The officially official Devuan Forum!

You are not logged in.

#1 2021-10-01 12:31:10

zapper
Member
Registered: 2017-05-29
Posts: 396  

JWM KIT love fest

Camtaf wrote:

Welcome, once you have something you like it is difficult to change, but XFCE is a good compromise between heavy weight desktops like Gnome & KDE, which use a lot of resources, & a Window Manager, which is my preference, especially Fluxbox.

If it is a lack of swap, you could create a swap file; but it's always better to have a partition if it is needed.


As I have said before, I myself prefer JWM.

wink

Even before I found JWMKit, I loved it, but now its just so awesome upon finding it.

Also, as any experienced linux user knows, you can save the config and transfer it to other computers. wink

PS, fluxbox is decent also though! 

I just like JWM because it is the lightest smallest footprint without having no panel. 

Also, the more the cpu is used, the more battery life that seems to be used. 

Anywho, that's the best window manager I know of that's simple, has a task panel and isn't complicated like DWM. 

I highly recommend the OP of this thread to try JWM if he uses JWMKit.

If he is intermediate at linux, in skill or higher particularly. wink


Black Lives Matter!  I am white, but I prefer equality over hatred.
Haughtiness comes before a fall, pride before destruction.
Peace be with you!
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon!

Offline

#2 2021-10-01 20:15:56

andyprough
Member
Registered: 2019-10-19
Posts: 145  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

That JWMKit does look pretty awesome. What's it do to your memory usage?

Last edited by andyprough (2021-10-05 15:06:30)


Primary Computer - Commodore 64: Processor - MOS 6510/8500, 1.023MHz; Memory - 64kb RAM, 20kB ROM - 8k BASIC V2, 8k Kernel, 4k Character ROM; Display output - 320x200, 16 colours; OS - BASIC V2.0; Weight: 1.8kg

Offline

#3 2021-10-02 00:02:23

zapper
Member
Registered: 2017-05-29
Posts: 396  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

andyprough wrote:
zapper wrote:
Camtaf wrote:

Welcome, once you have something you like it is difficult to change, but XFCE is a good compromise between heavy weight desktops like Gnome & KDE, which use a lot of resources, & a Window Manager, which is my preference, especially Fluxbox.

If it is a lack of swap, you could create a swap file; but it's always better to have a partition if it is needed.


As I have said before, I myself prefer JWM.

wink

Even before I found JWMKit, I loved it, but now its just so awesome upon finding it.

Also, as any experienced linux user knows, you can save the config and transfer it to other computers. wink

PS, fluxbox is decent also though! 

I just like JWM because it is the lightest smallest footprint without having no panel. 

Also, the more the cpu is used, the more battery life that seems to be used. 

Anywho, that's the best window manager I know of that's simple, has a task panel and isn't complicated like DWM. 

I highly recommend the OP of this thread to try JWM if he uses JWMKit.

If he is intermediate at linux, in skill or higher particularly. wink

That JWMKit does look pretty awesome. What's it do to your memory usage?

You should check for yourself, but the most I use usually is like 200mb, when I measure by htop,
I also have open, multiload-ng-systray open. volumicon, cbatticon, and a few python scripts, one to disable touchpad,  a background wallpaper changer, and using xautolock + slock locking when idle for 30 mins and redshift.

The non gtk version aka.

I am not sure how much it would be if I closed all but jwm. Although this is on my main system I noticed this which doesn't use devuan, I will check if you like, but this thread seems to be getting derailed... email me if your more curious, or you could test it out yourself. wink

EDIT, it seems  in a 4GB ram devuan beowulf install without jwmkit its like 80mb.   Nothing open except htop. wink

I wonder if the amount of ram also affects how much memory is eaten by apps.

Last edited by zapper (2021-10-02 00:14:23)


Black Lives Matter!  I am white, but I prefer equality over hatred.
Haughtiness comes before a fall, pride before destruction.
Peace be with you!
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon!

Offline

#4 2021-10-02 01:19:36

andyprough
Member
Registered: 2019-10-19
Posts: 145  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

zapper wrote:

EDIT, it seems  in a 4GB ram devuan beowulf install without jwmkit its like 80mb.   Nothing open except htop. wink

I wonder if the amount of ram also affects how much memory is eaten by apps.

htop is quite bloated and will skew your results. you should use the 'free -h' command and look at the "used" memory. If 'free -h' isn't implemented on your system, you can use 'free -m' instead. Better to check it in a tty instead of in a terminal.

Last edited by andyprough (2021-10-02 01:20:33)


Primary Computer - Commodore 64: Processor - MOS 6510/8500, 1.023MHz; Memory - 64kb RAM, 20kB ROM - 8k BASIC V2, 8k Kernel, 4k Character ROM; Display output - 320x200, 16 colours; OS - BASIC V2.0; Weight: 1.8kg

Offline

#5 2021-10-02 06:46:52

JWM-Kit
Member
Registered: 2020-06-29
Posts: 36  
Website

Re: JWM KIT love fest

Glad to see guys talking about my software. smile

XFCE is a good choice. It's a simple design even a beginner can use that gets the job done. What I like the most about it is it's long term consistency as opposed to  other desktops that feel the need to completely redesigning and break things as soon as they get everything working again.

@Zapper, I'm concerned you may having something hogging some memory. Maybe I'm confused about your comment.  Do you mean 200MB with apps running? Because no part of JWM Kit runs in the background.  Well, Easy menu runs automatically  when JWM starts, or restarts, but it's open for less then a second and the closes completely. I've made great effort in making sure JWM Kit has no effect on memory usage, and it should use none unless you actually have a part of JWM Kit visible on the screen.  Even then it should not be 200MB. If I have no apps open on my idle jwm / jwmkit setup I see about 67 - 68 MB in HTOP.  Just to test I just opened up 5 JWM Kit tools : Trays, Menu, Appearances, Settings, and Wallpaper, and I'm still only showing 134MB in HTOP.

and . . then I launched Firefox and it jumped to 400MB+ very quickly smile Can't get around that one. Could just as easily said chromium.

To be fair I would expect RAM usage slightly higher then mine as this is a build machine for JWM Kit Linux and is very striped down and may not be comfortable for everyday use.

Oh and Zapper I closed the last issue. I'll try to make a new package soon. Might even push out a new stable release with the recent changes.

Offline

#6 2021-10-02 20:45:44

zapper
Member
Registered: 2017-05-29
Posts: 396  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

Appreciated, both of you! Yeah, I had a bunch of scripts open on my other OS.

80MB without all that extra stuff is probably possible. I can check if you'd like.

That being said, thank you, both of you, especially you JWMKit...

Also to Andy, I emailed you recently... tongue


Black Lives Matter!  I am white, but I prefer equality over hatred.
Haughtiness comes before a fall, pride before destruction.
Peace be with you!
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon!

Offline

#7 2021-10-02 22:51:39

JWM-Kit
Member
Registered: 2020-06-29
Posts: 36  
Website

Re: JWM KIT love fest

@zapper - I knew something was going on. Glad to help.

I wanted to give you a heads up about the JWM Kit Forum I have linked in my signature. I opened up this forum since the discussion @ forums.hyperbola was steering a little off topic. This gives us freedom to discuss without breaking the rules. tongue

Last edited by JWM-Kit (2021-10-03 01:02:51)

Offline

#8 2021-10-04 00:05:00

andyprough
Member
Registered: 2019-10-19
Posts: 145  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

Hey zap, check out my setup today - Hyperbola (testing) with jwm, jwm kit, and I got the latest abrowser from Trisquel running.

I'll look for your email - I think they've been getting sent to the spam folder for some reason. I'll email you my phone number so you can text me.

HyperbolaJwmKit5.jpg


Primary Computer - Commodore 64: Processor - MOS 6510/8500, 1.023MHz; Memory - 64kb RAM, 20kB ROM - 8k BASIC V2, 8k Kernel, 4k Character ROM; Display output - 320x200, 16 colours; OS - BASIC V2.0; Weight: 1.8kg

Offline

#9 2021-10-04 04:16:47

zapper
Member
Registered: 2017-05-29
Posts: 396  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

andyprough wrote:

Hey zap, check out my setup today - Hyperbola (testing) with jwm, jwm kit, and I got the latest abrowser from Trisquel running.

I'll look for your email - I think they've been getting sent to the spam folder for some reason. I'll email you my phone number so you can text me.

https://trisquel.info/files/HyperbolaJwmKit5.jpg

Hmm, okay! smile

PS, I think I had better stop derailing threads...

So if I make even a small comment that seems derailed, don't respond on here... tongue


Btw, on topic of this thread, jwmkit rules! smile


Black Lives Matter!  I am white, but I prefer equality over hatred.
Haughtiness comes before a fall, pride before destruction.
Peace be with you!
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon!

Offline

#10 2021-10-04 19:20:37

andyprough
Member
Registered: 2019-10-19
Posts: 145  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

@zapper - I'm reading on the Hyperbola forum that the devs hate any rust-based web browsers, so if I put abrowser on Hyperbola that's bad.

But at the same time, if I use a rarely updated version of iceweasel-uxp (the version in Hyperbola stable's repo is 1.5 years old now) - that's really bad from a security standpoint.

What do most Hyperbola users do in terms of web browser? Do they stick with iceweasel-uxp, or use the newer version in the Hyperboa testing repo, or do they just give up and use a "bad" rust-based browser with frequent security updates?


Primary Computer - Commodore 64: Processor - MOS 6510/8500, 1.023MHz; Memory - 64kb RAM, 20kB ROM - 8k BASIC V2, 8k Kernel, 4k Character ROM; Display output - 320x200, 16 colours; OS - BASIC V2.0; Weight: 1.8kg

Offline

#11 2021-10-05 01:45:25

zapper
Member
Registered: 2017-05-29
Posts: 396  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

andyprough wrote:

@zapper - I'm reading on the Hyperbola forum that the devs hate any rust-based web browsers, so if I put abrowser on Hyperbola that's bad.

But at the same time, if I use a rarely updated version of iceweasel-uxp (the version in Hyperbola stable's repo is 1.5 years old now) - that's really bad from a security standpoint.

What do most Hyperbola users do in terms of web browser? Do they stick with iceweasel-uxp, or use the newer version in the Hyperboa testing repo, or do they just give up and use a "bad" rust-based browser with frequent security updates?

Actually, Hyperbola devs don't trust adding rust for this reason:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/77234

Also, dbus is required anyhow to use it currently...

That being said, Hyperbola devs are in a bit of a pickle, because of palemoon devs going balisitic over some users not following their trademarks which resulted in a cascade of people removing their commits from uxp. So, unless that rust issue is fixed, or someone makes a build of firefox that doesn't require dbus to run, then alas, you will have to use a VM to do that stuff... ;(

Sadly, that's become what this situation has been reduced to.  Thank the palemoon devs for being a bunch of absolute morons. 

I was wrong about Palemoon devs being any good it begins to seem... 

I feel like OpenBSD's devs might laugh at me if I told them how I feel now, about palemoon.  meh... it is what it is.

At any rate, OpenBSD is becoming tempting as a backup until rust is made into a free licensed programming language... spoiler alert: its not right now!

I wish there was a firefox build that was libre that didn't require that dbus nonsense.

I'll give you something real quick though!


Black Lives Matter!  I am white, but I prefer equality over hatred.
Haughtiness comes before a fall, pride before destruction.
Peace be with you!
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon!

Offline

#12 2021-10-05 01:59:56

MiyoLinux
Member
Registered: 2016-12-05
Posts: 1,126  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

zapper wrote:
andyprough wrote:

@zapper - I'm reading on the Hyperbola forum that the devs hate any rust-based web browsers, so if I put abrowser on Hyperbola that's bad.

But at the same time, if I use a rarely updated version of iceweasel-uxp (the version in Hyperbola stable's repo is 1.5 years old now) - that's really bad from a security standpoint.

What do most Hyperbola users do in terms of web browser? Do they stick with iceweasel-uxp, or use the newer version in the Hyperboa testing repo, or do they just give up and use a "bad" rust-based browser with frequent security updates?

Actually, Hyperbola devs don't trust adding rust for this reason:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/77234

Also, dbus is required anyhow to use it currently...

That being said, Hyperbola devs are in a bit of a pickle, because of palemoon devs going balisitic over some users not following their trademarks which resulted in a cascade of people removing their commits from uxp. So, unless that rust issue is fixed, or someone makes a build of firefox that doesn't require dbus to run, then alas, you will have to use a VM to do that stuff... ;(

Sadly, that's become what this situation has been reduced to.  Thank the palemoon devs for being a bunch of absolute morons. 

I was wrong about Palemoon devs being any good it begins to seem... 

I feel like OpenBSD's devs might laugh at me if I told them how I feel now, about palemoon.  meh... it is what it is.

At any rate, OpenBSD is becoming tempting as a backup until rust is made into a free licensed programming language... spoiler alert: its not right now!

I wish there was a firefox build that was libre that didn't require that dbus nonsense.

I'll give you something real quick though!

You might want to make a new thread for this...


I have been Devuanated, and my practice in the art of Devuanism shall continue until my Devuanization is complete. Until then, I will strive to continue in my understanding of Devuanchology, Devuanprocity, and Devuanivity.

Veni, vidi, vici vdevuaned. I came, I saw, I Devuaned. wink

Offline

#13 2021-10-05 14:56:06

andyprough
Member
Registered: 2019-10-19
Posts: 145  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

I can't find a major browser (or even a minor graphical browser except oddballs like Dillo) that will run without dbus because of the GTK+ (or qt-dbus) dependencies in all of them. I've read that the anti-dbus folks at Gentoo have a way of compiling some of their software without a GTK+ dependency, thereby avoiding the need for dbus, but also that about the only browser they could get working decently was Firefox, and even Firefox had a lot of trouble when compiled in that way. Here's a good overview from 3 years ago (be sure and read the comments): https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/232/

My concern is that the "anti-dbus" Gentoo people don't really make a compelling case for why dbus is bad. I can't find where they have talked about actual problems caused by dbus - it's just that they know that dbus is not necessary to run a computer, so they want to try to get rid of it. But, at the same time they want to run a graphical web browser, an office suite, a graphical torrent manager, a graphical desktop, Windows programs on wine (!!!!) etc.

They don't even have a good "freedom" reason for getting rid of dbus - they appear to be just trying to run their systems in an ultra-ultra-minimalist way. And clearly, the software devs disagree with them, because the people writing graphical programs for GNU/Linux distros actually seem to PREFER to use dbus.

So, it seems that the best way to run without dbus would be:
a) to write your own graphical programs and desktop/window environment
b) to use only programs that can run in a tty or a terminal - like elinks or links2 or wm3 for internet, vim for writing documents, a cli torrent manager, ranger for a file manager, a cli-based music player, etc.

I'm a bicyclist, and in bicycling we have people called "weight weenies", who are always trying to get rid of some gear on their bike in order to lose a few ounces of weight. They think it will make them faster. They don't acknowledge that the biggest weight on their bike is their own big butt. The bike will weigh the least and ride the fastest without the rider!!

I'm wondering if the "anti-dbus" Gentoo people are just the "weight weenies" of the GNU/Linux world? Always trying to drop a few more mb of ram just "because", and just to lord it over their peers? I'm not seeing a compelling argument about why dbus is "evil" - unless I see one, I don't know if I'm going to spend more time worrying about this problem.

Running a GNU/Linux distro takes a lot of resources. I can start a distro with only 45mb of ram, but the moment I open a modern web browser I've ballooned to 250mb, and after I open a few tabs I'm quickly up over 400mb. The 1 or 2 mb of ram being taken up by dbus is negligible. If I really want to keep my session under 100mb of used ram, I'll just use a terminal-based web browser, use vim, use ranger, listen to my music with a cli-based music player, etc. If I do that, what do I need a graphical interface for at all? I can get rid of nearly everything then - polkit, consolekit, pam, dbus, xorg server, lots of firmware, etc.


Primary Computer - Commodore 64: Processor - MOS 6510/8500, 1.023MHz; Memory - 64kb RAM, 20kB ROM - 8k BASIC V2, 8k Kernel, 4k Character ROM; Display output - 320x200, 16 colours; OS - BASIC V2.0; Weight: 1.8kg

Offline

#14 2021-10-05 15:29:31

alphalpha
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2018-01-23
Posts: 108  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

andyprough wrote:

I can't find a major browser (or even a minor graphical browser except oddballs like Dillo) that will run without dbus because of the GTK+ (or qt-dbus) dependencies in all of them.

i dont have dbus on my machine
here is a list of gui browsers that work for me: qutebrowser, icecat, palemoon, firefox

Offline

#15 2021-10-05 15:47:58

andyprough
Member
Registered: 2019-10-19
Posts: 145  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

alphalpha wrote:

i dont have dbus on my machine
here is a list of gui browsers that work for me: qutebrowser, icecat, palemoon, firefox

Do you mind sharing any info you could regarding what distro you are using, where you got the browser packages from (or if you compiled them yourself), what desktop/window manager you are using (if any)? Also, does it work with all versions of these browsers, or only certain older versions?

I did see how there were a number of much older versions of browsers that would run that way, but I'm looking for something that's kept up to date.

EDIT: Sorry - obviously you are talking about Devuan as you are a Devuan developer - my bad.
I do see your earlier post about running Firefox-esr with libdbus-1-3 and libdbus-glib-1-2 but without dbus itself being installed or running. I think you are right - if I consider that only the package "dbus" is the issue, and ensuring that it is not running, then that broadens the scope to a considerable number of browsers that will run with just dbus libraries. I was probably being overly cautious in my searching yesterday.

Last edited by andyprough (2021-10-05 16:08:21)


Primary Computer - Commodore 64: Processor - MOS 6510/8500, 1.023MHz; Memory - 64kb RAM, 20kB ROM - 8k BASIC V2, 8k Kernel, 4k Character ROM; Display output - 320x200, 16 colours; OS - BASIC V2.0; Weight: 1.8kg

Offline

#16 2021-10-05 16:05:22

alphalpha
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2018-01-23
Posts: 108  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

andyprough wrote:

Do you mind sharing any info you could regarding what distro you are using, where you got the browser packages from (or if you compiled them yourself), what desktop/window manager you are using (if any)? Also, does it work with all versions of these browsers, or only certain older versions?

i use an updated version of my own devuan distro that has not been released yet
it is originally based on the no-dbus version of refracta

firefox-esr comes from the devuan repos
icecat is downloaded from https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
palemoon from https://linux.palemoon.org/download/mainline/
and qutebrowser is installed with virtualenv as described here

the window manager does not matter, i have a bunch of them and they all work
and the browsers are all on the newest version

Offline

#17 2021-10-05 19:52:31

andyprough
Member
Registered: 2019-10-19
Posts: 145  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

alphalpha wrote:

i use an updated version of my own devuan distro that has not been released yet
it is originally based on the no-dbus version of refracta

Sounds like @zapper needs to explore your version of Devuan! Any thought as to when your next update will be available?

Last edited by andyprough (2021-10-05 19:54:26)


Primary Computer - Commodore 64: Processor - MOS 6510/8500, 1.023MHz; Memory - 64kb RAM, 20kB ROM - 8k BASIC V2, 8k Kernel, 4k Character ROM; Display output - 320x200, 16 colours; OS - BASIC V2.0; Weight: 1.8kg

Offline

#18 2021-10-05 20:34:01

alphalpha
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2018-01-23
Posts: 108  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

andyprough wrote:

Any thought as to when your next update will be available?

whenever the chimaera release is

Offline

#19 2021-11-07 07:29:47

brday
Member
Registered: 2017-07-30
Posts: 50  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

zapper wrote:

As I have said before, I myself prefer JWM.

The JWM  for 64 bits ? Can you post here a screenshot that displays in the terminal data and consumption of the machine with the command neofetch ? It would be nice if you could leave the link of  jwm kit to test with devuan.

Last edited by brday (2021-11-07 07:31:24)

Offline

#20 2021-11-07 13:11:03

zapper
Member
Registered: 2017-05-29
Posts: 396  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

brday wrote:
zapper wrote:

As I have said before, I myself prefer JWM.

The JWM  for 64 bits ? Can you post here a screenshot that displays in the terminal data and consumption of the machine with the command neofetch ? It would be nice if you could leave the link of  jwm kit to test with devuan.

I could post a screenshot, but I would have to reboot to get a good idea of how much is actually consumed.  then go into a terminal and type in free -m

I am using 64 bit, so no worries there.

https://codeberg.org/jwmkit

I recommend checking the consumption for yourself though, RAM is used more on machines with more RAM.

So what I mean I guess is, I have 16GB RAM on this laptop. Well on my comp with 8GB it uses less of the RAM.

Andyprough can correct me if he wants, but I think he said it used like somewhere from 60-70 megabytes to use it, even with jwmkit.

Or maybe jwmkit said that? anywho, it uses less the dwm according to Andyprough for sure. I recall he said that on a forum. wink

On boot though, it uses less than 70mb for me though for my 16GB T430 with coreboot + me cleaner.

I can reboot to check if you are interested. I will do so now...

Interesting... It seems on one of my laptops its like 110mb total usage including jwm being used. That one has Hyperbola though, 16gb or not. I will try my devuan one and see what that shows.

Here is a picture of it, https://upload.disroot.org/r/KhKbZ0Vd#3 … I4v3+DbPs=

just download it to see it.

Btw, I looked and Hyperbola uses 89mb without any wm/DE.

so that means... 21mb for jwm? insane... it has 16gb of ram so I didn't expect this lol.

I will check devuan now.

Fascinating... it uses 141mb on Devuan ceres...
https://upload.disroot.org/r/t6xNspMs#U … 2o+y6X8Ic=

Without a wm it uses close to that number.  Anywho, those links seem to indicate to me, that JWM is ultra lightweight. Anywho, that's all folks! smile

Except I should mention I am using 5.15.xx linux-libre kernel on the devuan laptop and 5.10.xx on the hyperbola one.

wink  just a heads up! smile

Last edited by zapper (2021-11-07 13:57:04)


Black Lives Matter!  I am white, but I prefer equality over hatred.
Haughtiness comes before a fall, pride before destruction.
Peace be with you!
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon!

Offline

#21 2021-11-08 04:27:57

andyprough
Member
Registered: 2019-10-19
Posts: 145  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

zapper wrote:

Andyprough can correct me if he wants, but I think he said it used like somewhere from 60-70 megabytes to use it, even with jwmkit.

On a minimal Hyperbola install, I can start JWM with just 69mb of memory used, per the 'free -h' command. That's not with JWM Kit, but when I've used JWM Kit I've noticed it needs very little memory.


Primary Computer - Commodore 64: Processor - MOS 6510/8500, 1.023MHz; Memory - 64kb RAM, 20kB ROM - 8k BASIC V2, 8k Kernel, 4k Character ROM; Display output - 320x200, 16 colours; OS - BASIC V2.0; Weight: 1.8kg

Offline

#22 2021-11-26 00:32:10

JWM-Kit
Member
Registered: 2020-06-29
Posts: 36  
Website

Re: JWM KIT love fest

Hello everyone. Sorry I've been so quite lately.  Life is busy.  I am aware of the new JWM 2.4 release and do plan to update JWM Kit to reflect the recent changes. The change that concerned me most from the release notes was this:

  - Added ~/.config/jwm/jwmrc as the new default location for per-user configuration

I was afraid this may break JWM Kit as it gathers data from the old location.  I have compiled JWM 2.4 on Devuan and tested it and the good news is it does seem to use the old location as a fallback. This means that JWM Kit should continue to work, and from my small amount of testing it appears to work well. In the future JWM Kit will support using the new default location, but it is good to know that the current version still works and there is no need for a rushed release to fix this.  Especially since I am very busy right now.

If any of you are using/testing this new version of JWM I would love to hear your experience.  If you find anything that does not work correctly with JWM Kit let me know.  Thanks.

Offline

#23 2021-11-26 12:14:20

zapper
Member
Registered: 2017-05-29
Posts: 396  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

JWM-Kit wrote:

Hello everyone. Sorry I've been so quite lately.  Life is busy.  I am aware of the new JWM 2.4 release and do plan to update JWM Kit to reflect the recent changes. The change that concerned me most from the release notes was this:

  - Added ~/.config/jwm/jwmrc as the new default location for per-user configuration

I was afraid this may break JWM Kit as it gathers data from the old location.  I have compiled JWM 2.4 on Devuan and tested it and the good news is it does seem to use the old location as a fallback. This means that JWM Kit should continue to work, and from my small amount of testing it appears to work well. In the future JWM Kit will support using the new default location, but it is good to know that the current version still works and there is no need for a rushed release to fix this.  Especially since I am very busy right now.

If any of you are using/testing this new version of JWM I would love to hear your experience.  If you find anything that does not work correctly with JWM Kit let me know.  Thanks.

I am not sure, haven't used it yet, but wondered when the sndioctl change will be added to jwmkit, to not require aucatctl + stable release...

I think you did half of that, but the second part isn't done yet right?

Either way, I don't blame you for being occupied, its the holidays... wink

Aka, you haven't added those changes to a stable release yet... wink

Last edited by zapper (2021-11-26 12:15:06)


Black Lives Matter!  I am white, but I prefer equality over hatred.
Haughtiness comes before a fall, pride before destruction.
Peace be with you!
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon!

Offline

#24 2021-11-26 15:45:52

JWM-Kit
Member
Registered: 2020-06-29
Posts: 36  
Website

Re: JWM KIT love fest

@zapper
The code for sndioctl is complete, but no release has been made since the changes were completed.  I guess you knew that though. I'll probably make a new stable release after I make some of the changes needed for 2.4.  Sorry for not rushing out a new release. I understand sndio users see this as an important update, but I must balance my work load and more releases mean more work handling those releases and less time developing of the actual software.

Also zapper, I must apologize for failing to respond to the message you posted on codeberg concerning this. I was not ignoring you. It was just a matter of being involved in too many things at one time.

Offline

#25 2021-11-26 17:15:41

blackhole
Member
Registered: 2020-03-16
Posts: 55  

Re: JWM KIT love fest

zapper wrote:

Actually, Hyperbola devs don't trust adding rust for this reason:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/77234

As an aside:

https://foundation.rust-lang.org/members/

"Open washing"  advances...

zapper wrote:

That being said, Hyperbola devs are in a bit of a pickle, because of palemoon devs going balisitic over some users not following their trademarks which resulted in a cascade of people removing their commits from uxp. So, unless that rust issue is fixed, or someone makes a build of firefox that doesn't require dbus to run, then alas, you will have to use a VM to do that stuff... ;(

Sadly, that's become what this situation has been reduced to.  Thank the palemoon devs for being a bunch of absolute morons. 

I was wrong about Palemoon devs being any good it begins to seem...

As I said around a year ago (?), there is little difference between that project's attitude with regards to trademarks and mozilla's, except mozilla have better people skills.

As I also said around the same time - all browsers are shit, along with the WWW itself.  My philosophy is simple: I pick the best of a bad lot, then configure it to my needs.  what I avoid doing is going "window shopping" for browser forks, where there are all kinds of claims and boasts and it really amounts to little more than customisations you could do yourself and a fancy logo and different name...

At the moment, though chromium is more secure, telemetry/harvesting of data and privacy is a bigger issue there, so I use firefox - even though I dislike many things they have done recently.

Offline

Board footer