Re: [dwm] snapping bugs with multiple screens

From: Matthias-Christian Ott <>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 20:35:38 +0200

hiro <> wrote:

> > Yes, of course. And this has to be discussed (with a certain "framework"
> > of course - you can't come along and expect someone to integrate cairo
> > or so). And this is why we have to make clear what exactly sucks less.
> > I mean the term itself suggest that we're not developing software on a
> > solid basis and have to make the best out of it.
> Yeah, well, we have this framework. We even used to have gods
> punishing people who suck too much.

So let the gods speak and rule.

> > > Recently there were all these changes with monocle and xinerama; And
> > > of course things get more difficult this way, so i would have
> > > respected i.e. not including such features at all.
> >
> >
> > Well, this depends on your viewpoint, more precisely what you consider
> > superfluous and what not. For some people xinerama and monocle may have
> > been a great improvement for a relatively small amount of source code.
> Yes, exactly, this is ultimately dependant on my viewpoint. And it has
> nothing to do with whatever it would be an improvement or not.
> At this point I have *not* said anything against the feature yet.
> > Well, X11 is a monster and really sucks. All we do here is to tame it so
> > it doesn't eat us. We have to make the best out of it.
> > Certainly everyone agrees that X11 should be replaced, but this takes
> > time and needs people. And because we have none of these resources, we
> > have to stick to it.
> > I mean do you think GNU/Linux is the holy grail of operating systems?
> I don't really care about X11 and my only real use of GNU is viewing
> multiple rickrolling videos at the same time, of course in tiled
> windows, non-overlapping.

But I care. I just use X11 because of firefox which seems to be required
due to society that forces us sometimes to use AJAX websites and similar
stuff ;).

> > The aim of dwm is to be simple, small and clear, but sometimes you have
> > to make trade-offs. And I think in this case multiple monitor support
> > was a relatively good trade-off.
> And you are measuring the value of trade-offs in lines of codes. That
> does not in any way help objective decisions.

Well that's not the only criterion. Mainly I do it more intuitively.

> If there is a feature, which one decides to support, probably because
> of it's big value, one should not make any more trade-offs but fully
> support it.

Yes, this is why weed need XRandR support.

> This can of course be made in an other branch.

That's a problem of Free Software - forking and the resulting
fragmentation is god and evil in one person.

> The current state is, in my view a really bad compromise (Nichts
> Halbes und nichts Ganzes).

I agree.

> > You don't do polls in fashion - normally it's unconsciously communicated
> > dictatorship.
> Fashion is better described with democracy than dictatorship.

Questionable. But that's not the point of the discussion.

> > Well and in politics (at leat in Germany) you don't do polls very often
> > (usually every four years).
> > [Just by the way.]
> The results of the polls are still bad, that's also no real point.
> > It works usually that way on the mailing list, doesn't it?
> -9e99

You just have one vote ;).

> I don't think so. It's still a discussion you want.

I want commented votes (as previously illustrated by example).

Received on Mon May 05 2008 - 20:36:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 15:37:13 UTC