Typos

content/rambles/windowmanagers.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "On window managers and XMonad"
 date: "2022-11-03T23:17:35+01:00"
 author: "$HUMANOID"
 tags: ["linux", "window managers", "xmonad"]
-description: "A ramble about a highly configurable window manager"
+description: "A ramble about, among other things, a highly configurable window manager"
 ---
 
 # My journey into Tiling Window Managers
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ first year. Sure, I tried KDE and Cinnamon and XFCE, but GNOME is the one I
 always kept coming back to. I think it's because it's pretty much the only one
 that felt completely different from what the rest of the world was doing. It
 helped me with thinking about Linux as being different from windows. After this
-first your though, I came across a few videos about tiling window managers and
+first year though, I came across a few videos about tiling window managers and
 wanted to try one. The first one I installed was i3.
 
 I hated it.
@@ -27,10 +27,10 @@ live in Wayland with Sway for at least a little while.
 
 After a few hours of trying to get things to work in i3, I went back to GNOME.
 Some time later, I came across AwesomeWM. It was being recommended as a fairly
-easy window manager to start with -- it also having window decorations and it's
-own menu system. The first thing I did was try-and fail to rip out said menu
-system and window decorations. I was putting too much on myself trying to learn
-the basics of both using a tiling window manager and Lua.
+easy window manager to start with -- it having window decorations and it's own
+menu system. The first thing I did was try-and fail to rip out said menu system
+and window decorations. I was putting too much on myself trying to learn the
+basics of both using a tiling window manager and Lua.
 
 Some time after that, I came across BSPWM. This was the first time where I felt
 like I _really_ managed to get a tiling window manger to do what I wanted it to
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ do. For some odd reason, there are people out there who consider BSPWM a more
 "advanced" window manger. I really don't get why. To this day, I am of the
 opinion that SXHKD's configuration syntax is some of the best out there. I think
 it took me around 10 minutes to wrap my head around the basics. Somewhere around
-an afternoon later, I had a config that served well me for the next few months
+an afternoon later, I had a config that served me well for the next few months
 to come. 
 
 A while after BSPWM, I decided to give suckless' DWM a shot. Despite my lack of
@@ -105,8 +105,8 @@ the fact that it's configured in _fucking Haskell_.
 
 It almost seems like I got sick of being sick of it being configured in Haskell
 and I decided to dive into learning the language with the goal of being able to
-fully understand by monstrous 384 line config file (without the around 200 lines
-of documentation in the comments).
+fully understand my monstrous 384 line config file (586 lines including the
+documentation in commented sections).
 
 {{< img class="stickers" src="/images/config_length.png" >}}
 
@@ -115,13 +115,13 @@ a hell of a lot better than when I produced most of those 300 lines.
 
 The greatest thing about XMonad is simultaneously the thing that kept me away
 from it: it's written and configured in bloody Haskell. Thus there is barely a
-separation configuration and source code. The only difference there _really_ is,
-is the filename. Once you understand a bit of Haskell (no small task if you're
-used to imperative languages) adding and integrating your own features is really
-easy. And then they are _properly_ integrated. Sort of like how DWM works, only
-with proper documentation and support. Part of me wants to see if I can figure
-out a way to package my XMonad build as a single binary to be able to chuck it
-onto systems without putting much thought into it.
+separation between configuration and source code. The only difference there
+_really_ is, is the filename. Once you understand a bit of Haskell (no small
+task if you're used to imperative languages) adding and integrating your own
+features is really easy. And then they are _properly_ integrated. Sort of like
+how DWM works, only with proper documentation and support. Part of me wants to
+see if I can figure out a way to package my XMonad build as a single binary to
+be able to chuck it onto systems without putting much thought into it.
 
 Weird thing with Haskell I'm noticing so far is that I'm slowly but surely
 managing to dig up old concepts that I tried to implement in imperative