> > I take a practical approach. I use simple programs when > > they do the job well, and more complex programs when > > they get the job done better. Sometimes a simple program > > can be useful for certain jobs, such as ones involving > > shell scripting, whereas a complex program may be more > > useful for example in other applications, such as using > > Solidworks for engineering work. LaTeX is certainly a > > bloated monstrosity, but the damn thing is useful for a > > lot of different tasks. > > > > People on this email list tend to go to an extreme in > > favoring simplicity above all else, which is why they > > release dumpster fires like the ST terminal emulator for > > example which has absolutely no features at all, is > > riddled with bugs and compatibility problems, and > > requires extensive patching to add in any useful > > features. The developers are also basement-dwelling > > losers, total raging assholes who take personal offense > > to the suggestion that their code should be better > > commented or that someone might fork the code to make an > > improved version. > > > > I tried ST for a time before realizing it was trash and > > just switched back to Xterm, the gold standard of > > functional X11 terminal emulators, which the ST > > developers talked shit about, calling "bloated" in their > > documentation, and saying the code wasn't good. Actually > > it is not bloated, the code quality is much higher than > > ST (and is actually commented!), It Just Works(TM), and > > it's noticeably faster as well when ST is patched with > > the juvenile "scrollback buffer support" > > implementation--which calls malloc() once for every > > line(!) of the scrollback buffer. > > > > Take anything that a religious cult member says with a > > grain of salt. > > > > Dave > > Oof, I feel like that's gonna start one hell of a flame war > right now. > > About suckless's software. Personally, I've got an > impression that it's not about personal use. Like, you > aren't really expected to install ST as you main and > everyday terminal. These programs are more of a collection > of tools that should be combined and embedded as a > foundation for something bigger. > > Firefox will always be better than surf, it just will. But > replacing Firefox is not what surf should strive for. It's > more of a tool for situations when you need an ability to > embed a website and full-blown Firefox or Chrome will be an > overkill. > > That said, if there are any compatibility problems _(which > there probably are, since why shouldn't there be any > compatibility problems when your main goal when writing > software is to make it as small as possible)_ than that kind > of ruins the whole purpose of all of this... > > -- > Nikita >
Very well said! Different people care about different things. Some might want security, robustness and other values that come with suckless/minimalistic software, and that might be fine for some people, and for some it might not, so, that's why patches exist, so go and use them and/or make your own? Don't like it? Too bad, it doesn't like you, either :P But seriously: not everyone will like anything you make, and I think that suckless software is THE FUTURE! In fact, I believe in it so much, that I dream of an entire OS mess lik eit (patches and shit) :P Main concern of mine would be I guess security and stuff.. But I guess micro-kernel and whoopsie-daysies I need to go haha
