Re: [dwm] Being not so elitist

From: Filippo Erik Negroni <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:55:59 +0100

2008/7/29 Anselm R Garbe <>:
> Hi,
> 2008/7/29 markus schnalke <>:
>> "This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No novices asking stupid
>> questions."
> Well, I removed this statement, now. It was on purpose 2 years ago,
> though. It wasn't intended as offense, however.
> I might restore this statement, if a new user shows up proposing or
> asking for a configuration file format.
> Regards,
> --Anselm

I think we might be misleading our potential customer base then.

We are publishing a software for the masses: we make it available and
have a website for it, a mailing list, a wiki, and a mercurial
There is nothing elitist about that.
The fact that we have to modify the source to customise the product is
open to discussion.
I don't like that (see my comment in the wiki about the fact that an
up to date config.def.h fails to update config.h and can lead to
unfortunate circumstances, even for the elite).
But I still made a point of documenting that.
IMHO, if we receive 'stupid' questions, that should tell us that maybe
we are not clear about how this works.
Of course, we can't cater for everyone ourselves, but that is exactly
what wiki's are for: a user asks a stupid question, he is given an
answer, he is then entitled to suggest a modification to the wiki to
make the stupid answer redundant.
FAQ's are there for exactly the same reason.

I am by no means trying to force my opinion, that is why I made the
'Customisation' wiki link.
If I wanted a version of dwm with support for resource files, I could
make a fork or patchset to dwm
and point people to it within the wiki, just like other did before.

IMHO, if we want to get into GSOC in 2009, we must open our arms to
more than just hackers.

Received on Tue Jul 29 2008 - 08:55:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jul 29 2008 - 09:00:09 UTC