On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun <ciprian.crac...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Michael Stapelberg <mich...@i3wm.org> wrote: >> The recommended way is to wrap i3status as described in its manpage. > > The whole purpose of `i3status` is that it's lightweight both in terms > of resources and OS calls. Wrapping it in a script that each second > spawns a bunch of processes just to add memory usage is counter to its > purpose...
You can use a higher-level language to wrap i3status. > > But anyway, as this is an open-source project where development is > done voluntarily (and for free), and as I don't have time right now to > patch it, I'll live it at this... (Moreover as with the previous > patches there is a high chance the patch won't be accepted in > upstream, leaving me to maintain my own fork of it, which I have even > less time for...) :) > > However I would like to ask the developers to please reconsider adding > such a basic and useful piece of information. (But as said I'll live > this here.) We don’t have a great mental framework for deciding what goes into i3status and what doesn’t. The current state of affairs is that things that I deemed useful 7 years ago (wow, time flies) are in i3status, and we’re very conservative when it comes to adding new things (or even removing things that I wouldn’t add if I were to start from scratch, like cpu temperature). Other status bars (j4status, py3status, etc.) might be better suited for your use-case. -- Best regards, Michael
