Re: [wmii] stability question

From: Kris Maglione <>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:04:30 -0400

On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:36:23PM +0200, Khalil Petit wrote:
>In the last ten months, wmii made a lot of change, especially with
>wmii 3.1. Many things changed, default key-binding, config file,
>In fact i think wmii 3.1 is way better than wmii version 2,
>but i also think configuration file as well as key-binding need
>some more stability, or some more maturity.
The changes between wmii 3 and wmii 3.1 were mainly bug fixes and there were no
changes of default keybindings or interfaces. The changes in configuration and
keybindings were warranted because wmii 3 bears little resemblance to wmii 2.
They use very different window and workspace management paradigms. The other
ways in which the configuration system was changed were warranted by the fact
that the old system was far too complicated. There will be more significant
changes in wmii 4, mainly because there are serious defects in wmii 3 method
of configuration, but there will be no such changes to wmii 3 and the wmii 4
interfaces will remain consistent for the life of the major version also.

Note, also, that the interfaces are being simplified in future versions and
acclimating to the new interface should be simple for wmii users and totally
unnecessary for system administrators.

>Also, "Because dwm is customized through editing its source code,
>it's pointless to make binary packages of it. This keeps its
>userbase small and elitist." does that mean wmii is designed for
>low-level users ?

dwm has nothing to do with wmii. dwm was written specifically for the use of
garbeam and was made available for anyone else to whom it would be useful. It
is entirely unsupported and has no relation to wmii except a common code
ancestry. Do not confuse the two.

Kris Maglione
Machines that have broken down will work perfectly
when the repairman arrives.
Received on Tue Aug 08 2006 - 03:05:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:11:56 UTC