Re: [dev] JWM on website

From: patrick295767 patrick295767 <patrick295767_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:31:53 +0200

I just compile without xinerama, and dwm is slighty lighter than jwm.
If you stick to the minimum with jwm, it is not that heavy at all. This is nice.

Why jwm, because after chopping some lines into code, it can give a
nice minimalist fork.



2016-08-02 23:25 GMT+02:00 Timothy Rice <t.rice_AT_ms.unimelb.edu.au>:
> Hi Pat,
>
>> http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html
>
> On that list I see evilwm. Apparently it is stacking, and if I'm not
> mistaken it appears to have a similar size to dwm (maybe even smaller).
>
> So why propose JWM instead of EvilWM?
>
>
> ~ Tim
>
Received on Tue Aug 02 2016 - 23:31:53 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Aug 02 2016 - 23:36:17 CEST