Hi,
> The existence of the spawn function in dwm surprises me. Wouldn't it be
> more consistent with Suckless' values (simplicity, minimalism,
> modularity) if the job of spawning commands were relegated to a hotkey
> daemon, such as xbindkeys or sxhkd?
The way it is now, the job of handling keyp
> […] but dwm takes pride in "keeping its userbase small and elitist,
> withoutnovices asking stupid questions".
You are mistaken there, I don't think a software can take pride in
something (here dwm), and the more closer community taking care of it
(suckless) doesn't believe in "keeping its user
On 21/06/29 02:04, qsm...@tutanota.com wrote:
> However, worded at it is now, I think we will agree that for someone on the
> outside it will come out as proud or warding off, whereas something like "we
> have no interest in being very popular or trendy; our software will not be
> expanded to adapt
On 21/06/29 01:16AM, qsm...@tutanota.com wrote:
> The existence of the spawn function in dwm surprises me. Wouldn't it
> be more consistent with Suckless' values (simplicity, minimalism,
> modularity) if the job of spawning commands were relegated to a hotkey
> daemon, such as xbindkeys or sxhkd?
On Tue Jun 29, 2021 at 10:46 AM EDT, wrote:
> By definition, window managers manage windows. So, if I had not tried
> dwm yet,
> I would guess that it would not take care of spawning windows.
What world do you live in where the behavior of window managers is to
not take care of spawning windows?
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 01:48:51PM +0200, Mateusz Okulus wrote:
> sxhkd complicates the setup with little additional benefit.
The point of sxhkd isn't really itself, but having your daemon I/O completely
available through IPC. This is a big advantage, as it allows the most
power/freedom when inter
I appreciate the discussion.
Jun 29, 2021, 07:04 by quinq@fifth.space:
> You are mistaken there, I don't think a software can take pride in
> something (here dwm), and the more closer community taking care of it
> (suckless) doesn't believe in "keeping its userbase small and elitist".
>
> On the
Splitting of code into separate programs in a lot of cases can create
more bloat. Unix philosophy is not the be all end all; you have to
weigh the benefits and drawbacks to see where it makes sense. In this
case using dwm for all your shortkeys is less bloat than using sxhkd
which does a lot more s
By definition, window managers manage windows. So, if I had not tried dwm yet,
I would guess that it would not take care of spawning windows.
> sxhkd complicates the setup with little additional benefit.
That's a fair point. Without noticing it I was assuming that other people
also relied on a ke
On 21/06/29 03:38PM, Hadrien Lacour wrote:
> The point of sxhkd isn't really itself, but having your daemon I/O completely
> available through IPC. This is a big advantage, as it allows the most
> power/freedom when interacting with it; especially through scripting.
But scripting what exactly? Can
Slightly off-topic and moderately unpopular: find(1) doesn't quite well
fit into the Unix userland. It starts with the syntax: multiletter
options (POSIX calls them operands though), the $program $option(s)
$file(s) order (compare the find's "do where what" vs natural -- like
sed's or grep's -- "d
11 matches
Mail list logo
