Re: Bar going away? (was: Re: [wmii] Re: wmii-4 fs proposal/discussion)

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:25:27 +0200

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:17:22AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:09:43AM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 03:26:56AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
> >>An external app could provide pretty much the current bar
> >>functionality if anyone wants it, something like winwatch(1) but for
> >>pages might make sense.
> >
> >The bar should be internal to prevent adding bunch of
> >synchronization complexity to not overlap the bar all the
> >time... Also, I doubt the sense of having a bar with a 9P
> >interface as external app, that would add also much complexity
> >which seems totally unnecessary. The bar-(re)internalization was
> >the correct decision. larswm, ion3, *box and many other WMs
> >using a bar prove that.
> There's also Fvwm with it's external... just about everything. They have to
> be started by fvwm, but they're separate processes. I'd use Fvwm before any
> blackbox derivative and possibly even before ion3.

Fvwm is a floating-only WM... they don't have the problem with
synchronization of managed area size, rescaling etc.

 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Mon Jun 12 2006 - 09:25:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:09:00 UTC