Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
Yoshi Rokuko wrote: I agree, but what about simplicity if you need to program and to run an extra binary in order to get the status of your windows? I think you would get more flexibility but lose simplicity? You are wise, there is a tradeoff. DWM is, I think, the community for those who balance things in favor of core simplicity, adding on all the features as you yourself see fit. -- Jack J. Woehr# I run for public office from time to time. It's like http://www.well.com/~jax # working out at the gym, you sweat a lot, don't get http://www.softwoehr.com # anywhere, and you fall asleep easily afterwards.
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Christian Garbs wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:42:32PM +0100, hiro wrote: >> 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... I agree, but what about simplicity if you need to program and to run an extra binary in order to get the status of your windows? I think you would get more flexibility but lose simplicity?
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
hiro wrote: Dwm is also philosophically transformational if you've not previously absorbed the concept of "Simplicity as a Virtue". I don't understand a word, sorry. And yeah, I understand what simplicity is about.. I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't. I mean there is a world of open source operating system users out there who think the bloat of Linux is the normal state of affairs. I probably should have used the English impersonal "if one has not previously ..." etc. instead of the American generic "if you have not ...". On the Internet no solipsism goes unpunished! :) -- Jack J. Woehr# I run for public office from time to time. It's like http://www.well.com/~jax # working out at the gym, you sweat a lot, don't get http://www.softwoehr.com # anywhere, and you fall asleep easily afterwards.
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
> Dwm is also philosophically transformational if you've not previously > absorbed the concept of "Simplicity as a Virtue". I don't understand a word, sorry. And yeah, I understand what simplicity is about...
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
hiro wrote: 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... Dwm is also philosophically transformational if you've not previously absorbed the concept of "Simplicity as a Virtue". -- Jack J. Woehr# I run for public office from time to time. It's like http://www.well.com/~jax # working out at the gym, you sweat a lot, don't get http://www.softwoehr.com # anywhere, and you fall asleep easily afterwards.
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Christian Garbs wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:42:32PM +0100, hiro wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko >> 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...
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:42:32PM +0100, hiro wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko > 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.) dwm arranges the windows on the screen, nothing more, nothing less. No program icons, no desktop environment, no notification services. Regards Christian -- Christian.Garbs.http://www.cgarbs.de Der letzte spektakuläre Coup gelang den Zielfahndern am vergangenen Freitag. In Mexiko nahm die Polizei, nach Hinweisen der Zielfahnder, einen 29-jährigen Anlagebetrüger aus Mönchengladbach fest. Verdacht: Anlagebetrug.(WDR)
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM, markus schnalke wrote: > [2009-01-20 13:42] hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko >> 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. > >> [...] I don't think one should consider dwm unixy in this use case, >> it's not flexible enough. > > Isn't ``unixy'' at first simplicity? > > ``flexible'' however is a difficult term ... remember sendmail which > _is_ flexible but in no way ``unixy''. > > >> But as the task for most people on this list is configuring it like >> crazy [...] > > I don't share this view. I think most people have their flavor or dwm > keep this quite stable. > > Of course, here is a lot of discussion ... but the reason therefore is > primary the ``experimental'' approach of dwm. well, that's why it's not unixy. of course they have to be simple, but being unixy is also about simple, consistent apps and never changing interfaces. But since a display manager is kind of an interface... I don't even have anything against experimenting, just please don't call it unixy...
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
[2009-01-20 13:42] hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko > 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. > [...] I don't think one should consider dwm unixy in this use case, > it's not flexible enough. Isn't ``unixy'' at first simplicity? ``flexible'' however is a difficult term ... remember sendmail which _is_ flexible but in no way ``unixy''. > But as the task for most people on this list is configuring it like > crazy [...] I don't share this view. I think most people have their flavor or dwm keep this quite stable. Of course, here is a lot of discussion ... but the reason therefore is primary the ``experimental'' approach of dwm. ... I think all is only about the different views people have on dwm. If you do not expect dwm to be a ready-to-use end user window manager, then everything is alright. :-) meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko 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? > > regards, y0shi > > 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. Perhaps someone should write a window manager consisting of some very simple and small binaries. But I admit, I would not know where to start (I will stick to wmii and it's 9p server approach). just my 2 euros
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
2009/1/20 hiro <23h...@googlemail.com>: [snip] > Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me. > Well, X doesn't look like UNIX neither, however you look at it. -- - yiyus || JGL .
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
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? regards, y0shi
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
I think andrew's point is about dwm's very own style. You can, though, use dwm without any problems out of the box, and thus I don't fully agree with him. Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me.
Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?
On (20/01/09 09:49), henry atting wrote: > To: dwm@suckless.org > From: henry atting > Subject: [dwm] Re: What happened here? > Reply-To: dwm mail list > List-Id: dwm mail list > User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) > Cancel-Lock: sha1:WaXw8qx3RxRmlkx9dQJG0B9fg4s= > > I recently switched from dwm to xmonad. > I did not like the rigid constraint on a certain number of code lines. > The resulting way of doing it with patches in my opinion is not > very sincere. I needed only two - and they did not match. I don't see any "rigid" constraint, as for SLOC, we are now pretty far from 2k SLOC as current dwm has ~1.5k SLOCs. I personaly see this limit as only expression of something like: we don't want dbus etc etc. > > Though I do not know haskell at all I find it very simple to configure > xmonad, took me an hour or so to get things done. > > But on the other hand being no coder I do not fit into the dwm target > group anyhow. ;) > > henry > > -Ph -- Premysl "Anydot" Hruby, http://www.redrum.cz/
