<i>&gt; Can&#x27;t agree with that.</i><p>You don&#x27;t have to. When I first found out about the suckless project, it seemed completely inaccessible, due to the lack of in-depth documentation. After reading around a bit, it seems intentional. My impression was that suckless doesn&#x27;t aim for quantity, but for quality, even among its userbase, hence the lack of documentation is an entry barrier, a minimum of technical literacy required to get in. Look at the source and you don&#x27;t need a wiki. My gut reaction says, that&#x27;s quite elitist - which itself is negatively connoted when everyone aims for widespread adoption and usability. In the end, I agree with this idea. Software is supposed to serve a purpose. It doesn&#x27;t have to suit everyone. It can be for a selected few, and still be a great project. What changed my mind was that dwm doesn&#x27;t use configuration files. I came from openbox and more than once broke the menu because of a syntax error in the xml-based config. In dwm, you change the source config and recompile. This way, any and all errors are returned to you, you can fix it and try again, without ever risking any configuration issues or breakages. They do the same with st, their terminal. I&#x27;m absolutely convinced by this approach.