On 7 November 2011 21:34, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote: > It is not about adding something real. Suckless should stay as-is, > but clarify (as done in this thread) its ideals – as you try to, too. > Such rules then can be used to define what »suckless« really is. > But the question is, if »suckless« is the environment or a new > »suckless desktop environment« term is needed to subsume only the > desktop part of suckless?
Hmm, what's wrong with simply seeing suckless as a philosophy or best practice in software design? > Are there enough hints spread everywhere, so the right users will > get our true words of wisdom? It's all about a good portion of suckless Masonry that others figure out ;) > To get back to the what stanio said: Are we[1] dying out, are we > growing or do we simply not care? We don't care imho. Cheers, Anselm
