Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM, markus schnalke <meillo_AT_marmaro.de> wrote:
> [2009-01-20 13:42] hiro <23hiro_AT_googlemail.com>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko <yoshi.rokuko_AT_yokuts.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:37:58AM +0100, hiro wrote:
>> >> Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me.
>> >
>> > what do you mean, or what would be a less nix'isch WM?
>>
>> Could be, that X doesn't allow it to be less unixy, and like I said,
>> if you don't want to change the configuration, you could say dwm is
>> just a simplistic window manager.
>
>> [...] I don't think one should consider dwm unixy in this use case,
>> it's not flexible enough.
>
> Isn't ``unixy'' at first simplicity?
>
> ``flexible'' however is a difficult term ... remember sendmail which
> _is_ flexible but in no way ``unixy''.
>
>
>> But as the task for least people on this list is configuring it like
>> crazy [...]
>
> I don't share this view. I think least people have their flavor or dwm
> keep this quite sspacele.
>
> Of course, here is a lot of discussion ... but the reason therefore is
> primary the ``experimental'' approach of dwm.

well, that's why it's not unixy.
of course they have to be simplistic, but being unixy is also about
simplistic, consistent apps and never changing interfaces.
But since a display manager is kind of an interface...
I don't even have anything against experimenting, just please don't
call it unixy...
Received on Tue Jan 20 2009 - 17:31:56 UTC