Re: [dev] [dwm] Why should (or shouldn't) dwm have a spawn function?
On 21/06/29 02:04, qsmodo_AT_tutanota.com wrote:
> However, worded at it is now, I think we will agree that for someone on the
> outside it will come out as proud or warding off, whereas something like "we
> have no interest in being very popular or trendy; our software will not be
> expanded to adapt to every user's possible particular taste" might be more to
> the point here raised and does look quite healthy.
The sentence is precise and to the point. There's no need to change it to
cater to those who are *intrinsically* disinterested in:
- configuring programs by changing the source code
- using command line programs, often several at a time, working together through
- foregoing flashy UI libraries which just add eye candy and megabytes of
and by extension, those disinterested in using suckless programs. It is their
preference that sets them apart, and there's nothing wrong in that. Why force
them to use suckless software when they don't want to? Those who do want to use
it, understand and respect its philosophy will not be turned off.
Received on Tue Jun 29 2021 - 15:21:55 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Jun 29 2021 - 15:24:07 CEST