Re: [dev] JWM on website

From: patrick295767 patrick295767 <patrick295767_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:09:26 +0200

You likely could mean... a rewrite might the easiest and much faster.

I think that only dwm on suckless is too little. It needs a new sort
of wm, visually like jwm, filliing the gap between tinywm and dwm.

Cheers!





2016-08-02 23:04 GMT+02:00 Timothy Rice <t.rice_AT_ms.unimelb.edu.au>:
> Hi Pat,
>
>> Sure that it needs a bit of improvements...
>
> 1. I am not sure what problem JWM is trying to solve.
> 2. I do not think "improvements" will make it suck less.
>
> Certainly there is a place in the world for JWM, just as there is a place
> in the world for Openbox, Awesome, even Gnome and KDE. I used Gnome back in
> the day before trying out XFCE, then Openbox, then Awesome, then XMonad,
> before settling on dwm. Everyone has to start at their own starting point.
>
> But just because there is a place for something in the world doesn't mean
> it is built to suck less.
>
> Do you think the JWM devs would be keen to strip out all the XML cruft and
> go the dwm route, putting configs in a C header? I believe that is the kind
> of improvement you would need to see before a suckless nomination would
> make sense.
>
>
> ~ Tim
>
Received on Tue Aug 02 2016 - 23:09:26 CEST