[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Plans for the future?
- Subject: Re: Plans for the future?
- From: Alessandro Rendina <ale (at) seleneinformatica (dot) it>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:49:31 +0200
- Message-id: <20090805114931.5b84c9d7@bladerunner>
Il Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:26:07 +0200
"Carlos R. Mafra" <firstname.lastname@example.org> ha scritto:
> sean wrote:
> > I would not want to see Windowmaker become so integrated with Gnome,
> > KDE, or anything else. If Gnome is wanted, run Gnome or XFCE, or
> > something like that.
> Yes, definitely. Why all these people which suggest mixing things
> with Gnome, KDE or whatever don't use those instead?
I don't use Gnome or KDE because I don't like it. I like dockapps and
window managers, because they are fast.
> "More integration" with Gnome does not really make sense to me.
> Window Maker has to be a window manager with no integration to
> anything else than its own principles of lightweight etc.
> Window Maker is what it is. And that is what makes it great. There
> is no need to come up with fancier desktop kind of thing, because
> wmaker is not a desktop environment.
You have reason. But in real life we use apps from gtk or qt libraries,
these apps have standards, openoffice with wmaker make strange things.
For example I use wmaker on my eeepc (with ubuntu distro). I use firefox
for the web and claws-mail for emails. My file manager is mc or
nautilus (with desktop disabled) because nautilus can transfer files
with ssh. I have wmbattery and wmclock on the dock, but I can't find a
mixer dockapp functioning with pulse audio (I must use alsamixer), and
most of desktop configurations (time, background, dockapps, themes)
must be done with text-editors. Why not make "Official base" dockapps?
The initial objective of wmaker was "simple configuration". Why
not use fvwm?
The last version of wmaker is 2004? we are in 2009, world is
To unsubscribe, send mail to email@example.com.