On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:17:39AM -0400, T L wrote:
> So my idea to boost marketing would be to have everyone write a blog post or
> two describing what wm they used before awesome--essentially a "why I
> switched" + "contrast and compare" article--and then another "first steps"
> with awesome or
Cool, thanks :)
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Remy CLOUARD wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:17:39AM -0400, T L wrote:
>> So my idea to boost marketing would be to have everyone write a blog post or
>> two describing what wm they used before awesome--essentially a "why I
>> switched" + "cont
Thank you Tim. That's one of the more helpful posts so far :)
Anyway, so it's good that JD will do the interview. If anyone else can
get us some actual hard contacts to do some publications, that'd be
great.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM, T L wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm also new to the community,
Hello,
I'm also new to the community, but I think this looks like really good
stuff--I would love to see more awesome users and more press/info about
awesome. I've been brainstorming and came up with the following:
1) The Wikipedia page seems key because of its very wide appeal, audience,
author
The name and website are exactly why I use awesome. It's OK to have a little
swagger. Don't change it.
- Mike
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> Andrei Thorp writes:
>
> > - With regards to this, it would be, again, if JD could give a bit
> > of time to answer some que
What kind of ideas does JD have for the new future website?, I am not pretty
sure if create some publishing or propaganda about awesome atfter have a new
website or before that.
I am not a very experienced web developer, actually I am not a web developer
but a developer but I would like to give a
Okay, guys.
I _understand_ that some people like the name and some people don't.
That's fine. And yes, it's a valid concern that it's hard to google
for and a bit arrogant.
But for the moment, this is like complaining about the position of the
radio volume knob of a car while trying to deal with
Andrei Thorp writes:
> - With regards to this, it would be, again, if JD could give a bit
> of time to answer some questions (or someone else if JD is just too
> busy)
I'm more than ok to answers questions by mail.
> - Julien, a long while back, put out a call for an overhaul of the
> webs
If there's one thing about this whole stuff that I have an opinion
about, it's this: I think the description on the website and such are a
bit over the top and sound IMHO a bit arrogant.
I mean the stuff like "extremely fast", "Very stable, fast and small
codebase and footprint" etc.
I personally
I agree the name is TOO generic, specially for the Newbies it's REALLY tough
to find documentation or anything about it.
Well, I'm sure they won't change the name because of me, but I'm sure if
they conduct some kind of poll, they'll notice a LOT of people think the
same way.
Thanks.
On Sat, Mar 1
On 03/13/2010 06:58 PM, Adam Nielsen wrote:
Perhaps if "Awesome" was only used as an abbreviation and the full name was
written as "AwesomeWM" wherever possible, it might make it easier for people
to find information about it?
The problem with this, of course, is that awm - the natural abbrevia
I like the name. At least it's not D (to stand for the programming
language).
On 13 March 2010 18:08, Bart Nagel wrote:
> At 2010-03-14 11:58:17 +1000, Adam Nielsen wrote:
> > I've only just started using Awesome so my opinion won't carry much
> weight,
> > but the most difficult thing I've foun
At 2010-03-14 11:58:17 +1000, Adam Nielsen wrote:
> I've only just started using Awesome so my opinion won't carry much weight,
> but the most difficult thing I've found to deal with is the name. "Awesome"
> is so generic it's next to impossible to find anything specific through search
> engines,
> But most notably, it has been very difficult
> to find a reputable source online that has reviewed Awesome in any
> way. Most press has been just blogs and nothing special. In fact,
> Awesome has terribly marketing in general.
I've only just started using Awesome so my opinion won't carry much w
Hello,
So as many of you know, Awesome's Wikipedia page was deleted[1] for
really dubious reasons. But most notably, it has been very difficult
to find a reputable source online that has reviewed Awesome in any
way. Most press has been just blogs and nothing special. In fact,
Awesome has terribly
15 matches
Mail list logo
