Re: [wmii] sh flame with Uriel

From: Aaron Griffin <>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:49:56 -0600

Oh whee, this is fun! I'm not going to get in the middle of this, or
side with one or the other, because, frankly, I don't care. I am a
user of wmii, not a developer of it. You both seem to talk about
"what the average user wants" or claim that "users don't know what's
good for them"

I am that average user (of wmii) - with regards to my interest, I want
wmii to work and be simple. I do not use ion3 because I don't want to
script everything in lua. Let's assume I don't know C-ish syntax.
Scripting things in rc would then be just as painful as lua.

On 2/28/06, Anselm R. Garbe <> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 03:04:34PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
> > Ah, great, so now we depend on gnu/base rather than 9base? and then the user
> The average user prefers to depend on gnu/bsd base if it
> prevents him from installing a redundant userland unless he is not
> a Plan 9 lover. You should answer my questions. It is not a
> question of portability, it is a question of effort and sense.

I'm pretty sure most users have the gnu utilities installed anyway.
If they don't, they're probably running LFS or something, but those
are edge cases. In this regard I agree 100% with Anselm. If
plan9port was more 'standard' on Linux systems, this would be a
non-issue, but as it stands, requiring some 20-40MB chunk of binaries
just so I can run a "lightweight" window manager is missing the point,
I think.

The fact is that wmii depends on X, which already depends on sh and
other minor utilites for some of the startup scripts. Those
dependancies are already satisfied.

That's my 2 cents. Just my opinion.
Received on Tue Feb 28 2006 - 19:49:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:00:18 UTC