Re: [dev] JWM on website

[mk]

cwm.

On 2016-08-03 11:01, Martin Kühne wrote:

Save the thread, kill yourself with ratpoison. Not the wm.

cheers!
mar77i

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[hiro]

This mailing list should be closed.
You are providing give these retards a discussion platform with a BRANDED NAME.
But there is too much shit posted, and it's too much work to distance
oneself from all the crap.
Too many people believe suckless intersects with their ideas. They
will use it as moral backing for distributing their shitty ideas now.

On 8/3/16, Martin Kühne  wrote:
> Save the thread, kill yourself with ratpoison. Not the wm.
>
> cheers!
> mar77i
>
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Martin Kühne]

Save the thread, kill yourself with ratpoison. Not the wm.

cheers!
mar77i

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Hiltjo Posthuma]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:05:22PM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
> I believe than an alternative to dwm might be good. dwm is fine, but
> an alternative could be useful.

Why?

-- 
Kind regards,
Hiltjo

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Staven]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 10:47:31PM +0200, Martin Kühne wrote:
> libXmu for rounded corners.
 
kill me

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:48:05AM +0200, hadrien.lac...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> I'd say cwm instead of evilwm. When I had to use an ant screen laptop, it was 
> pretty nice. The only thing I lacked is workspaces.

Ah, someone who knows how to have a discussion, how lovely! :D

~ Tim

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[hadrien . lacour]

I'd say cwm instead of evilwm. When I had to use an ant screen laptop, it was 
pretty nice. The only thing I lacked is workspaces.

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:25:56AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote:
> Hi Pat,
> 
> > http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html
> 
> On that list I see evilwm. Apparently it is stacking, and if I'm not
> mistaken it appears to have a similar size to dwm (maybe even smaller).
> 
> So why propose JWM instead of EvilWM?
> 
> 
> ~ Tim
> 

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:30:17AM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
> MIght you have a well-balanced discussion, not over-too-serious or the
> other side? simply just in the middle, balanced.

A nice sentiment, but indeed for it to be a discussion it should be
two-sided. At the moment you are not listening to what anyone is telling
you. When someone says something, either agree or disagree (with reasons);
going off on some new tangent without acknowledging what other people have
said is to show you don't care about the discussion.

If you want it to be light-hearted, make a joke. If you want it to be a
discussion, make sure you engage with people on your discussion points.

~ Tim

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

MIght you have a well-balanced discussion, not over-too-serious or the
other side? simply just in the middle, balanced.

Gnome is sure heavy. I wrote "check the code". After considering the
code, it might be nice input for a nice idea of making a fork of it.

Once done, the code can be considered or not. Nothing else.


2016-08-03 0:14 GMT+02:00 hiro <23h...@gmail.com>:
>> /*
>>   JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
>>   compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
>> */
>>
>> My theme:
>>
>>
>>   FreeSans-9:bold
>>   4
>>   20
>>   
>>  white
>>  #70849d:#2e3a67
>>  black
>>  1.0
>>   
>>   
>>  #aa
>>  #808488:#303438
>>  black
>>  0.5:0.9:0.1
>>   
>>
>
> TROLLOLOLOLOL LOLOLOL LOLOLOL
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[hiro]

> /*
>   JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
>   compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
> */
>
> My theme:
>
>
>   FreeSans-9:bold
>   4
>   20
>   
>  white
>  #70849d:#2e3a67
>  black
>  1.0
>   
>   
>  #aa
>  #808488:#303438
>  black
>  0.5:0.9:0.1
>   
>

TROLLOLOLOLOL LOLOLOL LOLOLOL

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:31:53PM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
> I just compile without xinerama, and dwm is slighty lighter than jwm.
> If you stick to the minimum with jwm, it is not that heavy at all. This is 
> nice.
>
> Why jwm, because after chopping some lines into code, it can give a
> nice minimalist fork.

Sure. I am not saying JWM is bad. Compared to, say, Gnome, I am sure JWM is
fantastic.

However, this conversation is not about comparing JWM to the worst-case
scenario. This conversation is about you nominating JWM for a mention on
the suckless website.

Problems with the conversation so far:

1. You nominated JWM for inclusion on the suckless website without giving
  good reasons why.
2. You have now switched to a different topic about forking JWM, again
  without giving good reasons why.

In return:

1. It has been explained to you why JWM should not be considered suckless
  software, but you have not acknowledged this explanation.
2. It appears that EvilWM obviates the need for forking JWM, but you have
  not acknowledged the suggestion of using EvilWM.
3. Someone has already called you out for being a troll. I was willing to
  extend a more charitable assessment, but you have failed to acknowledge
  their concerns and you have failed to correct your behaviour.

Please aspire to a more focused style of discussion in which you actually
engage with people.


~ Tim

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

I just compile without xinerama, and dwm is slighty lighter than jwm.
If you stick to the minimum with jwm, it is not that heavy at all. This is nice.

Why jwm, because after chopping some lines into code, it can give a
nice minimalist fork.



2016-08-02 23:25 GMT+02:00 Timothy Rice :
> Hi Pat,
>
>> http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html
>
> On that list I see evilwm. Apparently it is stacking, and if I'm not
> mistaken it appears to have a similar size to dwm (maybe even smaller).
>
> So why propose JWM instead of EvilWM?
>
>
> ~ Tim
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

Hi Pat,

> http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html

On that list I see evilwm. Apparently it is stacking, and if I'm not
mistaken it appears to have a similar size to dwm (maybe even smaller).

So why propose JWM instead of EvilWM?


~ Tim

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

> jwm needs to be simplified and optimized first. Giving a new birth name 
> ??WM...

Well, make it happen. Show, don't tell.

~ Tim

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

It is on the way, I look for more ideas.

What surprised me is that there aren't so much nice code for tiny
window managers.
There are quite too little choices today.
http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html



2016-08-02 23:08 GMT+02:00 Timothy Rice :
>> jwm needs to be simplified and optimized first. Giving a new birth name 
>> ??WM...
>
> Well, make it happen. Show, don't tell.
>
> ~ Tim
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

You likely could mean... a rewrite might the easiest and much faster.

I think that only dwm on suckless is too little. It needs a new sort
of wm, visually like jwm, filliing the gap between tinywm and dwm.

Cheers!





2016-08-02 23:04 GMT+02:00 Timothy Rice :
> Hi Pat,
>
>> Sure that it needs a bit of improvements...
>
> 1. I am not sure what problem JWM is trying to solve.
> 2. I do not think "improvements" will make it suck less.
>
> Certainly there is a place in the world for JWM, just as there is a place
> in the world for Openbox, Awesome, even Gnome and KDE. I used Gnome back in
> the day before trying out XFCE, then Openbox, then Awesome, then XMonad,
> before settling on dwm. Everyone has to start at their own starting point.
>
> But just because there is a place for something in the world doesn't mean
> it is built to suck less.
>
> Do you think the JWM devs would be keen to strip out all the XML cruft and
> go the dwm route, putting configs in a C header? I believe that is the kind
> of improvement you would need to see before a suckless nomination would
> make sense.
>
>
> ~ Tim
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

I believe than an alternative to dwm might be good. dwm is fine, but
an alternative could be useful.

Concerning the source, I knows those addtional libs... well, several
drawbacks to be solved.

jwm needs to be simplified and optimized first. Giving a new birth name ??WM...




2016-08-02 22:47 GMT+02:00 Martin Kühne :
> JWM is hosted on github already and that is definitely where it
> belongs. From there:
>
> To build JWM you will need a C compiler (gcc works), X11, and the
> "development headers" for X11 and Xlib. If available and not disabled
> at compile time, JWM will also use the following libraries:
>
> cairo and librsvg2 for SVG icons and backgrounds.
> fribidi for bi-directional text support.
> libjpeg for JPEG icons and backgrounds.
> libpng for PNG icons and backgrounds.
> libXext for the shape extension.
> libXrender for the render extension.
> libXmu for rounded corners.
> libXft for anti-aliased and true type fonts.
> libXinerama for multiple head support.
> libXpm for XPM icons and backgrounds.
>
> Also, from the file list it appears it uses autotools.
> You're both a troll and new here and neither a contributor to, nor
> even roughly familiar with the project you're pointing at.
>
> cheers!
> mar77i
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

Hi Pat,

> Sure that it needs a bit of improvements...

1. I am not sure what problem JWM is trying to solve.
2. I do not think "improvements" will make it suck less.

Certainly there is a place in the world for JWM, just as there is a place
in the world for Openbox, Awesome, even Gnome and KDE. I used Gnome back in
the day before trying out XFCE, then Openbox, then Awesome, then XMonad,
before settling on dwm. Everyone has to start at their own starting point.

But just because there is a place for something in the world doesn't mean
it is built to suck less.

Do you think the JWM devs would be keen to strip out all the XML cruft and
go the dwm route, putting configs in a C header? I believe that is the kind
of improvement you would need to see before a suckless nomination would
make sense.


~ Tim

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Martin Kühne]

JWM is hosted on github already and that is definitely where it
belongs. From there:

To build JWM you will need a C compiler (gcc works), X11, and the
"development headers" for X11 and Xlib. If available and not disabled
at compile time, JWM will also use the following libraries:

cairo and librsvg2 for SVG icons and backgrounds.
fribidi for bi-directional text support.
libjpeg for JPEG icons and backgrounds.
libpng for PNG icons and backgrounds.
libXext for the shape extension.
libXrender for the render extension.
libXmu for rounded corners.
libXft for anti-aliased and true type fonts.
libXinerama for multiple head support.
libXpm for XPM icons and backgrounds.

Also, from the file list it appears it uses autotools.
You're both a troll and new here and neither a contributor to, nor
even roughly familiar with the project you're pointing at.

cheers!
mar77i

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

Sure that it needs a bit of improvements...

2016-08-02 22:41 GMT+02:00 FRIGN :
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:35:45 +0200
> patrick295767 patrick295767  wrote:
>
>> /*
>>   JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
>>   compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
>> */
>>
>> My theme:
>>
>>
>>   FreeSans-9:bold
>>   4
>>   20
>>   
>>  white
>>  #70849d:#2e3a67
>>  black
>>  1.0
>>   
>>   
>>  #aa
>>  #808488:#303438
>>  black
>>  0.5:0.9:0.1
>>   
>>
>
> Yuck! XML config? No thanks!
>
> --
> FRIGN 
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[FRIGN]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:35:45 +0200
patrick295767 patrick295767  wrote:

> /*
>   JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
>   compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
> */
> 
> My theme:
>
>
>   FreeSans-9:bold
>   4
>   20
>   
>  white
>  #70849d:#2e3a67
>  black
>  1.0
>   
>   
>  #aa
>  #808488:#303438
>  black
>  0.5:0.9:0.1
>   
>

Yuck! XML config? No thanks!

-- 
FRIGN 

[dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

Good evening,

I think that JWM could be made visible on the website of www.suckless.org.

Please check the code of jwm...

JWM is relatively light, and people like it very much jwm as much as
dwm. For jwm, only libx11-dev is necessary. JWM is fluid, it looks
nice. With xbindkeys it is a nice alternative wm. Jwm is very much
stable and leaner than openbox.

/*
  JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
  compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
*/

My theme:
   
   
  FreeSans-9:bold
  4
  20
  
 white
 #70849d:#2e3a67
 black
 1.0
  
  
 #aa
 #808488:#303438
 black
 0.5:0.9:0.1
  
   


Best regards;
Pat;