On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Christian Garbs <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:42:32PM +0100, hiro wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko <[email protected]> >> 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 more nix'isch WM? > >> Could be, that X doesn't allow it to be more unixy, and like I said, >> if you don't want to change the configuration, you could say dwm is >> just a simple window manager. > >> But as the task for most people on this list is configuring it like >> crazy, I don't think one should consider dwm unixy in this use case, >> it's not flexible enough. > > In my understanding, the unix way is "do just one thing and do it > good". A single program does not need to be flexible, but instead you > are flexible by stacking simple programs together as you like (shell > scripts, pipes etc.) >
I agree and I was specifically thinking about the possibility of splitting dwm's functionality into multiple single programs. A simple library for hiding X could be an other great way... And right, flexibility is rather just an effect of well behaving, simple apps used together. > dwm arranges the windows on the screen, nothing more, nothing less. > No program icons, no desktop environment, no notification services. Dwm is arranging windows dynamically, listens to multiple X events and, as far as I know, provides a status bar. It's doing quite some stuff in my view...
