On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:23:28 -0400 Joe Hartley <jh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:06:40 +0200 > rosea grammostola <rosea.grammostola@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 06/26/2011 02:54 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: > > > The downside for OpenBox (not xmonad) is that it seems not very > > > actively developed in the last year or so, not much releases or even > > > git commits. > > You could try Fluxbox instead. That project is still pretty active afaik. > > Fluxbox is Openbox's successor and is still in very active development. > I like it a lot and use it on all my machines, not just the studio > machine. I've never had a problem running either gnome or kde apps > under it. > I rather think OpenBox achieved what it set out to do - be a fast, light, highly configurable window manager - so apart from bug fixes what development would be needed? I find it ideal. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
