Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

Save the thread, kill yourself with ratpoison. Not the wm. cheers! mar77i

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

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.

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

> /* > 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 >

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

> 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

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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,

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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

Re: [dev] JWM on website

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 >

[dev] JWM on website

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