Re: [dev] PATCH for/back navigation with xprop

From: Bjartur Thorlacius <>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 23:16:49 +0000

On 6/3/11, Ethan Grammatikidis <> wrote:
> This is normal proceedure for FVWM and worked very smoothly on 8MB 486s.
> Even the numerous restarts needed to fine-tune FVWM configuration weren't a
> terrible problem on that old 486. In contrast, today every app has all its
> own buttons and memory usage is far beyond unreasonable. Hm, I didn't mean
> to make that sound quite so heavy, I just thought about my own experiences.
Yeah, the patch is fine and FVWM seems practical. My definition of
suckless is more theoritical. I usually use less than one tenth of my
main memory when running Linux (typing this on Windows as I'm on a
gaming LAN [I can't believe how wrong it felt to deleta a localized
Linux Mint ISO for .NET 4.0]). But I don't think the buttons make such
a great difference one way or another (as long as your using Haiku
vector images).
But personally, I like surf because it's the most usable chromeless
browser (ok, it has an annoying statusbar and keybindings requiring
multiple keys to be held down simultaneously, but it sports Webkit's
compatibility). But nobody's forcing me to use <back fwd> buttons, so
I'm happy :).
It's just that I believe spawning processes and creating windows
should be dirt cheap operations. Optimally, almost nothing should be
done in those functions.
Received on Sat Jun 04 2011 - 01:16:49 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Jun 04 2011 - 01:24:02 CEST