Hello to AfterStep for the Nth Time ;-)

Ben Tracy (tracy@wsicorp.com)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:47:33 +0000 (GMT)

Howdy all-

With all of these people coming forward, I thought it might be time for a
die-hard user like myself to pitch in to the conversation.. 

The configuration scheme now is strange.  I agree.  In fact, everytime I
upgrade I think it's a royal pain the the butt, because I can't just do a
cp -R from the install dir into my dir because I'll lose all my
configuration.  However, IMHO, the new scheme is easier to configure in
general once the new version is installed.  I used to use 1.0, and I found
that wading through the .steprc was getting really painful.  (Okay, where
in this damn file is my wharf config?)  I like the seperate wharf file,
the seperate pager file etc, because now I know exactly where to go to
configure those beasties.  The only thing that still confuses me on
occaision is where the line between looks and feels is drawn.  (I always
have to look to remember which has the icon definitions for instance.)
Having the icons and backgrounds in the heirarchy rather than scattered
about was a good idea too.  Granted the dir structure is a bit unwieldy,
but I for one think it's better than wading through a huge .steprc.

If you want stability, stick with 1.4.5 like I have.  The new betas aren't
stable enough for me yet either.

If you don't like the default look and feel, then change it to your
liking!  That's what I did.. ;-)  Speaking of which, when 1.5 finally
appears, I'm going to post a web page with themes for those of us who 
are stuck with 8-bit displays!

| Ben Tracy              |                                            |
| WSI Corporation        | If a man speaks in a forest with no woman  |
| Billerica,MA           | around to hear him, is he still wrong?     |
| bjtracy@wsicorp.com    |                                            |

On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Craig Maloney wrote:

> Or something like that... :)
> I agree with this person as well. I've been following the development of
> AfterStep 1.>0 and it's been rather interesting. I've loaded up a few
> revisions of it, and I manage to come running back to AfterStep classic.
> The default windowing scheme is quite garish (no offense to the
> developers, since it's better than I could come up with), the
> configuration seems insurmountable, and it doesn't seem like it's worth
> the effort to get something together under a system that seems
> uncooperative to let you use it. I have used Windowmaker and fled that as
> well (I don't like the dock system of earlier versions. Have they changed
> much?) but I think I might switch as my love for AfterStep wanes from
> revision to revision. Stability is key. Perhaps AfterStep needs a  rewrite
> like that of Enlightenment. Perhaps the code is too unweildly. Perhaps I
> need to put up some code or just shut my mouth (very possible, but I am
> not yet used to X windows coding or C for that matter).
> Just some public ramblings from someone who thought that 1.0 was the sh!t,
> and hasn't felt that way about AfterStep since.
> Flame away.
> --
> |        Craig Maloney        |      "There are no significant bugs in our    |
> |        craig@ic.net         |     released software that any significant    |
> |    http://ic.net/~craig     |       number of users want fixed." -Gates     |
> --
>    WWW:   http://www.afterstep.org/
>    FTP:   ftp://ftp.afterstep.org/
>    MAIL:  http://www.caldera.com/linuxcenter/forums/afterstep.html

   WWW:   http://www.afterstep.org/
   FTP:   ftp://ftp.afterstep.org/
   MAIL:  http://www.caldera.com/linuxcenter/forums/afterstep.html