Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-26 Thread Yoshi Rokuko
 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?

2009-01-25 Thread hiro
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Christian Garbs mi...@cgarbs.de wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:42:32PM +0100, hiro wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko yoshi.rok...@yokuts.org 
 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?

2009-01-25 Thread Jack Woehr

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?

2009-01-25 Thread hiro
 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?

2009-01-25 Thread Jack Woehr

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.




[dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread henry atting
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.

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




Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread Premysl Hruby
On (20/01/09 09:49), henry atting wrote:
 To: dwm@suckless.org
 From: henry atting nspm...@literaturlatenight.de
 Subject: [dwm]  Re: What happened here?
 Reply-To: dwm mail list dwm@suckless.org
 List-Id: dwm mail list dwm.suckless.org
 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/



Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread hiro
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?

2009-01-20 Thread Yoshi Rokuko
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?

2009-01-20 Thread yy
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?

2009-01-20 Thread hiro
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko yoshi.rok...@yokuts.org 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?

2009-01-20 Thread markus schnalke
[2009-01-20 13:42] hiro 23h...@googlemail.com
 On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko yoshi.rok...@yokuts.org 
 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?

2009-01-20 Thread hiro
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM, markus schnalke mei...@marmaro.de wrote:
 [2009-01-20 13:42] hiro 23h...@googlemail.com
 On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko yoshi.rok...@yokuts.org 
 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...