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

From: Kurt H Maier <karmaflux_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:52:16 -0400

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Andrew Hills <hills.as_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> It's endlessly configurable while it's running, which is very convenient.

If a program requires endless configuration, it's a bad program.

-- 
# Kurt H Maier

Received on Wed Apr 20 2011 - 19:52:16 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Bryan Bennett: "Re: [dev] Why dwm or wmii over xmonad, etc., or not?"
Previous message: Suraj Kurapati: "Re: [dev] Why dwm or wmii over xmonad, etc., or not?"
In reply to: Andrew Hills: "Re: [dev] Why dwm or wmii over xmonad, etc., or not?"
Next in thread: Andrew Hills: "Re: [dev] Why dwm or wmii over xmonad, etc., or not?"
Reply: Andrew Hills: "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 - 20:00:05 CEST