSLs simply for WM choice could be any simpler than the current situation. It would likely be more complicated.

I concur.

D   :cool:
Back to top
Profile PM 
meo Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: April 2004
Posted: Oct. 07 2007,14:00 QUOTE
Hi again!

Well it was only a suggestion as I mentioned. But I never mentioned the problems that made me give this suggestion. In the most rescent versions of DSL firefox has become "suicidal" again. It shuts down without any obvius reasons. That has made that I currently use the 3.3 version of DSL in which this isn't a problem (3.4 also works fine in this aspect). Since I'm selflearned when it comes to computers, (a trial and error guy) I just started this thread with only good intentions for this distro. What I want is a rock solid DSL that works fine all the time and is reliable in all that I use it for. I use it as my "production environment" and I just thought that future releases of DSL would stand up to those criterias better following the suggestion I provided in the beginning. I might very well be wrong but as I mentioned, it was just a suggestion with the reliability of DSL in mind.

Have fun with DSL any way you use it,
meo

--------------
"Live and let live"   Treat others the way you want to be treated because that's what you should expect from them.

"All that is very well," answered Candide, "but let us cultivate our garden." - Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire
Back to top
Profile PM 
stupid_idiot Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 344
Joined: Oct. 2006
Posted: Oct. 07 2007,17:43 QUOTE
Cool!
How frequent are the Firefox crashes?
Yes, I have experienced this problem for years with this build of Firefox. It does not happen often, but it does happen. In terms of frequency, I'd estimate about once every 1-2 weeks. This kind of once-in-a-while crash seems to have nothing to do with the WM - I am currently running Fluxbox on Debian Etch and I still get these (rare) crashes.
Note: The build of Firefox currently in DSL has been around since at least 2005.
There is one reason that will certainly cause Firefox to crash - this is when Firefox's cache is set too high. When Linux runs low on RAM, it automatically kills the process that tries to allocate more RAM (Firefox). To avoid this, make sure your cache is not set too large, in proportion to your RAM.
Back to top
Profile PM 
33 replies since Oct. 06 2007,19:22 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (7) </ [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >/ 		reply to topic new topic new poll
Quick Reply: Two versions of DSL

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code