Re: wishlist: dynamic updates
Brought to you by:
captnmark
From: Michael P. S. <mso...@st...> - 2001-07-13 13:14:26
|
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 12:18:43PM +0200, Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Michael P. Soulier wrote: >=20 > I strongly hope you won't be disabpointed with eyecandy enable > version 1.0.9 I still try to finish. (Just some little quirks > left... well... and still too slow :-(. Hmm. Me too! I love this WM. It's exactly what I need at work and at ho= me. I have two guys in my department hooked on it now too. One of them is a Unix hacker from the old days, and he loves the ease of configuration via simple text files all in the same location. Well, beyond a $HOME/.Xdefaults file to customize applications. Should I start my rant against Gnome and KDE for ignoring X resources? > Well... What's wrong with <Ctrl><Alt><Del>,<R> ? It's fast, was > easy to implement, is robust - something you can't say about most of the > dynamic configuration. Ok. Doesn't look very elegant when all the frames > flash whilest you restart icewm... But that's the only disadvantage I see. Yeah, that was my only complaint.=20 > Marko tried to implement such things for his experimental CVS > tree. Complicated things alot and surely a reason why we don't see any > releases from him anymore: IceWM never was designed that way. So Mark > wasted a lot of time and got a complicated window manager that doesn't > even run properly more than one year after he started hacking it. Yikes.=20 > IMHO one part of IceWM's success story was simplicity... Absolutely. Don't lose that. Feature creep is scary.=20 > Try the usual UNIX paradigm "killall -HUP icewm". Yeah, that's what I've been doing, but again, it's a little disturbing = if you're working in a workspace and suddenly there aren't any.=20 > Yes. Simplicity is beauty. Even if parts of IceWM's code base are > hackish... It works: Due it's simplicity. >=20 > Well... But if someone comes with good suggestions how to > restructure IceWM to support dynamic configuration without ending in a > disaster as Mark did... I'm open for suggestions.... I'll have to take a look. Mind you, that means it goes in my endless bl= ack hole of a low-priority to-do list, along with learning more about X (Mikey spoiled by Tk...) as is required to comprehend a WM's code.=20 Mike --=20 Michael P. Soulier <mso...@st...>=20 "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessari= ly a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could= be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead." -- RFC 1925 |