] >Date Index
Re: [wmx] Comments and questions from a wmx newbiecannam
- Tue Aug 03 10:40:20 1999
Stefan `Sec` Zehl <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 09:26:04AM -0700, James Ramsey wrote:
> > Why not use X resources to configure wmx instead of the
> > symbolic link hack?
> [...] I found this hack with the symlink fitting to wmx's "be
> a little different" attitude, and it's quite easy to implement.
I like it, because it helps prevent you from pointlessly
reconfiguring your window manager every other day. Of course
I liked the older versions without any runtime configuration
better, but I can see why some people might want it. (And after
all, there's always wm2.)
> > I remember seeing on Freshmeat that wmx-5 was the "stable"
> > version
Always an approximation, although wmx-5 was certainly stabler
> I called these versions 'developmental' because I wanted to see
> if they are stable enough (nothig is worse than a core'ing
> windowmanager imho :) It seems that they are indeed stable.
> I'll have to think about a better scheme for that.
How about calling the next one wmx-6 ? Preferably with the gnome
stuff, provided that's now reasonably stable. If you hurried, you
could make a new major release before I'd even got a unix box to
test it on, thus making the wmx-5 to wmx-6 transition one in which
I had absolutely no part whatsoever.