On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM, markus schnalke <mei...@marmaro.de> wrote:
> [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.

well, that's why it's not unixy.
of course they have to be simple, but being unixy is also about
simple, consistent apps and never changing interfaces.
But since a display manager is kind of an interface...
I don't even have anything against experimenting, just please don't
call it unixy...

Reply via email to