On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim <jfs.world_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> hm. I see. So your argument was to disown wmii, because this *specific*
> configuration - and NOT wmii itself - requires ruby. Alright.
No, I want to disown wmii because it's a bloated >30ksloc monstrosity
that engenders other lesser monstrosities, such as this ruby idiocy.
There is nothing "suckless" about any aspect of modern wmii and I
can't wait for it to go away from here.
--
# Kurt H Maier
Received on Thu Nov 03 2011 - 14:57:19 CET