[2009-01-20 13:42] hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko <yoshi.rok...@yokuts.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:37:58AM +0100, hiro wrote: > >> Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me. > > > > what do you mean, or what would be a more nix'isch WM? > > Could be, that X doesn't allow it to be more unixy, and like I said, > if you don't want to change the configuration, you could say dwm is > just a simple window manager.
> [...] I don't think one should consider dwm unixy in this use case, > it's not flexible enough. Isn't ``unixy'' at first simplicity? ``flexible'' however is a difficult term ... remember sendmail which _is_ flexible but in no way ``unixy''. > But as the task for most people on this list is configuring it like > crazy [...] I don't share this view. I think most people have their flavor or dwm keep this quite stable. Of course, here is a lot of discussion ... but the reason therefore is primary the ``experimental'' approach of dwm. ... I think all is only about the different views people have on dwm. If you do not expect dwm to be a ready-to-use end user window manager, then everything is alright. :-) meillo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
