Re: [dwm] Minimalism

2008/1/17, markus schnalke <meillo_AT_marmaro.de>:
> Sylvain Bertrand <sylvain.bertrand_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the
> > > > X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls.
> > >
> > > This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different
> > > ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..)
> >
> > If portability is a major feature for dwm, then I'll pass on this.
>
> Just have a look at the Unix philosophy:
>
> Choose portability over efficiency.

Indeed, but it's not craved in the rock. On this point, since the only
kernel *I* consider valid is Linux with its GPLv2 licence, since *I*
don't see any outsider *I* believed in, *I decided* to break with this
rule. And, if in the (very very far?) future Linux is destroyed then
I will port my software happily to a new decent GPLed kernel ;)

2008/1/17, Christian Garbs <mitch_AT_cgarbs.de>:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:37:56PM +0100, Sylvain Bertrand wrote:
>
> > I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C
> > library.
>
> Have you had a look at the dietlibc? It's a shrunken C library:
> http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/
>
> Regards,
> Christian
> --
> ....Christian.Garbs.....................................http://www.cgarbs.de

Thanks! I'm sure I'll find interesting things there. :)

2008/1/18, David Tweed <david.tweed_AT_gmail.com>:
> On Jan 17, 2008 9:50 PM, markus schnalke <meillo_AT_marmaro.de> wrote:
> > Sylvain Bertrand <sylvain.bertrand_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the
> > > > > X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls.
> > > >
> > > > This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different
> > > > ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..)
> > >
> > > If portability is a major feature for dwm, then I'll pass on this.
> >
> > Just have a look at the Unix philosophy:
> >
> > Choose portability over efficiency.
> >
> >
> > ... nothing more to say here, I think.
>
> Well... I'd say that if that is the philosophy then it's incomplete.
> I'd go for "Choose portability over efficiency, except where
> efficiency really, really, really, really matters". However, since
> programs with GUIs only really have the GUI as the time-consuming
> element when they're doing excessive eye-candy (eg, all that GNOME/KDE
> theming stuff), and likewise standard library functions are almost
> never used intensively in the time consuming core of a program, trying
> to avoid Xlib and libc seems pointless (unless you're running on
> something hyper-resouce constrained like a music player or camera.)
>
> --
> cheers, dave tweed__________________________

I was more thinking about mobile phones.... but music player and
cameras will do! :)
Received on Fri Jan 18 2008 - 11:04:50 UTC