Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On 13 May 2016 at 01:31, Jason Young wrote: > suckless is about *simplicity*. Simplicity != easy to use. Simplicity > means, basically, there's fewer parts to break, and there *being* fewer > parts, it's easier to see *where* it breaks. Unfortunately, the more > "easy to use"

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:50:27PM +0200, hiro wrote: A ports like system won't be very helpful most of the time, what about a low end device like raspberry pi, have you ever thought of that? Such low end devices are a waste of ressources and shouldn't be used any more. I don't think that

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

The word "properly" presumes a purpose/end/effect. Billions of people use computers for their own purposes. If you are going to be making an argument about how people should be using their computers, you need to explain what purpose you are using, and why it doesn't satisfy the purpose. > On

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

Jason, needless complexity will always have bad impact upon the user. in other words a user benefits from simple programs because simple programs only need simple interfaces. also for a programmer, clean simple code is "easy to use". why do we have to explain such things? this is suckless?!

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Jason Young wrote: [SNIP] > suckless is about *simplicity*. Simplicity != easy to use. Simplicity > means, basically, there's fewer parts to break, and there *being* fewer > parts, it's easier to see *where* it breaks. Unfortunately, the more >

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

Congratulations. I couldn't have summed up better exactly what the problem is with modern software communities. You're willing to go into playground invective at a moment's notice, but suddenly someone calls you on it, and you're all courtier's reply. That you had trouble "interprete"-ing his

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> Thank you for introducing to me in person the suckless philosophy, now I > appreciate it more. Furthermore, that was interesting and I adopt this > vision. Nothing here is in person. It's all public humility.

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> I was content to just watch this conversation play out in silence, as it > proved amusing and even insightful in parts. Even the stuff you've said > in other parts of this thing are actually good. Stay technical. > In this post, that falls apart. Instead of actually taking apart this >

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

Thank you for introducing to me in person the suckless philosophy, now I appreciate it more. Furthermore, that was interesting and I adopt this vision. It is true that I am definetely not experienced enough to contribute, so at the best, I can use and promote of the simplest tools that are

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu 12 May 2016 at 14:09:50 PDT Jason Young wrote: And on the actual topic of this thread, Alpine Linux seems to be a fairly suckless distro. I'm impressed with its speed and simplicity. Agreed.

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

I was content to just watch this conversation play out in silence, as it proved amusing and even insightful in parts. Even the stuff you've said in other parts of this thing are actually good. In this post, that falls apart. Instead of actually taking apart this person's argument, which is fairly

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> So it could be simple by its implementation, by its design, and simple > to use even for persons rarely using computers if at all, even > indication on how to interact with the keyboard are provided. I agree with your implications. Suckless is not about understanding every shitty software in

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> So it could be simple by its implementation, by its design, and simple > to use even for persons rarely using computers if at all, even > indication on how to interact with the keyboard are provided. I agree with your implications. Suckless is not about understanding every shitty software in

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Charlton Head wrote: > You might be able to do this with just the sbase tools, but I don't know how > offhand as I pretty much know which of my programs are using TLS/SSL without > needing special commands. find -H /bin -type f -exec

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:36:44PM +0200, Hans Ginzel wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 07:42:26AM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: > >Package systems are both a symptom and a cause of bloat. They only > >exist because most software, along with its metastasizing dependencies, > >is a pain in the ass

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> Let's break it down to logic. way too start... WTF > If a user does not know how to use a complex tool, he is not able > to use it properly (1) I think this is a marvel piece of symmetry, and it works BOTH WAYS, genius: if someone doesn't know how to use X properly he doesn't know how to use

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> suckless strives for perfection in an environment where most people > are illiterate. which one? window management? terminal emulation? > heading in > the right direction. that's exactly my point. i don't want anyone heading inwards. there are more valid problems to solve than the dwm color

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> The reason many people does not regard activities performed with > computers as "complex" in the modern age is because they have been > exposed to them long enough to learn how to use them up to some point. > It is worth noticing that people with actually zero exposition to > computers - like

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu 12 May 2016 at 08:36:44 PDT Hans Ginzel wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 07:42:26AM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: Package systems are both a symptom and a cause of bloat. They only exist because most software, along with its metastasizing dependencies, is a pain in the ass to compile. The

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

Greetings. On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:59:18 +0200 Rubén Llorente wrote: > hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> of the easy to use software. The only way a computer-illiterate is going > >> to be able to use a computer properly is by educating herself or by > >> hiring

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu 12 May 2016 at 08:36:44 PDT Hans Ginzel wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 07:42:26AM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: Package systems are both a symptom and a cause of bloat. They only exist because most software, along with its metastasizing dependencies, is a pain in the ass to compile. The

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, 12 May 2016 18:19:01 +0200 hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is suckless' response to this? Do we have enough manpower to > maintain a webkit-shim, an archaic terminal emulator, a window manager > AND an ssl library? cinap is trying to fix the latter problem on > 9front, but it turns

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, 12 May 2016 17:59:40 +0200 hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: > you guys are arrogant but still sheep. you can create as much elitist > software as you want, you have no chance to be interoperable with > every real-world system that we need access to. > > as much as i hate the cheesy term (i

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu 12 May 2016 at 08:45:43 PDT hiro wrote: Package systems are both a symptom and a cause of bloat. They only exist because most software, along with its metastasizing dependencies, is a pain in the ass to compile. Actually compiling software the right way, without many dependencies is

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

It seems the thread moved into somewhat "what is good and what is bad". In my opinion ports system is good, unless you compile something big, i.e. gcc, gtk, firefox, office packages (probably TeX, too) should exist in binary form. My "sane distributions" list includes: Alpine, CRUX,

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On 11 May 2016 at 11:56, Nick wrote: > Any suggestions / thoughts? Archlinux is very suckless software friendly. Specifically, it's easy to write your own packages. You can manage the suckless tools with the package manager (update, query content, etc.). Example for st:

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> PS: Think about the Heartbleed bug in openssl for example. This is actually an excellent example. openssl has proven rather worthless due to general quality issues (worse than just this one heartbleed bug). What is suckless' response to this? Do we have enough manpower to maintain a

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> Copying the “shared/same code” into each program? > But how to maintain updates of such code, e.g. security update? 9front shows this beautifully: just update OS and all programs from the same repo. btw, package management can be done very lightly, too. again, look at tinycorelinux.

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> What is the best way how to build a suckless system/distribution? i wouldn't use linuxfromscratch tinycorelinux is a better base imo.

Re: [opinion warning] [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> Hi! Sorry for the newb opinion piece, but wouldn't it be somewhat better don't worry, lately there are *only* noobs on suckless. > to just take a distro you could consider decent and then work on your > personal modifications with that? I already did that, re-read please. > It seems kind of

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> This. The road to suck begins with the desire to please everyone. > Better, I think, to be unabashed elitists and aim to create or use > software designed for the most discriminating tastes. > > If the noobs don't like it, tough. you guys are arrogant but still sheep. you can create as much

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> A ports like system won't be very helpful most of the time, what about a > low end device like raspberry pi, have you ever thought of that? Such low end devices are a waste of ressources and shouldn't be used any more. > I don't think that buying a better computer for the sake of being more >

Re: [opinion warning] [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

Hi! Sorry for the newb opinion piece, but wouldn't it be somewhat better to just take a distro you could consider decent and then work on your personal modifications with that? It seems kind of contradictory to dislike X, Y and Z and yet not to put any effort to purging the supposed hellish evil

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> Package systems are both a symptom and a cause of bloat. They only > exist because most software, along with its metastasizing dependencies, > is a pain in the ass to compile. Actually compiling software the right way, without many dependencies is quite an art these days, so yes, i want to

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

> of the easy to use software. The only way a computer-illiterate is going > to be able to use a computer properly is by educating herself or by > hiring somebody to do the administration. I disagree about that part. My "literate" computer usage is nothing i'm very proud of. I regret it even.

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 07:42:26AM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: Package systems are both a symptom and a cause of bloat. They only exist because most software, along with its metastasizing dependencies, is a pain in the ass to compile. The correct solution isn't hiding those problems with a

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:00:43AM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: On Thu 12 May 2016 at 07:47:51 PDT Pickfire wrote: A ports like system won't be very helpful most of the time, what about a low end device like raspberry pi, have you ever thought of that? I don't think that buying a better

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu 12 May 2016 at 07:47:51 PDT Pickfire wrote: A ports like system won't be very helpful most of the time, what about a low end device like raspberry pi, have you ever thought of that? I don't think that buying a better computer for the sake of being more suckless is even suckless, not

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:33:41AM +0200, hiro wrote: let's maintain a list of of requirements a distro should fulfill. perhaps we can make a nice table afterwards and see which OS fits these requirements out of the box. i'll start with this. convince me otherwise. Is there a suckless version

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 07:42:26AM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: On Wed 11 May 2016 at 17:33:41 PDT hiro wrote: let's maintain a list of of requirements a distro should fulfill. perhaps we can make a nice table afterwards and see which OS fits these requirements out of the box. i'll start with

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

On Thu 12 May 2016 at 02:54:00 PDT Rubén Llorente wrote: I stopped caring too much about user-friendlyness long ago, because no matter what you do, lambs will always find a way to make a mess out of the easy to use software. The only way a computer-illiterate is going to be able to use a

Re: [dev] Re: Linux distros that don't suck too too much

I jumped from Ubuntu, to Arch and currently am very happy with OpenBSD. I think only 9front can supersede it. Note tho, that it's very bare bones so you'll spend some time understanding it but it's definitely worth it. On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Rubén Llorente

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

>> 1. package system: packages having few, sane dependencies (early >> tinycorelinux was excellent in this regard) > > directly contradicts you can always have multiple packages, e.g. mpg123-oss, mpg123-alsa. i dont see the problem. call out flamewar or choose randomly to select a default one.

Re: [dev] [sup] Bring the simple user privilege escalation tool back home?

On Thu, 12 May 2016, David Phillips wrote: > I would like to see the bugs suckless's sup examined and fixed. Looking at the > current state of our sup, it is already too featureful for me, so the bloat > jaromil promises is a big no. > > This discussion caused me to evaluate sudo for myself.

Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

>> 9. hip applications have to run out of the box: skype, > > Corporate need? 'd say Hangouts, and let the browser do it for one less > package, and better Linux quality anyway. Browser shit often is unstable (and i don't mean just the UI), skype is quite usable on ubuntu though. Linux quality