On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim <jfs.wo...@gmail.com> wrote: > hm. I see. So your argument was to disown wmii, because this *specific* > configuration - and NOT wmii itself - requires ruby. Alright.
No, I want to disown wmii because it's a bloated >30ksloc monstrosity that engenders other lesser monstrosities, such as this ruby idiocy. There is nothing "suckless" about any aspect of modern wmii and I can't wait for it to go away from here. -- # Kurt H Maier
