On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Christian Garbs <mi...@cgarbs.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:42:32PM +0100, hiro wrote:
>> 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.
>
>> But as the task for most people on this list is configuring it like
>> crazy, I don't think one should consider dwm unixy in this use case,
>> it's not flexible enough.
>
> In my understanding, the unix way is "do just one thing and do it
> good".  A single program does not need to be flexible, but instead you
> are flexible by stacking simple programs together as you like (shell
> scripts, pipes etc.)
>

I agree and I was specifically thinking about the possibility of
splitting dwm's functionality into multiple single programs.
A simple library for hiding X could be an other great way...

And right, flexibility is rather just an effect of well behaving,
simple apps used together.

> dwm arranges the windows on the screen, nothing more, nothing less.
> No program icons, no desktop environment, no notification services.

Dwm is arranging windows dynamically, listens to multiple X events
and, as far as I know, provides a status bar.
It's doing quite some stuff in my view...

Reply via email to