Re: [wmii] feature suggestion/is this feature available yet?

From: Jani H. Lahtinen <>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:31:22 +0200

ext John Nowak wrote:

> On Mar 13, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Jani H. Lahtinen wrote:
>> In case where features overlap, or when a new feature would be a
>> simple extension of existing ones, that is a good principle.
> I think it goes beyond that. There are only so many features you can
> cram into something before it becomes difficult maintain and
> difficult to use. Sometimes I think you just need to say, "This
> feature isn't necessary -- Let's leave it out." I personally think OS
> X (and much Mac software in general) is a great example of this.
> Despite what a lot of open source advocates say about feature bloat
> in Windows and commercial software in general, OSS projects are often
> the biggest offenders. I think the main reason for this is that it
> takes a tough man (or woman) in charge to say "no" when necessary.
> I'm glad Anselm can say no.

Well, it is hard (undecidable in fact) to determine what is necessary
and what is unnecessary. If being a real hard liner everything from the
kernel up (or even below that) is unnecessary "bloat". "Who needs
webbrowsers? You can view the html on the terminal."

>> I personally don't want any unnecessary graphics, but some might.
>> Would it be a good idea to have some place for storing such patches
>> for those who might want them (and leaving it for them to get them
>> actually compile)? ... or then not.
> This seems fair enough, provided that Anselm isn't expected to spend
> one minute making sure they work or maintaining them. To be honest
> though, I'd expect that they'd end up in such a state of disrepair
> that it isn't even worth cluttering the site with the link.

That is the idea, and yes it could lead to a page of messy
non-functional code. Like I said, I think wmii looks fine as it is.

Received on Tue Mar 14 2006 - 07:31:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:01:08 UTC