Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
Laslo Hunhold wrote: > I used to be more open towards "more user-friendliness" a few years ago, > but realized that if you look at modern users, most of them are > unwilling to invest time and effort into getting something to work and > expect too much from others in terms of support and guidance. > Initiatives to "open up" such things are noble in their motivations, > but actually make things worse. Spot on. For me "user-friendly" means "straightforward once learned". Unix is, as such, user-friendly. suckless too. -- caóc
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
> I don’t think it makes sense for the suckless guys to try trimming down that > bloated mess (Linux kernel). > > To be honest I’m wondering if the love they give OpenBSD, as a desktop OS, is > misplaced. OpenBSD is 22M lines if you include the entirety of the files, and > 16M counting just the lines with code on them. Granted I think that number is > across the whole base distribution which makes it smaller than the Linux > kernel alone. But OpenBSD is still REALLY fat compared to operating systems > of the past. FreeDOS is ~50k lines, and then there are things like KolibriOS > to consider. > > I don’t know if you guys have seen this, but I’d like to share a video from > YT that I think is appropriate for this group: > > watch?v=kZRE7HIO3vk > That video is pure gold! I'll revise my article wrt OpenBSD but it's the least evil when seen wrt usability. I doubt it's that gigantic though! How do you visualize the solution? Writing from scratch targeting an embedded board? Thanks Sagar Acharya
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
pon., 12 kwi 2021 o 20:36 Sagar Acharya napisał(a): > > > > > I don’t think it makes sense for the suckless guys to try trimming down > > that bloated mess (Linux kernel). > > > > To be honest I’m wondering if the love they give OpenBSD, as a desktop OS, > > is misplaced. OpenBSD is 22M lines if you include the entirety of the > > files, and 16M counting just the lines with code on them. Granted I think > > that number is across the whole base distribution which makes it smaller > > than the Linux kernel alone. Linux: drivers: > 700 MB arch: > 135 MB Docs: > 50 MB tools etc: > 42 MB fs: > 42 MB kernel? 11 MB! What is your arch? x86? It's <15 MB. arm64? 13 MB. >32 MB its 32bit arm.. Android? Can be deleted. The only archs we may be interested in are x86(_64), arm64 and power64. The rest is for cross-compilations. Docs? Can be deleted. fs? ext4 is ~1.7 MB. Do you need heavy file systems (xfs, btrfs)? If not, can be deleted. Drivers. net > 100 MB. But do you need drivers for expensive low-latency server network cards on your laptop or home workstation? You can always compile such a driver outside of the kernel. gpu >250 MB. In many cases it can be deleted as well. So if you only choose what a typical user may actually be interested in, such a striped-down kernel may be less than 100-150 MB or ~10-15 MB as gz or xz. Updates? It is not that difficult. The rule is simple: if it doesn't touch the remaining code, skip it. > But OpenBSD is still REALLY fat If I remember correctly, version 3.8 was the last one with the minimal option. Later it was only fatter and fatter. OpenBSD is no longer a lightweight solution. It's probably easier to configure Linux kernel than to do a lightweight OpenBSD installation (perl for pkg, clang/llvm etc). See sta.li/morpheus or Oasis Linux. > compared to operating systems of the past. FreeDOS is ~50k lines, and then > there are things like KolibriOS to consider. > > ...and Haiku, Plan 9/9front etc. etc. Does it have drivers for modern hardware? Daniel > > I don’t know if you guys have seen this, but I’d like to share a video from > > YT that I think is appropriate for this group: > > > > watch?v=kZRE7HIO3vk > > > That video is pure gold! > > I'll revise my article wrt OpenBSD but it's the least evil when seen wrt > usability. I doubt it's that gigantic though! How do you visualize the > solution? Writing from scratch targeting an embedded board? > > Thanks > Sagar Acharya >
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
I too agree with Hiltjo. I don't think suckless is Linux oriented. At the time of writing that article, I thought Linux and BSD are the only 2 usable kernels. Practically it seems so, but recently I saw microkernel vs monolithic kernel debate and got interested in seL4. I'm not sure whether it's usable yet or not. wrt unnecessary things being deleted, Linux has more than 1.6M lines so think about for how much time you'd have to think what's necessary and what not? (writing the script which you pointed) Thanking you Sagar Acharya https://designman.org
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
> On Apr 11, 2021, at 11:22 PM, Daniel Cegiełka > wrote: > >> Choose an OS which has a small kernel and other minimal software >> that you need. (OpenBSD is the only one I can see here today) > > suckless is strongly Linux-oriented - musl, ubase, smdev, nldev, nlmon > > I wonder if it would make sense to make a little Linux kernel. > Everything that is unnecessary could be deleted. And yes, this > sounds controversial, but for example: > > https://github.com/michaelforney/linux-headers/tree/master/scripts > > Daniel > > > >> On 9 Apr 2021, at 14:54, Sagar Acharya wrote: >> >> I recently wrote this article >> >> https://designman.org/sagaracharya/blog/trusting_no_one >> >> being absolutely unaware about suckless and this was brought to my attention. >> >> Suckless's philosophy is hands down amazing and crucial wrt computer >> security. Although I'd like to point out 1 aspect. Why does suckless target >> very sophisticated users? If it shuns trying to go after elitist users, it >> can improve computer security of people all around the world and also >> themselves, since if others are secure, you yourself will become even more >> secure! >> >> For it, there would be few requirements. Free software, minimal, easy to >> use, beautiful to look at (by default). I guess the latter 2 are lagging a >> bit. >> >> Thanking you >> -- >> Sagar Acharya >> https://designman.org >> >> P.S. Shifted completely to dwm this week. Can't even think of anything >> theoretically better than this! >> > I don’t think it makes sense for the suckless guys to try trimming down that bloated mess (Linux kernel). To be honest I’m wondering if the love they give OpenBSD, as a desktop OS, is misplaced. OpenBSD is 22M lines if you include the entirety of the files, and 16M counting just the lines with code on them. Granted I think that number is across the whole base distribution which makes it smaller than the Linux kernel alone. But OpenBSD is still REALLY fat compared to operating systems of the past. FreeDOS is ~50k lines, and then there are things like KolibriOS to consider. I don’t know if you guys have seen this, but I’d like to share a video from YT that I think is appropriate for this group: watch?v=kZRE7HIO3vk Cheers, Edward
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 08:22:18AM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > > Choose an OS which has a small kernel and other minimal software > > that you need. (OpenBSD is the only one I can see here today) > > suckless is strongly Linux-oriented - musl, ubase, smdev, nldev, nlmon > No, there are also many other tools (dwm, dmenu, st) etc which are not Linux-oriented. The userbase is probably mostly Linux-oriented, but that's something different. musl is a nice project (imho) but not part of suckless.org itself. > I wonder if it would make sense to make a little Linux kernel. > Everything that is unnecessary could be deleted. And yes, this > sounds controversial, but for example: > > https://github.com/michaelforney/linux-headers/tree/master/scripts > > Daniel > > > > > On 9 Apr 2021, at 14:54, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > > > I recently wrote this article > > > > https://designman.org/sagaracharya/blog/trusting_no_one > > > > being absolutely unaware about suckless and this was brought to my > > attention. > > > > Suckless's philosophy is hands down amazing and crucial wrt computer > > security. Although I'd like to point out 1 aspect. Why does suckless target > > very sophisticated users? If it shuns trying to go after elitist users, it > > can improve computer security of people all around the world and also > > themselves, since if others are secure, you yourself will become even more > > secure! > > > > For it, there would be few requirements. Free software, minimal, easy to > > use, beautiful to look at (by default). I guess the latter 2 are lagging a > > bit. > > > > Thanking you > > -- > > Sagar Acharya > > https://designman.org > > > > P.S. Shifted completely to dwm this week. Can't even think of anything > > theoretically better than this! > > > -- Kind regards, Hiltjo
[dev] Completeness suckless
> Choose an OS which has a small kernel and other minimal software > that you need. (OpenBSD is the only one I can see here today) suckless is strongly Linux-oriented - musl, ubase, smdev, nldev, nlmon I wonder if it would make sense to make a little Linux kernel. Everything that is unnecessary could be deleted. And yes, this sounds controversial, but for example: https://github.com/michaelforney/linux-headers/tree/master/scripts Daniel > On 9 Apr 2021, at 14:54, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > I recently wrote this article > > https://designman.org/sagaracharya/blog/trusting_no_one > > being absolutely unaware about suckless and this was brought to my attention. > > Suckless's philosophy is hands down amazing and crucial wrt computer > security. Although I'd like to point out 1 aspect. Why does suckless target > very sophisticated users? If it shuns trying to go after elitist users, it > can improve computer security of people all around the world and also > themselves, since if others are secure, you yourself will become even more > secure! > > For it, there would be few requirements. Free software, minimal, easy to use, > beautiful to look at (by default). I guess the latter 2 are lagging a bit. > > Thanking you > -- > Sagar Acharya > https://designman.org > > P.S. Shifted completely to dwm this week. Can't even think of anything > theoretically better than this! >
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
>Whats stopping you from doing it? - Hiltjo Can't do it alone! It's a huge task. I can contribute somewhat. I'm currently working on a thing which is much more important wrt computer security! But I gotta do it. Point taken. Sagar
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 08:14:08AM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > >I say that coming from one of the best universities in France; I didn't have > >very much respect left for the word "scientist" when I left > Same here. Exactly same! But they for sure are intelligent. One of the key > things in capitalism is getting tamed by the powerful. Majority of these > geniuses don't know how their work impacts the world! They get tamed by > people who work against their own principles just because knowing their > tamer's principles is difficult! > > >Now try bspwm > Damn that's good! Very simple logic. But I'll stick to dwm for now. Check it > after a while. > > >Where would you say their capacities are lacking? > Most don't have the logical abilities. Amongst ones who do, many don't want > to read in times of videos. They want instant gratification. For few it is > also about power. You suggest them to use dwm. They'll think they're above > you socially and won't use it. This maybe a bit biased but 1 thing I know for > sure, that people are far, very far away from using minimal systems. > > >The practical knowledge of computer science comes from experience in a > >consumer-driven, market environment. Academia is not that environment. > +1. > > >A lot of people had a take for a user-friendlier dwm, you should try those, > >or similar wms with "battery pack included" like i3 or awesome. > Again, I'm not talking about dwm specifically. i3wm is a single wm and while > it's good, I think suckless can target COMPLETE systems. It's philosophy is > great. > > >We believe this should become the mainstream philosophy in the IT sector. - > >On suckless site. > This IT sector is constantly making things easier for people or atleast > making people believe it is. If suckless wants this to become mainstream > philosophy, it has to do itself. People don't wanna change especially when > computers are just the tools to achieve some end. > > If suckless makes it easy for people to use minimalistic systems, they will. > I shifted from complete windows to dual boot to complete GNU/Linux (Parrot > Linux) to Parabola (Plasma) to Parabola (dwm) in about 3 years. I can't > imagine shifting directly to current state. I would get frustrated and go > back to Windows if someone would ask me to get to this point from complete > Windows. But if there were tutorials explaning why would you use wm instead > of de, wm were a bit more beautiful, things would be much simpler. Plasma is > hands down beautiful! But it's very complex! > > Thanking you > Sagar Acharya > https://designman.org > > P.S. I'd love to contribute. > Whats stopping you from doing it? -- Kind regards, Hiltjo
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
>I say that coming from one of the best universities in France; I didn't have >very much respect left for the word "scientist" when I left Same here. Exactly same! But they for sure are intelligent. One of the key things in capitalism is getting tamed by the powerful. Majority of these geniuses don't know how their work impacts the world! They get tamed by people who work against their own principles just because knowing their tamer's principles is difficult! >Now try bspwm Damn that's good! Very simple logic. But I'll stick to dwm for now. Check it after a while. >Where would you say their capacities are lacking? Most don't have the logical abilities. Amongst ones who do, many don't want to read in times of videos. They want instant gratification. For few it is also about power. You suggest them to use dwm. They'll think they're above you socially and won't use it. This maybe a bit biased but 1 thing I know for sure, that people are far, very far away from using minimal systems. >The practical knowledge of computer science comes from experience in a >consumer-driven, market environment. Academia is not that environment. +1. >A lot of people had a take for a user-friendlier dwm, you should try those, or >similar wms with "battery pack included" like i3 or awesome. Again, I'm not talking about dwm specifically. i3wm is a single wm and while it's good, I think suckless can target COMPLETE systems. It's philosophy is great. >We believe this should become the mainstream philosophy in the IT sector. - On >suckless site. This IT sector is constantly making things easier for people or atleast making people believe it is. If suckless wants this to become mainstream philosophy, it has to do itself. People don't wanna change especially when computers are just the tools to achieve some end. If suckless makes it easy for people to use minimalistic systems, they will. I shifted from complete windows to dual boot to complete GNU/Linux (Parrot Linux) to Parabola (Plasma) to Parabola (dwm) in about 3 years. I can't imagine shifting directly to current state. I would get frustrated and go back to Windows if someone would ask me to get to this point from complete Windows. But if there were tutorials explaning why would you use wm instead of de, wm were a bit more beautiful, things would be much simpler. Plasma is hands down beautiful! But it's very complex! Thanking you Sagar Acharya https://designman.org P.S. I'd love to contribute.
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 08:14:08AM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > If suckless wants this to become mainstream philosophy That's where the fallacy is. I suppose suckless devs aren't naive and simply know that people aren't the same (dare I say "not equal"), so they simply make software for themselves and people like themselves.
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
2021-04-09 18:24 GMT, Sagar Acharya : > It doesn't need to be complex. Few things make enormous impact like choosing > good font, size of bars, color, connecting icons with programs, good battery > and datetime displays. A simple 1 line script can run in the background. One > would just take few important elements of User experience and add them here. > I'm just talking wrt dwm here but I mean this at all levels. Few important > UI elements should be taken care of. dwm is just a window manager. > I guess this is where I diverge, user centric things always work better and > have more power. Users come in many shapes and sizes, for example "hackers", "programmers", and "clients". Nobody who at least a bit care for his/her mental hygiene should start coding anything to build a project aimed for the general public or "to succeed" in some software arms race, bringing his/her software to fit any present or future use-case. I think that wouldn't be a good idea even in exchange for a really bountiful paycheck. It's because you end with dealing with power dynamics between people, concede, fight, persuade, befriend, you may still bring out of this diplomacy game the perfect software, but most of those who partake end up poisoned, producing worse software and/or disliking more and more the production of software. > One can always add a few more simple things, keeping > minimalism of suckless intact. One can create dwmd (dwm for dumb) with few > more features. A lot of people had a take for a user-friendlier dwm, you should try those, or similar wms with "battery pack included" like i3 or awesome. After that, if "the market" hasn't anything for you, fire up the editor and hack on dwm. Don't take this as a "go away": what i'm suggesting for you is to understand that this graphical interface is twenty-something years old (counting wmii), so it would be really hard to come up with a really novel and miraculous concept upon dwm. > Majority of the people in this world are never going to bother with creating > their own code. I have studied Engineering Physics at IIT Delhi. There, > Computer Science guys are insane geniuses. They don't bother to set their > system up. Very few do. Most use dual boot Ubuntu and Windows. Now that I > have completed my Bachelor degree, I do not know a single person in my > surroundings who uses GNU/Linux or BSD OSes. Using wm on this is way off! > How would someone with no basic logical skills would do this? They won't. That's what windows, mac os, or a FLOSS OS with GNOME/Enlightenment/Elementary are for. Conquer any heart in this world for dwm + shell scripts is of no use.
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
>interesting article! Thanks >I think, the user's turn to try to understand them to the fullest, even if it means learning a bit of a programming language. - Laslo Majority of users in this world would never learn a low level programming language like C. They are incapable. > The solution in the case of a simple program is exact and textual, easily > transmitted in digital form or pronounced, compared to the difficulty of > having to describe where exactly, and how to click in a GUI. - > cont...@strahinja.org It doesn't need to be complex. Few things make enormous impact like choosing good font, size of bars, color, connecting icons with programs, good battery and datetime displays. A simple 1 line script can run in the background. One would just take few important elements of User experience and add them here. I'm just talking wrt dwm here but I mean this at all levels. Few important UI elements should be taken care of. >Security isn't the main point of suckless, it's only a consequence of clean >and simple code. - Hadrien I guess this is where I diverge, user centric things always work better and have more power. One can always add a few more simple things, keeping minimalism of suckless intact. One can create dwmd (dwm for dumb) with few more features. >The main point is to empower people, but not through the spoon-feeding and >shoestring-tying the FSF likes so much, but by helping those who help >themselves. That's how you get actual "computer freedom", by being able to >program and fullfill more and more of your needs/wants. suckless programs are >made to fit this mindset: simple enough to be modified and built around the >UNIX philosophy of use with other simple programs. - Hadrien Majority of the people in this world are never going to bother with creating their own code. I have studied Engineering Physics at IIT Delhi. There, Computer Science guys are insane geniuses. They don't bother to set their system up. Very few do. Most use dual boot Ubuntu and Windows. Now that I have completed my Bachelor degree, I do not know a single person in my surroundings who uses GNU/Linux or BSD OSes. Using wm on this is way off! How would someone with no basic logical skills would do this? They won't. >I agree with Sagar - Edward Thanks Thanking you Sagar Acharya https://designman.org
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On 04/09/21 10:12PM, Hadrien Lacour wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:07:01PM -0700, Jeremy wrote: > > On 04/09/21 09:07PM, Hadrien Lacour wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 08:24:35PM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > > > I have studied Engineering Physics at IIT Delhi. There, Computer > > > > Science guys are insane geniuses. They don't bother to set their system > > > > up. Very few do. Most use dual boot Ubuntu and Windows. Now that I have > > > > completed my Bachelor degree, I do not know a single person in my > > > > surroundings who uses GNU/Linux or BSD OSes. > > > Which goes on to show that Computer Science has nothing to do with > > > computers and > > > that scientists aren't necessarily the same as engineers/programmers, > > > nor are they wiser than average. > > > (I say that coming from one of the best universities in France; I didn't > > > have > > > very much respect left for the word "scientist" when I left). > > > > > > > Do architects lay brick? > > > > No, but they better understand how bricks work. Unless "architect" just means > "designer", nowadays, and I'm just being out of touch with the times. > I would think that the difference between a designer and an architect is the level of detail involved. The architect may consider power & water lines, the durability of the structure, cost of the materials. Offloading the work of configuring the desktop doesn't negate the theoretical knowledge. The practical knowledge of computer science comes from experience in a consumer-driven, market environment. Acedamia is not that environment.
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 12:13:23 -0700 Jeremy wrote: > On 04/09/21 08:24PM, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > > > >I think, the user's turn to try to understand them to the fullest, even > > if it means learning a bit of a programming language. - Laslo > > Majority of users in this world would never learn a low level programming > > language like C. They are incapable. > > > > Where would you say their capacities are lacking? I would say just determination or interest. Most people are capable of learning programming (that is not to say most people are capable of being good at it, but probably they can become good enough), and if you can learn a high level language, you can definitely learn a low level language. > > Jeremy >
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:07:01PM -0700, Jeremy wrote: > On 04/09/21 09:07PM, Hadrien Lacour wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 08:24:35PM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > > I have studied Engineering Physics at IIT Delhi. There, Computer Science > > > guys are insane geniuses. They don't bother to set their system up. Very > > > few do. Most use dual boot Ubuntu and Windows. Now that I have completed > > > my Bachelor degree, I do not know a single person in my surroundings who > > > uses GNU/Linux or BSD OSes. > > Which goes on to show that Computer Science has nothing to do with > > computers and > > that scientists aren't necessarily the same as engineers/programmers, > > nor are they wiser than average. > > (I say that coming from one of the best universities in France; I didn't > > have > > very much respect left for the word "scientist" when I left). > > > > Do architects lay brick? > No, but they better understand how bricks work. Unless "architect" just means "designer", nowadays, and I'm just being out of touch with the times.
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On 04/09/21 09:07PM, Hadrien Lacour wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 08:24:35PM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > I have studied Engineering Physics at IIT Delhi. There, Computer Science > > guys are insane geniuses. They don't bother to set their system up. Very > > few do. Most use dual boot Ubuntu and Windows. Now that I have completed my > > Bachelor degree, I do not know a single person in my surroundings who uses > > GNU/Linux or BSD OSes. > Which goes on to show that Computer Science has nothing to do with computers > and > that scientists aren't necessarily the same as engineers/programmers, > nor are they wiser than average. > (I say that coming from one of the best universities in France; I didn't have > very much respect left for the word "scientist" when I left). > Do architects lay brick? Jeremy
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On 04/09/21 08:24PM, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > >I think, the user's turn to try to understand them to the fullest, even > if it means learning a bit of a programming language. - Laslo > Majority of users in this world would never learn a low level programming > language like C. They are incapable. > Where would you say their capacities are lacking? Jeremy
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > P.S. Shifted completely to dwm this week. Can't even think of anything > theoretically better than this! Now, try bspwm :)
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 08:24:35PM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > I guess this is where I diverge, user centric things always work better and > have more power. More features != More power. > One can always add a few more simple things, keeping minimalism of suckless > intact. One can create dwmd (dwm for dumb) with few more features. Minimalism/power and catering to the lowest common denominator are simply and completely incompatible. You've got to understand that interfaces for grandma or Joe down the street and the ones for those who use dwm/bspwm can't be made one. You have to be best at what you do, not a ridiculous jack-of-all-trades. > Majority of the people in this world are never going to bother with creating > their own code. Then they'll never be "free" while using something they will never bother understanding. > I have studied Engineering Physics at IIT Delhi. There, Computer Science guys > are insane geniuses. They don't bother to set their system up. Very few do. > Most use dual boot Ubuntu and Windows. Now that I have completed my Bachelor > degree, I do not know a single person in my surroundings who uses GNU/Linux > or BSD OSes. Which goes on to show that Computer Science has nothing to do with computers and that scientists aren't necessarily the same as engineers/programmers, nor are they wiser than average. (I say that coming from one of the best universities in France; I didn't have very much respect left for the word "scientist" when I left).
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:10:54PM -0400, Greg Reagle wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, at 11:42, Hadrien Lacour wrote: > > Where do we stop, though? For me, sh (even with all its braindamage) > > Speaking of the brain damage of sh, I highly recommend rc [1] which is > available > in 9base [2] and other sources like Plan 9 Port. I've found my calling with Tcl, personally. It's really what the shell should have been, in my opinion, though it lacks the easy '|', which does live as pipethread if it's really wanted.
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, at 11:42, Hadrien Lacour wrote: > Where do we stop, though? For me, sh (even with all its braindamage) Speaking of the brain damage of sh, I highly recommend rc [1] which is available in 9base [2] and other sources like Plan 9 Port. [1] http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/rc [2] https://tools.suckless.org/9base/
[dev] Completeness suckless
I recently wrote this article https://designman.org/sagaracharya/blog/trusting_no_one being absolutely unaware about suckless and this was brought to my attention. Suckless's philosophy is hands down amazing and crucial wrt computer security. Although I'd like to point out 1 aspect. Why does suckless target very sophisticated users? If it shuns trying to go after elitist users, it can improve computer security of people all around the world and also themselves, since if others are secure, you yourself will become even more secure! For it, there would be few requirements. Free software, minimal, easy to use, beautiful to look at (by default). I guess the latter 2 are lagging a bit. Thanking you -- Sagar Acharya https://designman.org P.S. Shifted completely to dwm this week. Can't even think of anything theoretically better than this!
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
Hello. I am new also to this mailing list, although I have read suckless.org and cat-v.org for a long time. I agree with Sagar. Simple software allows for people to use their computers for longer, which saves on waste, saves money, and is more inclusive of users who don’t have the latest and greatest technology. Libraries and other public institutions that provide computer access are especially hard pressed to keep up with increasing hardware requirements. Cheers, Edward PS: As this is my first message on this list please inform me if I am doing anything wrong in the formatting or sending of this message. > On Apr 9, 2021, at 6:18 AM, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:54:31 +0200 (CEST) > Sagar Acharya wrote: > > Dear Sagar, > >> I recently wrote this article >> >> https://designman.org/sagaracharya/blog/trusting_no_one >> >> being absolutely unaware about suckless and this was brought to my >> attention. > > interesting article! > >> Suckless's philosophy is hands down amazing and crucial wrt computer >> security. Although I'd like to point out 1 aspect. Why does suckless >> target very sophisticated users? If it shuns trying to go after >> elitist users, it can improve computer security of people all around >> the world and also themselves, since if others are secure, you >> yourself will become even more secure! >> >> For it, there would be few requirements. Free software, minimal, easy >> to use, beautiful to look at (by default). I guess the latter 2 are >> lagging a bit. > > I understand your point completely and it has been part of many debates > in the last few years. I used to be more open towards "more > user-friendliness" a few years ago, but realized that if you look at > modern users, most of them are unwilling to invest time and effort into > getting something to work and expect too much from others in terms of > support and guidance. > Initiatives to "open up" such things are noble in their motivations, > but actually make things worse. > > You can build software with the goal of user-friendliness in mind, but > this always comes with concessions. As long as you provide consistent > and easy to understand user-interfaces (APIs, Synopses, etc.), it is, I > think, the user's turn to try to understand them to the fullest, even > if it means learning a bit of a programming language. > > How do the others see it? > > With best regards > > Laslo >
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > I recently wrote this article > > https://designman.org/sagaracharya/blog/trusting_no_one > > being absolutely unaware about suckless and this was brought to my attention. > > Suckless's philosophy is hands down amazing and crucial wrt computer > security. Although I'd like to point out 1 aspect. Why does suckless target > very sophisticated users? If it shuns trying to go after elitist users, it > can improve computer security of people all around the world and also > themselves, since if others are secure, you yourself will become even more > secure! > > For it, there would be few requirements. Free software, minimal, easy to use, > beautiful to look at (by default). I guess the latter 2 are lagging a bit. > > Thanking you > -- > Sagar Acharya > https://designman.org > > P.S. Shifted completely to dwm this week. Can't even think of anything > theoretically better than this! > Where do we stop, though? For me, sh (even with all its braindamage) is exactly what suckless for the masses is, allowing for almost Lego-like ease of building software as you want it. Actually, it is only the concept of pipes and line oriented programs that provide that. Security isn't the main point of suckless, it's only a consequence of clean and simple code. The main point is to empower people, but not through the spoon-feeding and shoestring-tying the FSF likes so much, but by helping those who help themselves. That's how you get actual "computer freedom", by being able to program and fullfill more and more of your needs/wants. suckless programs are made to fit this mindset: simple enough to be modified and built around the UNIX philosophy of use with other simple programs. The people who want that simplicity but with more power (very hard thing to create, actually), turn to Scheme or Tcl.
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On 21/04/09 03:18, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > You can build software with the goal of user-friendliness in mind, but > this always comes with concessions. As long as you provide consistent > and easy to understand user-interfaces (APIs, Synopses, etc.), it is, I > think, the user's turn to try to understand them to the fullest, even > if it means learning a bit of a programming language. > > How do the others see it? I think that "user friendliness" carries complexity with it that is just being concealed from the user. There are prejudices about what is "friendlier": having a complex program that does a lot of things with little to no input, which also means less control, or having a simple program that does one thing well, is simple enough to understand and works well with other such simple programs. It becomes apparent when there is some error or something unpredicted happens: it is often difficult to diagnose the error and equally difficult, if not impossible, to present a working solution for a "user friendly" (=complex) program compared to a simple program. The solution in the case of a simple program is exact and textual, easily transmitted in digital form or pronounced, compared to the difficulty of having to describe where exactly, and how to click in a GUI. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] Completeness suckless
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:54:31 +0200 (CEST) Sagar Acharya wrote: Dear Sagar, > I recently wrote this article > > https://designman.org/sagaracharya/blog/trusting_no_one > > being absolutely unaware about suckless and this was brought to my > attention. interesting article! > Suckless's philosophy is hands down amazing and crucial wrt computer > security. Although I'd like to point out 1 aspect. Why does suckless > target very sophisticated users? If it shuns trying to go after > elitist users, it can improve computer security of people all around > the world and also themselves, since if others are secure, you > yourself will become even more secure! > > For it, there would be few requirements. Free software, minimal, easy > to use, beautiful to look at (by default). I guess the latter 2 are > lagging a bit. I understand your point completely and it has been part of many debates in the last few years. I used to be more open towards "more user-friendliness" a few years ago, but realized that if you look at modern users, most of them are unwilling to invest time and effort into getting something to work and expect too much from others in terms of support and guidance. Initiatives to "open up" such things are noble in their motivations, but actually make things worse. You can build software with the goal of user-friendliness in mind, but this always comes with concessions. As long as you provide consistent and easy to understand user-interfaces (APIs, Synopses, etc.), it is, I think, the user's turn to try to understand them to the fullest, even if it means learning a bit of a programming language. How do the others see it? With best regards Laslo
