Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

From: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:11:43 +0000

On 4/10/12, Jan Christoph Ebersbach <jceb_AT_e-jc.de> wrote:
> Sounds interesting but since there is no way of communicating with dwm we
> wouldn't gain much. The code for bars and keybindings would also stay. I'm
> rather for going the whole way.
>
Yeah, dwm would still have to draw tag names/icons itself. But do we
need fancy drawing libraries to represent tags, or do we want them to
draw misc. other stuff such as a systray, a battery charge indicator,
window titles or tail -f?

This compromising seems unnecessary and smells like design by
committee. The correct solution is not using a library that's heavier
than strictly necessary but not quite satisfactory for all use cases.
And neither is doing the same, but through 9P. Yes, we love Plan 9,
but 9P is native to neither Lunices nor BSDs.

I'm still in favor of separating tiling from tagging, so you could
e.g. use dwm's grid with 2wm's dual-stack without having to hand-merge
patches because the dwm patch references context not present in the
stereo window manager.
That way someone could just write an alternative fancy-pants Qt tagger
without bothering the rest of us—while providing us with a new option
if I ever figure graphical icons could better represent tags to humans
than textual labels.
Received on Tue Apr 10 2012 - 22:11:43 CEST