| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Openbox: A lightweight window manager (Linux.com)
Openbox: A lightweight window manager (Linux.com)
Posted Feb 3, 2006 0:39 UTC (Fri) by grouch (subscriber, #27289)In reply to: Openbox: A lightweight window manager (Linux.com) by carlos
Parent article: Openbox: A lightweight window manager (Linux.com)
"We should ..."
Please, have at it. No one is stopping you and statues will be erected in your honor if you create the projects in your wish-list. In the meantime, enjoy the bounty and variety of software that has been generously shared with the world by its developers.
Or would you enslave such generous developers and force them to follow your One True Path to software perfection?
(Log in to post comments)
Openbox: A lightweight window manager (Linux.com)
Posted Feb 4, 2006 23:40 UTC (Sat) by carlos (guest, #3066) [Link]
I wrote already more than 180,000 lines of GPL C code, so I am contributing my fair share :-)
Openbox: A lightweight window manager (Linux.com)
Posted Feb 7, 2006 8:57 UTC (Tue) by grouch (subscriber, #27289) [Link]
Naturally, all of those contributed lines were within the rigid constraints and directed toward the goals you proposed above weren't they? Surely you didn't contribute to the chaos of variety.
You scratch your itch and I'll scratch mine and if they happen to coincide with the itches of other people, that's wonderful. Combine those efforts with the multitude of projects which are funded and directed, and you get the current multiverse of software solutions.
This is not a bad thing. It does not need correcting. It does not need artificial, dictated throttling to conform to some person or committee's idea of what software should accomplish.
There are a great many GPL text editors because people wanted to create a great many; each originator and maintainer felt a need that was not previously satisfied. There are not so many GPL operating system kernels because not so many felt a need to start one or advance one.
Your vision of limitation inherent in your "we should" rant does not match mine. Apparently, it doesn't match many others, either. Perhaps, someday, in each of the areas you want limited, a single solution will evolve that satisfies most needs. Chaotic variety will reign until that time.