From debian-devel@pixar.com Thu Feb 17 13:05:44 1994
Received: from mongo.pixar.com by thorplus.lib.purdue.edu (4.1/Purdue_CC)
id AA18234; Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:05:37 EST
Received: from mongo by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0pXD1Z-0007jXa; Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:00 PST
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:00 PST
Message-Id: <199402171800.NAA17311@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Errors-To: bruce@pixar.com
Reply-To: imurdock@shell.portal.com
Originator: debian-devel@pixar.com
Sender: debian-devel@pixar.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Ian A Murdock < imurdock@shell.portal.com>
To: mdickey@thorplus.lib.purdue.edu
Subject: twm
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
Was my removal of twm from Debian a bad idea? Should I perhaps
re-include it in 0.92?
(For those of you who don't know, I removed twm in favor of fvwm. I
still want to use fvwm as the default window manager, but twm could
still be included for those X users who expect it...)
Ian
From debian-devel@pixar.com Thu Feb 17 19:24:42 1994
Received: from mongo.pixar.com by thorplus.lib.purdue.edu (4.1/Purdue_CC)
id AA22352; Thu, 17 Feb 94 19:24:39 EST
Received: from mongo by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0pXIwN-0005Yoa; Thu, 17 Feb 94 16:19 PST
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 16:19 PST
Message-Id: <199402180014.LAA28121@extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Errors-To: bruce@pixar.com
Reply-To: matth@ucc.su.oz.au
Originator: debian-devel@pixar.com
Sender: debian-devel@pixar.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Matthew Hannigan < matth@ucc.su.oz.au>
To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Subject: Re: twm
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
I think twm should be included -- it is the standard wm for X,
after all i.e. the only one which the X developers themselves write
and update. (isn't it?). I myself have only ever used twm,
ol{v,}wm and mwm -- never touched fvwm.
-Matt
PS. oh yeah I once used uwm - cringe!
From debian-devel@pixar.com Thu Feb 17 19:49:12 1994
Received: from mongo.pixar.com by thorplus.lib.purdue.edu (4.1/Purdue_CC)
id AA22450; Thu, 17 Feb 94 19:49:06 EST
Received: from mongo by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0pXJK2-0007mga; Thu, 17 Feb 94 16:43 PST
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 16:43 PST
Message-Id: <9402180037.AA22324@odin.ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: bruce@pixar.com
Reply-To: imcclogh@cs.ucsd.edu
Originator: debian-devel@pixar.com
Sender: debian-devel@pixar.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Ian McCloghrie < imcclogh@cs.ucsd.edu>
To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Subject: Re: twm
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
On Feb 17, 1994 Matthew Hannigan wrote:
>
> I think twm should be included -- it is the standard wm for X,
> after all i.e. the only one which the X developers themselves write
> and update. (isn't it?). I myself have only ever used twm,
> ol{v,}wm and mwm -- never touched fvwm.
Yes, I agree, twm should be included. Personally, I'd like to see
tvtwm in there as well (that's what I use) but that may be a bit much.
(If you're not familiar with it, tvtwm is twm with a virtual desktop
and the provision than it pipes the .tvtwmrc file through m4 before it
loads it)
--
/~> Ian McCloghrie | FLUG: FurryMUCK Linux User's Group
< < /~\ |~\ |~> | | <~ | email: ian@ucsd.edu Net/2, USL 0!
\_> \_/ |_/ |~\ |__| _> | Card Carrying Member, UCSD Secret Islandia Club
GCS (!)d-(--) p c++ l++(+++) u+ e-(soon) m+ s+/+ n+(-) h- f+ !g w+ t+ r y*
From debian-devel@pixar.com Mon Feb 21 08:08:52 1994
Received: from mongo.pixar.com by thorplus.lib.purdue.edu (4.1/Purdue_CC)
id AA08273; Mon, 21 Feb 94 08:08:49 EST
Received: from mongo by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0pYaIT-0007tja; Mon, 21 Feb 94 05:03 PST
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 05:03 PST
Message-Id: < m0pXvGg-0002dGC.ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu>
Errors-To: bruce@pixar.com
Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Originator: debian-devel@pixar.com
Sender: debian-devel@pixar.com
Precedence: bulk
From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Subject: Re: twm
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
Ian Murduck wrote:
>Was my removal of twm from Debian a bad idea? Should I perhaps
>re-include it in 0.92?
Yes, it was a very bad idea, I'm afraid. I should be put back.
>(For those of you who don't know, I removed twm in favor of fvwm. I
>still want to use fvwm as the default window manager, but twm could
>still be included for those X users who expect it...)
twm is the "standard" X window manager and should be included. If you
don't you'll get zillions of people sayin "omigod, what a broken
distribution - look, it doesn't even have twm!".
Removing one application in favour of another different application
preferred by a different set of people or in different situations is
in general a bad idea.
What if you were to remove vi in favour of joe ?! less in favour of
more ?! Emacs in favour of vi ?!! That way lies madness, and
gigantic flamewars ...
You should not try to be the arbiter of which one of a number of
different pieces of software is `best', unless of course one (or both)
of the programs is broken - of course there shouldn't be any broken
software in Debian.
Ian.