http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/going-fast-dwm
Surely now the deletionists will have to recognize the legitimacy of
dwm? An article in Linux Journal? It's like an entry in Debrett's...
--
http://jasonwryan.com/
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
I think the right thing to do would be to extend Rule and applyrules()
with support for WM_WINDOW_ROLE. However I doubt
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>
>> I think the right thing to do would be to extend Rule and applyrules()
>> with support for WM_WINDOW_ROLE. However I doubt that many client make
>> actually use of WM_WINDO
2010/7/27 Rob :
> On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> Hello dear dwm users,
>
> hi
>
>> There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
>> rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
>> WM_CLASS, but there is also WM_WINDOW_ROLE which is re
