You misunderstood some of my comments.  Please allow me to clarify.

On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 02:47:15PM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> > I haven't seen anyone post anything about taking over ctwm, except that some
> > have offered to pay for its maintenance and some have offered a home for its
> > site...
> I rather think the "community" as a whole would be averse to letting it
> die  8-)
> And, I'd venture that as a whole the community of ctwm users is more
> serious and more technically knowledgeable than the community of most
> other window managers (though that could just be my own conceit).

Here I think you're right.  I'd say that those of us who use what many call
"minimalist" WMs have either been using *nix for decades or are very
technically oriented.

> With the number of people, and especially with the presence of sites like
> SourceForge (which has its own problems, but that's neither here nor
> there), we're unlikely to ever lack for space and bandwidth to host it.
> And with the users in general, we're unlikely to lack for maintenance,
> and probably not for people implementing new features.

Perhaps not.  I have technically minded, but graphics programming I have never
done.  I doubt I'd be very adept at doing it.  Now if we need Linux drivers I
might be able to do that! :)

> > I'm sure CTWM will be find to use as-is for some time to come.  However, with
> > the increase in GNOME and KDE apps and their desire for more functionality on
> > the desktop, ctwm will become obsolete someday.
> Pshaw.  If the ctwm "outlook" on UI functionality is "obsolete", just
> lock me up in the Tower of London   :)

I *only* meant that as the specs for WMs change that if ctwm is not modified
it will eventually become out of date.  Not many people use twm anymore, I'd
guess (but I've guessed wrong before...  :)  I certainly did *not* mean that
it is an archiac design or piece of software!  If some can take up the baton,
I will probably die with my window manager above my icon manager and 1" of
dust on my mouse... :)

> If I knew of a better WM, I'd be using it.  I've got patches on my
> webpage for the few things that ctwm didn't let me do that I wanted to,
> and a little script suite to handle the config files.  I did my searching
> for a 'better' WM that already did what I wanted, and I'm still here.
> Guess that about covers it.

I hear you!  And I have no intention of moving.  However, if I need to open
gnumeric or some other graphical app and it croaks becaue ctwm didn't
implement some part of a protocol, it's utility will lessen for me.

However, X11 on two VT's might cover stuff like that, too :)


In light of the terrorist attack on the U.S.:
        They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
        safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
                        -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Reply via email to