Re: [dev] dwm only?

Did I missed something?!

'dwm only?' subject is about splitting lists or getting things
reverted or whatever you call it, I am not that informed about mailing
list options and that's best I could do to define what I would like to
see. If there is better way to phrase what I already stated and better
address than creating new subject on mailing list please be my guest to
do that -- English is not my primary language.

My view on wmii is exactly the same as wmii user can see dwm, as
something too strange and out of interest. I do respect wmii but don't
care about it and you also agreed that 'wmii and dwm very obviously
cater to different people'. My line was just illustration how different
(unmixable?) they are.

So everybody sorry if I was rude but I still can't understand what I
did wrong? 'Stop whining' is rude on any language.

Dusan

On Sun, 24 May 2009 12:29:12 -0400
Thomas Gallen <kaori.hinata_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't necessarily agree with Uriel's solution but your tone is no
> less rude and point no more correct. The wmii mailing list was a
> mailing list for wmii, the dwm mailing list was a mailing list for
> dwm, NEITHER of them were the Slashdot RSS feed. Regardless of how
> "interesting" you thought the topics were (and I admit I liked a few
> of them). Placing them on either of those lists is unnecessary and
> disruptiive and I think we need a separate mailing list for topics
> like those.
>
> Ever since the list merger the sheer amount of flaming, elitism and
> arguments has increased exponentially and it's disgusting to have to
> watch. Your line on wmii and dwm being the latest example. wmii and
> dwm very obviously cater to different people so arguing about it is a
> stupid thing to do and yet you voluntarily did just that. You make
> your views abundantly clear so why don't you voice your concerns to
> the people in charge instead of taking it out on other people?
>
> If you want to start a topic regarding splitting the lists again (or
> labelling them differently) I would gladly participate as that seems
> to be a topic on which we both agree.
>
> Thomas
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 05:44:54PM +0200, Dusan wrote:
> > Sorry but you are not right, not to mention rude response. Dwm list
> > has plenty of _interesting_ topics related to dwm or any other
> > minimal suckless project. It is fantastic way to get informed about
> > other minimal projects and better ways to do something. Wmii is
> > bloatware for me or at least topic that has nothing common with
> > dwm. Correct me if I am wrong. As much as I am thrilled to read
> > about what is the best way to describe shortcut in wmii manual, I
> > should not be forced to read that except if I choose to do so. Same
> > as would make no sense to mix dwm and gnome mailing lists make no
> > sense to mix dwm and wmii mailing lists.
> >
> > Dusan
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 24 May 2009 16:15:17 +0200
> > Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Stop whining, the dwm list had tons of non-dwm chatter, if you
> > > are not interested in one thread, press the delete button.
> > >
> > > uriel
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Benjamin Conner
> > > <tommydabomby_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Why not to maintain dwm list and redirect its content to dev
> > > >> list?
> > > >
> > > > That's a great idea!
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM, pmarin <pacogeek_AT_gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Why not to maintain dwm list and redirect its content to dev
> > > >> list?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Benjamin Conner
> > > >> <tommydabomby_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > I'd like to know this too.  I would only like dwm ones like
> > > >> > the lists used
> > > >> > to be.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Dusan <ef_dva_AT_yahoo.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Is there a way to get only dwm related emails? Since lists
> > > >> >> are merged I get bunch of wmii related ones and frankly I
> > > >> >> don't need them at all.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Thanks.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Sun May 24 2009 - 16:46:44 UTC