On Thu, 06 Jul 2023 00:01:43 +1200 Miles Rout <mi...@rout.nz> wrote: > There is a page on the website advertising all the many patches available to > improve st and dwm. > Few if any other software projects provide that these days, and are offended > by forks.
Actually few if any other software projects NEED to be patched to provide basic ass functionality, like you know, SCROLLBACK BUFFERS IN A TERMINAL. That patch is an absolute joke, BTW--again, it calls malloc() for EVERY LINE of the scrollback buffer! It takes like a second just to open the terminal with a large scrollback buffer, vs sanely-designed Xterm which starts instantly! There's also few software packages out there (in the sane real world) that actually require you to EDIT THE SOURCE CODE AND RECOMPILE just to change basic options! Want to use a different font in different terminals for different purposes? Sorry, st doesn't support that feature, or ANY other features, AT ALL, unless you personally write a patch to do it. Garbage. > The suckless philosophy embraces forks and patches: Bzzt--WRONG. I suggested a fork of st on this list one time and was violently assaulted as if I was the enemy of mankind. That is the real world. You are living in a delusional fantasy. > Ok this is obviously just contrarian trolling, > nobody who has read xterm's source code > thinks it is any good. I read Xterm's source code, and I use it daily. It's my most used application by far. I KNOW that it is good. It beats the brakes off the useless, featureless piece of trash that is ST.
