[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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to