According to Scott Perlman:
> Bjorn Knutsson did state upon Fri, May 14, 1999 at 07:28:14AM +0200:
> > See, if you do that, you suddenly start playing catch up with other KDE/Gnome
> > window managers. What I like about ctwm is that it does the tricks I need from
> > a window manager, but without a lot of the fluff that's been creeping into most
> > other WMs. Sure, there is still room for improvement. E.g. I'd really like to
> > see better keyboard control. But I'd really like it if ctwm stayed as lean as
> > possible.
>
> Echoed strongly.
>
> If CTWM goes the bloat route trying to patch in every whizbang feature,
> and fluff, I'll just stay with what I've got, and port 3.5 when I need to.
>
> ctwm is functional, not gaudy. If you want gaud, you're not going to
> consider ctwm without a major re-write, and if you want lean and mean
> you aren't going to consider ctwm afterwards.
>
> ctwm is one of the only WMs left that is still just a WM, without trying
> to be all things to all people. I'd prefer keeping it that way.
>
Agreed. ctwm is for those who want to get work done. I
would not be in favor of adding much to the base distribution.
It's already got more functionality that most of us use.
The question I have is integration into one of the extant
integrated environments. KDE and Gnome *have* window managers,
but are not (as I understand it) window managers per sé.
gary
-- Gary D. Kline kline@tao.thought.org Public service uNix
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Jun 22 2002 - 06:45:05 CEST