Re: [wmii] sh flame with Uriel

> We are not specifically talking about linux here, it just so happens
> that WMII runs on X11, of which there are 2 major X servers supporting
> X11 - XFree86 and X.org, both of which require the GNU utilities.
> Sure there are other options, and you can always replace all the
> scripts distributed with each server, but that's not the real
> discussion here.
There are more X servers than XFree86 and X.org. I and neither XFree86
or X.org depend on GNU utilities either(auto*hell-ization by Gnome
fools of R7 aside.)

> Can you please point me to some article/mailing list thread where a
> non-Linux OS is "trying to get rid of that crap as soon as possible".
> Of course, logically, this would mean they have "that crap" to begin
> with.
Any BSD, and specially OpenBSD.

> plan9port is 23MB on Archlinux. Assuming an additional download of
> the source for systems such as gentoo or via FreeBSD ports, that's
> +17MB. Please do not assume things are arbitrary without knowing
> where they came from.
Please, stop talking about things you have no clue; no one ever said
wmii should depend on all p9p, so stop spreading FUD. Thank you.

(Of course this is all based on misinformation spread by garbeam and
his selective memory.)

> > If we had listened to lusers, wmii would still be the hideous
> > abomination that wmi was, and probably much worse by now.
>
> I actually liked wmi, design- and usage-wise. The above statement is
> 100% subjective.
All statements are subjective, big deal.

wmi was shit; if you don't agree, go back to use it and don't waste
our time with this discussion.

uriel
Received on Wed Mar 01 2006 - 20:18:55 UTC