Re: Why AS

Darren Eckhoff (
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:22:05 +0000

Here's an exert from one of the e-mails I received after my initial
post on AS 1.5.X, the author wishes to remain anonymous:

Oh, and my reason for upgrading, gnome?  I hade to
stop loading it cause it would regularly crash my
xserver, and I would loose all the stuff i was doing
at the time of the crash.  It got real anoying, and
once the aggrevation exceeded the benefit,
more gnome.  I would LOVE to see 100% gnome
compliance.  Until then and until gnome is more
finished, I'll live w/o it.

Now I ask you, is "stable" just a sticker?
If version 1.6.any is considered stable, why do I have to
apply 5 patches to it after I install it.  Let's define
STABLE.  It doesn't have to be 100% problem free, just
has to be something I can count on.  I use Linux with
AfterStep 1.5.X primarily at my work place (not at home
just to tinker with some Window Manager) because I know
it won't give me one bit of trouble and embarrass me in
front of my Windoze peers.

Darren Eckhoff

Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> On 12-Aug-99 Ethan wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Darren Eckhoff wrote:
> >
> >> Let's not beat-up on RedHat...
> > I feel much better  about the 1.7.90 included in RH 6.0
> The reason they did is simple...
> Afterstep 1.7 = GNOME
> Afterstep <1.7 != GNOME
> therefore...
> REDHAT != Afterstep < 1.7
> I think it would be a wise move to slap a 'stable' sticker on a version
> (any version) of Afterstep that has GNOME support.
> Any relateively recent 1.7.x version of Afterstep is a helluva (!) lot more
> stable than some of the experimental stuff Linus/Alan have stuffed in the
> kernal and called 'stable' in the 2.2.x kernel series (2.2.8 was a disaster).
> In light of this, the minor problems in 1.7.X couldn't possibly cause too
> much grief, and the benifets of getting on GNOME's list of
> compliant/partially compiant window managers would be a great boost, I'd
> think.
>         Kurt.
> --
>    WWW:
>    FTP:
>    MAIL: