[Thread Prev][Thread Next]   >Date Index >Thread Index

Re: [wmx] Why I use wmx (was: Resize-thingy-bug)

Jason Smith - Tue Apr 20 19:35:32 1999

I am not alone! heh...

my problem with the source is that I am unfortunately not as versed as I
would like to be in c++... ripping apart the source is kinda hairy

But if it can be agreed that this is a worthwile contribution to the wmx
source pool, then I imagine I can find the motivation to implement it.
(self motivation somewhat lacking today) 

the gnome compliance stuff circulating on the list lately is a neat idea,
though I doubt that I would personally use it more than once ever... even
then merely out of curiosity rather than necessity. I can't imagine what
benefits that gnome compliance would offer beyond channel switching. and
the current method is more than adequate (IMHO -again I spout my
righteousness, feel free to topple me from my all-holy alter)


On 20 Apr 1999, Lasse Rasinen wrote:

> Jason Smith <jason@artcomp-design.com> writes:
> <about developing wmx>
> > it seems not a great many of us here are :)
> For background info, I like to occasionally hack wmx source for learning
> purposes and for the sheer hell of it.
> > My attraction to wmx is that is so noninvasive... I dont want a
> > filemanager on my desktop, I can easily launch one when I need it and
> > don't find the need that often. I also dont care for elaborate menus. I
> > only use 3 or 4 things often enough to warrant easy access... everything
> > else is worth the extra effort of having to actually type the name in an
> > xterm. menu launch folders in a wm are silly. (IMHO) 
> Agreed. My situation is quite similar. I use the middle-button root menu
> mainly as a quick bookmark list, ie. it launches up browsers to selected
> few sites. Then I pop up new xterms.
> As for managing windows, I like to 1) move them around, 2) hide them, and
> 3) resize them. I hardly ever use channels, even if they are convinient.
> (I usually realize, after the work is done, that using another channel for
> task 1 and another channel for task 2 might have been more successful in
> battling against chaos ;)
> The reason I chose wmx and not some other wm might lie in configurability.
> That's right, I prefer having all my options in one file without needing
> to read miles of docs. With wmx there is only a limited number of options
> (with reasonable defaults, the most important thing in any program) and
> well, it just works.
> I don't use dynamic config either, since I don't see a reason to change
> my well working configs, but that's just me.
> Part of the reason I was so squeamish when wmx-5 first came out with was
> the reason it had some Sun-only things which I taught would lead to chaos
> and having n+1 defines for different features in the source. Well, they
> didn't and they don't bug me, so there.
> > I'm sure you could emulate most of wmx in enlightenment and someone prolly
> > already has written a theme to do it(?). Where does it leave wm(x)? with
> > the challenge of offering more performance/less memory and something
> > different enough to warrant it.
> The source is small and nice. I taught myself lot of nice X tricks reading
> and modifying the source. Most of the time the hacks didn't work, but
> that's another learning experience. There's still a lot I don't
> understand, so wmx will continue to be useful in the days to come.
> Why do you others use wmx, then? Because of small memory footprint, the
> coolness factor, usability or ...?