Re: [dwm] DWM is DWM

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:48:33 +0100

On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 03:44:15PM +0100, Leonhard Scherer wrote:
> Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 03:35:38PM +0100, Leonhard Scherer wrote:
> >
> >>What I want to say is this:
> >>Don't blow up the code of DWM; why don't you just use patches for your
> >>special needs? The simpler DWM stays the easier is it for Anselm to code
> >>it and for other people to expand the code.
> >>
> >
> >If you check hg tip, you'll notice that the source is smaller
> >than in dwm-2.2 ;)
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> Gooood :D
> Since you are the developer, could you just tell us, what you gonna do?
> As everybody can see, there are the two kinds of opinions: The ones who
> want to keep at least most of the features and the ones who don't. ;)
> How do you see DWM in the future? More features? Less features?
> In which direction will DWM go?

I think dwm hasn't changed so much in the past, some features went in,
some went out. Several stay since the beginning (e.g. dotile() and tagging).

I don't expect that dwm will look totally different one day. It
is almost finished in my eyes. And I already concentrate on
other things like st and network analysis tools.


 Anselm R. Garbe >< >< GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Thu Nov 23 2006 - 15:48:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:32:43 UTC