There's still bitrot on the X.org side even if your DM is maintained

Only on systemd/logind systems. Bitrot doesn't just happen, it caused by your dependencies considering your usecases obsolete.

Oh, so only on systems running the standard stack that 90% of Linux systems run then. Nope, no bitrot here.

Always the same lies...

I see no contradiction? Bitrot is caused by some other project moving. Of course the niche projects will suffer less from it if they incorporate less innovations.

Edit: You really do like calling other people liars and fascists?

We have a liar problem, and it turns out a fascist problem, when it comes to the X vs. Wayland kerfuffle, which shouldn't even be a thing.

Your level of antagonism is unwarranted.

> All of the X11 based WMs are slowly bit-rotting.

was the statement I was replying to. In 10 years of using dwm I've not been aware of any bitrot that affects me. Certainly nome in the WM itself.

I know what you mean, but there is bitrot. I'm currently trying dwm. Zero out of the three patches I downloaded from the website applied successfully. I'd call that bitrot.

Not sure how much I like "hand-write your own code from snippets" as a way to configure software.

One advantage of the patches not working is that manually applying a patch (usually quite simple) brings you some familiarity with the code. In my case this let me make my own modifications that were not available as patches. Altering window manager code is fun!

And while you have a good point, I don’t think this is what most people have in mind when they use the term “bitrot” (but I could be wrong). I say this because dwm as supplied continues to work perfectly without modification. The patches are enhancements contributed by third parties (as far as I know) and, as you’ve discovered, are not maintained.

(Also, once you have a working, patched dwm, it should continue to work forever, even if the patches that you used may no apply automatically to future versions of the base dwm.)