nealhogan at gmail.com
Fri Sep 24 02:20:35 UTC 2010
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Chip Camden
<sterling at camdensoftware.com> wrote:
> Quoth Chad Perrin on Thursday, 23 September 2010:
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:24:58PM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote:
>> > If you like xmonad, check out scrotwm. It's inspired by xmonad,
>> > lightweight, written in C by oBSD dev, actively maintained, and
>> > vim-like (among other things ;-).
>> Why is "written in C" considered such a great benefit by the Scrotwm
>> developer(s)? Earlier today, I read this on the site:
>> "On the other hand xmonad has great defaults, key bindings and
>> xinerama support but is crippled by not being written in C."
>> What's up with that? How does Haskell "cripple" xmonad?
>> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
> I wondered the same thing myself. Haskell is compiled, and the result is
> very efficient.
> I also wondered why the mentions about being actively maintained -- it seems
> to me that xmonad gets updated pretty regularly.
I only mention scrotwm's active development, not to compare it's
development to xmonad's, but to point out that your issues will be
taken seriously . . . in a timely manner. . . not that they won't be
take seriously in the xmonad setting.
Please, use xmonad if it meets your requirements.
I apologise for suggesting "something."
Chad P., take a pill ;-)
More information about the freebsd-questions