Hi, I have been using ion for 2 years, thanks for the great work :) I must admit I recently switched to dwm, which is a really light wm.
I still use riot, waiting for any new improvements! Lobzang On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 02:02 -0800, Michael Vanier wrote: > As everyone knows, real Ion users compile from source ;-) If you need a > distro > to manage Ion installation, maybe you should consider some other WM...? > > BTW thanks for a great window manager. Now I'm ruined forever; all the other > WMs have so much eye candy I feel like I'm going to go into insulin shock > whenever I try them. > > Mike > > Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > > I'm sick of distributions providing ancient development snapshots, that > > their lusers think is the latest, and come crying to me about. Since > > Debian appears to refuse [1,2] to remove the ancient Ion3 development > > snapshot that they have (20061223, the last release with totally broken > > Xinerama support) from the new static (so called "stable") distribution, > > I will be refusing to deal with the average Debian luser, just like I > > can't be bothered to deal with the average Gentoo luser. Sucks though > > that already filtering out these lusers from the complaining masses is > > a lot of work. Sucks that the first question to everyone must be "which > > version and distro you're using" -- and it's usually the people who've > > installed Ion from a distribution, that are using old unsupported > > development snapshots. (Actually, maybe I should just stop supporting > > anyone who has not installed Ion from the official tarball. Let the > > distros support their own lusers.) > > > > I'm also considering extending the license (LGPL) with a "Distributor > > timely response clause", something like the following (D). It could > > make Ion "non-free", but I don't care about these idealists' definitions > > of freeness. > > > > D. Anyone distributing Ion3 in aggregate with other works, must > > within twenty-eight (28) days from the release of a new version > > of Ion3, either (A) upgrade the aggregate to include the new > > version, and cause the new version be installed when a user tries > > to install an unspecified version of Ion3, or upgrade Ion3 (from the > > aggregate); or (B) remove Ion3 from the aggregate, and notify users > > of the removal, when they try to upgrade the aggregate or Ion3 (from > > the aggregate) and have installed an old version of Ion3. (It is, > > however, not necessary to remove Ion3 from the user's computer; > > merely notify of its out-datedness.) > > > > The requirements above on responses to user actions do not apply, > > if the user is not network-connected, or chooses not to use network > > installation, and is using physical distribution media. > > > > This clause does not bind any rebranded derivative works, that can > > not be confused with Ion3: that is, any derivative work whose name > > can not be confused with "Ion3", and which in in no way points > > to the original work or its authors for support, may be distributed > > under the LGPL or GPL without this clause. > > > > (Perhaps this should be combined with a clause that forbids > > distributors from applying unsupported/unapproved patches... > > like Xft... Too bad that due to the nature of Gentoo ebuilds, > > it probably doesn't work against them.) > > > > Too bad that Ion3 is going into a freeze too soon, so that the > > benefit of the clause would be minimal, as it doesn't work > > retroactively. But if that wasn't the case, I'd certainly add it. > > I'm sick of sloppy distributors and mega-frozen distributions, > > and the lusers who think they're using the latest version because > > of them. > > > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413469 > > > > [2] > > http://www.inittab.de/blog/debian/20070305_giving-away-ion-packages.html > >
