On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> Anselm,
>
> Any word on a timetable for disowning wmii? This is a four-hundred
> line configuration that requires a 1600-line library, not to mention
> an entire extra programming language.
>
> To manage x11 windows.
>
>
what does that even m
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim
> wrote:
> > what does that even mean? wmii *requires* ruby? Never heard of that.
>
> This configuration requires ruby. Try to keep up.
>
>
hm. I see. S
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim
> wrote:
> > hm. I see. So your argument was to disown wmii, because this *specific*
> > configuration - and NOT wmii itself - requires ruby. Alright.
>
>
On 11 Nov 2011 04:30, "Anselm R Garbe" wrote:
>
> On 8 November 2011 07:28, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
>
> > And how is "modern" wmii different from its, let's say, "pre-modern"
> > phase? From my view, it still uses the Plan9 protocol and the Plan9
> > approach of exposing a virtual filesystem fo
