On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:57:39 -0800, "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip] > Hmm...Counts are all currently listed bugs, including wishlist and some > marked fixed or forwarded. Alpha order. > > 9wm: 4 > afterstep: 1 > blackbox: 14 > ctwm: 2 > enlightenment: 25 > fvwm1: 1 > fvwm: 97 > gnome-panel: 33 > icewm: 11 > kdebase: 50 > lwm: 1 > qvwm: 14 > sawfish: 23 > twm: 3 > uwm: 2 > vtwm: 5 > wmaker: 94 > > Counts for wmaker are high, but not out of line. fvwm's higher, by a > hair, though I'd not think that speaks for poor quality. I'm not sure > what an equivalent metric for KDE or GNOME would be, I've included one > core package from each. The total bugcount for sawfish plus gnome-panel > approaches wmaker...does this mean GNOME's a piece of crap as well? [snip] > More pointedly: the highest correlation I suspect is not between > quality and bugcount, but use. It's the seldom-seen window managers > which have the fewest entries overall -- afterstep and lwm. I would remark that afterstep is a fine windowmanager, and the last time I built it from source there wasn't a single compiler warning ... which may indicate something of it's quality. Also, you neglected xfce/xfwm in your list. It does well for folks who like something lighter weight... -- Eric G. Miller <egm2@jps.net>
