Re: [dev] JWM on website

From: Timothy Rice <t.rice_AT_ms.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:52:25 +1000

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:31:53PM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
> I just compile without xinerama, and dwm is slighty lighter than jwm.
> If you stick to the minimum with jwm, it is not that heavy at all. This is nice.
>
> Why jwm, because after chopping some lines into code, it can give a
> nice minimalist fork.

Sure. I am not saying JWM is bad. Compared to, say, Gnome, I am sure JWM is
fantastic.

However, this conversation is not about comparing JWM to the worst-case
scenario. This conversation is about you nominating JWM for a mention on
the suckless website.

Problems with the conversation so far:

1. You nominated JWM for inclusion on the suckless website without giving
  good reasons why.
2. You have now switched to a different topic about forking JWM, again
  without giving good reasons why.

In return:

1. It has been explained to you why JWM should not be considered suckless
  software, but you have not acknowledged this explanation.
2. It appears that EvilWM obviates the need for forking JWM, but you have
  not acknowledged the suggestion of using EvilWM.
3. Someone has already called you out for being a troll. I was willing to
  extend a more charitable assessment, but you have failed to acknowledge
  their concerns and you have failed to correct your behaviour.

Please aspire to a more focused style of discussion in which you actually
engage with people.


~ Tim
Received on Tue Aug 02 2016 - 23:52:25 CEST