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,

Reply via email to