Re: how to save my setting of window maker

["Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps.net>]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:57:39 -0800, "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[snip]
> Hmm...Counts are all currently listed bugs, including wishlist and some
> marked fixed or forwarded.  Alpha order.
> 
>     9wm:            4
>     afterstep:      1
>     blackbox:      14
>     ctwm:           2
>     enlightenment: 25
>     fvwm1:          1
>     fvwm:          97 
>     gnome-panel:   33
>     icewm:         11
>     kdebase:       50
>     lwm:            1
>     qvwm:          14
>     sawfish:       23
>     twm:            3
>     uwm:            2
>     vtwm:           5
>     wmaker:        94
> 
> Counts for wmaker are high, but not out of line.  fvwm's higher, by a
> hair, though I'd not think that speaks for poor quality.  I'm not sure
> what an equivalent metric for KDE or GNOME would be, I've included one
> core package from each.  The total bugcount for sawfish plus gnome-panel
> approaches wmaker...does this mean GNOME's a piece of crap as well?

[snip]
 
> More pointedly:  the highest correlation I suspect is not between
> quality and bugcount, but use.  It's the seldom-seen window managers
> which have the fewest entries overall -- afterstep and lwm.

I would remark that afterstep is a fine windowmanager, and the last
time I built it from source there wasn't a single compiler warning ...
which may indicate something of it's quality.

Also, you neglected xfce/xfwm in your list.  It does well for folks
who like something lighter weight...

-- 
Eric G. Miller <egm2@jps.net>