"Sander van Dijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Matthias-Christian Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > It's POSIX conform [1], so I don't see the whole point of the > > discussion. > > POSIX was created to make it easier to write portable apps. When one, > knowingly, writes a non-portable app, and then says "hey, but it's > POSIX compliant", one is missing the point. POSIX is a means to an > end, not an end in itself. Basically, the point of the discussion is > the same as the point of POSIX itself: portability.
But as far as I know dwm/dmenu was written to run on POSIX compliant operating systems. Even X11 was mainly written for POSIX compatible operating systems. So if you port dwm/dmenu to Plan 9 or something similar, it makes really sense to change the programme, but under the current circumstances it is just meaningless and not constructive to make such a quarrel about it. Just keep it simple and assume that the system is POSIX compliant. Additionally the Plan 9 tools require (as far as I remember) an underlying POSIX layer. Maybe one could a rc script as a Plan 9 like alternative, if a lot of users request Plan 9 tools support. > Greetings, Sander. Regards Matthias-Christian
