Re: [dev] Not Using a Window Manager?

From: pancake <>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:20:23 +0100


On 03/02/11 10:58, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Anselm
Received on Wed Mar 02 2011 - 11:20:23 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Mar 02 2011 - 11:24:02 CET