Re: [STUMP] Too slow popups with Eclipse

[Luca Capello]

Hi John!

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:14:52 +0200, 
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007, Luca Capello wrote:
>> I don't see how the following is considered difficult, which doesn't
>> even require StumpWM to be compiled (assuming that the CL
>> implementation and the dependencies don't have any bug):
[...]
> This is elitist and naive.

I don't think so: I didn't say everyone should use StumpWM from a CL
implementation, but that typing those commands is not difficult at
all, again, "assuming that the CL implementation and the dependencies
don't have any bug".  It's for sure simpler than any make command.

> People expect--and rightfully so--all window managers to be
> invokable in the same fashion; independent of their implementation.

Fully ACK, this is why as soon as I took maintenance of StumpWM in
Debian I tried to solved this problem [2].  But since as I already
stated I care for StumpWM working out-of-the-box with all
implementations it can work and are present in Debian (thus CMUCL,
SBCL and CLisp), I looked for a general solution.

The one I wanted to implement was cl-launch based, but I encountered
the problem at [3] (which came from [4]).  Since the cl-launch
solution doesn't fit my needs as maintainer (which can be wrong, feel
free to [co]maintain the package), I looked for another one.

> Can you name a single instance of another Debian WM that doesn't
> provide some form of executable?

For the WMs I know, no, but read above and also below about why
providing some form of executable is not enough for my Debian
standards.

> StumpWM need not be a specialist WM reserved only for those with
> intimate knowledge of Common Lisp systems. It provides a UI just
> like any other WM in its class once you actually manage to get it up
> and running.

I think that a bit of CL knowledge is needed not to start StumpWM, but
to use it.  Otherwise, why choosing a CL WM instead of Ratpoison,
which is faster, lighter and has most of the StumpWM features?

Moreover, StumpWM is still marked as "devel" in Debian because I don't
consider it for every Debian user: apart how to start it, it missed a
menu entry (available in the next package version [5]), AFAIK (but I
need to check the git repository) while running it can't be replaced
by other WM (like `metacity --replace`), it has some problems due to
the CL implementation you choose and so on.

> To say that all one must do is open up some obscure interpreter and
> enter magic incantations (which probably won't even work for various
> reasons) is absurd and hardly very helpful.

Obscure interpreter?  Magic incantations?  Please, these are the
commands everyone working on CL uses and advertises on READMEs, wikis
and other official docs.

FWIW and FYI, the other CL project I started working on was UCW [6],
which was advertised to be started through "some obscure interpreter
and enter[ing] magic incantations": if you don't want to go to the
mailing list or darcs repository archives to understand how much I
care about the couple "end user and simplicity", read the post at [7].

> You're not going to convince me that StumpWM is easy to install, no
> matter how much you may have managed to convince yourself.

I never said my intention was that...

> We should be working to improve the situation, rather than sitting
> on our laurels saying "Well, it's easy for *ME*."

...and neither that StumpWM was easy for me.  Indeed, FYI I use a
shell script to start it, the same shell script which will be included
in the Debian package [8].

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes: 
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/stumpwm-devel/2007-10/msg00013.html
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=356948
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=384697
[4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=384071
[5] patch-ID: 20070925215629-f6b0c-c5495e9ef710e991b0ec25d198a7f79fb3c18167.gz
    comment:  Tue Sep 25 23:56:29 CEST 2007  Luca Capello <address@hidden>
                * install Debian menu file
[6] http://common-lisp.net/project/ucw/
[7] http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/bese-devel/2006-March/001848.html
[8] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=356948#49