Slashdot Mirror
Blackbox (Finally) Updated
mpeg4codec writes "OSNews reported earlier this month that the lightweight Blackbox window manager has been updated to 0.70. Among the new features are EWMH compliance, anti-aliased fonts, unicode support, and backwards compatibility with previous versions' styles. Of course, it brings you all these new features (well, some are optional) while retaining its small binary size, small memory footprint, and short list of dependencies. I for one think it's about time."
Too bad that Fluxbox has already killed it off.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Blackbox has been working great on my machines for 4+ years. This new version looks kind of neat but I'm in no rush to upgrade just for AA fonts. EWMH complance doesn't mean anything to me.
So I went over to the screenshot site (second one from the bottom) and was under-impressed with what they had displayed. I said to myself, "Self, this looks like any other WM." To which I replied, "Yep."
I guess you could say I was crazy, but maybe I'm missing something here. What does this offer that other WMs don't offer?
And it just occurred to me that "small size" is not really a big selling point. Maybe if this was on a 486 with 8 megs of RAM, memory footprint would become a big deal, but if I'm running a system with an actual window manager, not to mention a window server like X, the least of my worries is lack of memory.
Who trusts something that moves so slow? I mean unless it's perfect or have the means to fix it yourself... unless it already does 100% of what you you 100% well.
If I report an annoying bug when will it get fixed? If I request a feature when will I get a response?
While KDE may not be perfect my bugreports get responded too fairly quickly and it's getting better all the time.
Perhaps, there is something that Fluxbox or Openbox (which appears dead..) can use I don't see this benefiting anyone but a few users and thus not really news worthey. Perhaps for embedded kiosk or something...
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Looking at their homepage (assuming you still can, as this is an early post), it looks as if nothing's been updated since November of 2004. The new version is available on the download page, though you'd think they'd post something to the effect of ".70 is now up" right on the front page.
I can only assume these cats are looking to keep a low profile, or to keep a static homepage that they never have to touch.
Nuances of their site design and motives aside, I'm enticed to try this out.
Ignore the rantings above. Poster is an idiot.
How is this informative?
Okay... so my post will be ultra-informative:
Openbox is where it's at. It's lightweight, fast, and has more essential features that blackbox is missing.
Fluxbox is where it's at. It's lightweight, fast, and has more essential features that blackbox is missing.
Enlightenment is where it's at. It's lightweight, fast, and has more essential features that blackbox is missing.
FVWM is where it's at. It's lightweight, fast, and has more essential features that blackbox is missing.
Window Maker is where it's at. It's lightweight, fast, and has more essential features that blackbox is missing.
Metacity is where it's at. It's lightweight, fast, and has more essential features that blackbox is missing.
Ratpoison is where it's at. It's lightweight, fast, and has more essential features that blackbox is missing.
and so on...
nil
Yet another freaking window manager for Linux. Why not improve on the existing ones instead of trying to fill bogus niches.
First of all, this is an update. So, they did improve on an existing one.
Second, different people have different needs/preferences for WMs, hence the wide variety. IMHO the variety is a strength not a weakness.
nil
Call me silly, but the WM & Desktop Environment should have a matching theme.
I know it's a matter of taste, but I can't stand it when I have one theme for my Window Manager, and a second theme for all those applications which run within the windows... it's ugly, less functional, and way, way outdated.
I suppose that BlackBox & IceWM might be faster then the default KDE or Gnome WM's, but performance isn't usually a big issue for me.
Although, I can see the benefit when I need to run a remote X application on a remote server, and I don't want a full fledged Gnome or KDE environment... just X, a lightweight WM over a SSH connection.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Blackbox is an existing window manager -- it's been around longer than most of the ones that the kids drool over every time a screenshot gets posted. And this "bogus niche" seems to be rather large -- not only do many people use it on their desktop, but I've seen it being used in commercial settings on several occasions. How about you do something productive with your time, rather than complaining when somebody decides to devote their energy into something besides the newest Windows / OSX clone window manager?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Make that, "Fluxbox and Openbox *were* much better than Blackbox anyways!"
Blackbox just released, and those features they noted as being added really *are* cool. In the lightweight WM market, it really is a penny-ante game: No one can add too much, because that makes them not lightweight. Blackbox caught up a lot of ground in this release and could take back its crown with relatively little trouble.
The people who built the later cathedrals in the rennaiscance were of the same opinion. Backed by incredibly wealthy patrons and a surplus of masons, they laughed at earlier era's notions of simplicity. The least of their worries was running out of ink on the blueprints, or running out of tasks for the artisans to perform. "More curliques!" was their battle cry.
And thus they invented Baroque. It's a nice style, if you're into that kind of thing. But it's hardly a universal aesthetic.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Yeah. What are we paying these opensource developers for anyway? Oh, wait...
And it doesn't have all the hideous widgets from Gtk based WMs. They sure are ugly.
Au Contraire! My favorite Window Manager, XFCE, shows how a GTK+ Window Manager can be created while still looking beautiful.
I originally chose XFCE because it had low memory requirements and had much of the same polish that existed in CDE. At the time, neither KDE or GNOME had both features. (I'd go as far as to say that GNOME had neither.) Since I first started using it, though, XFCE has become more attractive and even more polished with time. It probably won't run as well on a 16MB P120 as the original versions, but it would probably give GNOME and KDE a good run on a 64MB machine.
FWIW, I do like how far GNOME and KDE have come. GNOME can feel very pleasent to work in, but only if the distro preconfigures it correctly. The default installation is crap.
KDE, OTOH, is more beautiful than ever. It's applications are solid, its installation easy, and its capabilities top notch. It's just too bad that they've never worked the kinks out of that "too much cluttered 3D" feel it has.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It's about time it came out with EWMH .. I've already switched to fluxbox (yeah, and fluxgen is a very helpful guy on irc).
You might want to say that Forking is bad for the health of any project - but sometimes such branching off can keep a project alive. If there hadn't been a fluxbox - I'd have dumped blackbox for good.
Is there any reason for blackbox anymore ?. (well, other than the "choice" factor).
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
This is important to me as I'm running linux on a playstation 2. I use mwm which I've always liked since I first used it quite some time ago. The binary clocks in at 1985399 bytes. In my research I've compiled and tried many different wms, one being blackbox which clocked in at 7965606 bytes, about 4x the size of mwm. Maybe I didn't compile it with some minimalist options turned on? Don't get me wrong I feel blackbox is a great product, but so far mwm is the best fit for my sit.
Very Good!
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
I like how I can use Blackbox for windows and use the same themes.
:)
http://www.bb4win.org/news.php
People walk up and seem me using rxvt from cygwin and bb4win and they dont realize im in windows, till I open Exchange.
I keep seeing posts that complain that "Well, this is great if memory is a problem, but for me it isn't so here's a list of reasons why I wouldn't never use it..." Why post useful drivel like this? (Oh, right, slashdot...) If your machine can handle a heavy GUI, you're *probally* going to use KDE/Gnome (or maybe XFCE). If you use a computer that's less than 600mhz, you're probally going to use Blackbox, Openbox, Fluxbox, etc. Or, once again, maybe XFCE (It's sexy, isn't it? ;))
This is really great to see that they're trying to update the light WMs, while still letting them remain useful in the same way they (hopefully) will always be: A good way to revive old hardware w/o having to install Windows NT or 98.
So, I'm reading lots of comments here about how people have nice new computers with lots of RAM & fast CPUs, so they don't need to worry about memory footprint etc. I call BS. Just because you have good enough hardware to cope with bloatware is no reason to use bloatware. My desktop at home is an Athlon64 3200+ w/ 2 GiB RAM. It could handle any WM I choose to throw on it. I choose lightweight WMs (fluxbox, currently), and I will try the new blackbox. Not because I'm limited by my hardware, but because I prefer the clean design that is inherant in lightweight WMs. And I don't use or want many of the features and eyecandy in some of the heavier WMs, so there's no reason for me to use one, even though my hardware could handle it easily.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you prefer KDE or Gnome or Enlightenment or whatever over blackbox, then that's fine; but don't use "I have good hardware" as a reason not to use a lightweight WM. Say "I like X, which lightweight WMs don't have" and I will respect you. Disagree, likely, but I will respect your opinion.
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
RAM? The main advantage here is that the files take up little *drive space*. This is optimal for something like a Live MiniCD/Flash drive distro that needs all the space available for killer packages.
Where do you get off saying something like, "I for one think it's about time"? Did you contribute even a single line of code to get it to this point?
Please show a little gratitude to the developers. They're volunteers, after all.
Fluxbox is a window manager. Gnome is a desktop environment.
Please stop confusing the two. You can, quite legitimately, use fluxbox as your Gnome window manager (though its support for Gnome desktop APIs is only in its early stages), so saying that "Gnome was just a pig" doesn't say anything about fluxbox and its comparative performance.
Metacity, on the other hand (Gnome's default window manager) may or may not compare favorably to Fluxbox (I haven't tried a bare Metacity to compare against), but in using just a window manager, you lose all of the benefits of a desktop environment: session management, cross-application configuration parameters, uniform high-level drag and drop, etc.
You may not care about these things, but they are the core of a modern desktop environment, and have NOTHING to do with what window manager you select.