Re: [dev] Not Using a Window Manager?

From: Anselm R Garbe <>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:58:06 +0000

On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 05:48:43PM +0800, Patrick Haller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 09:32:40AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> >
> > If you understand some of the C functions of dwm as Unix processes
> > than you are pretty close to realise, one can play things pretty much
> > Unix like, but if the LOC adds up dramatically at the bottom line, it
> > is probably not worth it.
> One of the many things I like about surf is the SETPROP hack. Using X11
> properties as IPC seems like a fertile and ignored technique.*
> I think there's a great deal of good in making it easy for people to
> hack things up and then piece them together. Adding X11 properties in
> would help, so whether someone wants to try a different layout engine or
> something, they can hack it up in perl or pure or whatnot.
> * yes, i'm declaring ICCCM/EWMH a wasteland for users. There's only apps
> and window managers in there. With surf, it's easy to check for any
> about:blank windows, send one a URL, unmap it, and push it on the things
> to read queue; or any number of inane things users do. ;)

The ideal is that users can get their work done with the software as is -- no
fiddling required. That's something I always tend to achieve, even with dwm.

Coming up with software like wmii usually results in a userbase that fiddles
around all the time, because the software is so "flexible".

Though, there is a balance for configuration, somewhere between too complex and
no configuration, but I guess closer to no configuration is where the ideal is.

Received on Wed Mar 02 2011 - 10:58:06 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Mar 02 2011 - 11:12:02 CET