Re: [dev] Why dwm or wmii over xmonad, etc., or not?

From: Andrew Hills <hills.as_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:20:56 -0400

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Kurt H Maier <karmaflux_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> If a program requires endless configuration, it's a bad program.

The program doesn't require it; I do.

--Andrew Hills
Received on Wed Apr 20 2011 - 20:20:56 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Claudio: "Re: [dev] st patch for draw() etc."
Previous message: Marc Weber: "Re: [dev] Why dwm or wmii over xmonad, etc., or not?"
In reply to: Kurt H Maier: "Re: [dev] Why dwm or wmii over xmonad, etc., or not?"
Next in thread: Ethan Grammatikidis: "Re: [dev] Why dwm or wmii over xmonad, etc., or not?"
Reply: Ethan Grammatikidis: "Re: [dev] Why dwm or wmii over xmonad, etc., or not?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 20 2011 - 20:24:02 CEST