Re: New mailing list. Was Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Uriel]

Whatever wmii is alive or not (there is an hg repo for anyone
interested to check its development), it makes much more sense to have
hack...@suckless.org than to have dwm@suckless.org, unless you are
going to create a list for every damned suckless project, which IMHO
is pointless and would suck.

uriel

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Uriel wrote:
>>
>> I suggested a while ago to merge wmii@ and dwm@ into hackers@, both
>> lists are rather low level, and there is much overlap, and such a
>> single list would be more fitting for new minor side projects and for
>> 'offtopic' discussion.
>
> There is a philosophical distraction between wmii and dwm. I
> wouldn't recommend a merge of both.
>
>> Right now when one has something to say that doesn't quite fit in
>> wmii@ or dwm@, or that could fit in both, you have to pick one list at
>> random, or to cross post, and both options suck.
>
> Wmii still exists? Didn't it die a while ago, when arg
> left its development?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Christoph Lohmann
>
>

Re: New mailing list. Was Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Christoph Lohmann]

Greetings.

Uriel wrote:

I suggested a while ago to merge wmii@ and dwm@ into hackers@, both
lists are rather low level, and there is much overlap, and such a
single list would be more fitting for new minor side projects and for
'offtopic' discussion.


There is a philosophical distraction between wmii and dwm. I
wouldn't recommend a merge of both.


Right now when one has something to say that doesn't quite fit in
wmii@ or dwm@, or that could fit in both, you have to pick one list at
random, or to cross post, and both options suck.


Wmii still exists? Didn't it die a while ago, when arg
left its development?


Sincerely,

Christoph Lohmann

Re: New mailing list. Was Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Samuel Baldwin]

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Uriel  wrote:
> I suggested a while ago to merge wmii@ and dwm@ into hackers@, both
> lists are rather low level, and there is much overlap, and such a
> single list would be more fitting for new minor side projects and for
> 'offtopic' discussion.

I hope I am not alone in wishing that the users from the wmii list
never make it into the dwm list.

-- 
Samuel 'Shardz' Baldwin - staticfree.info/~samuel

New mailing list. Was Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Uriel]

I suggested a while ago to merge wmii@ and dwm@ into hackers@, both
lists are rather low level, and there is much overlap, and such a
single list would be more fitting for new minor side projects and for
'offtopic' discussion.

Right now when one has something to say that doesn't quite fit in
wmii@ or dwm@, or that could fit in both, you have to pick one list at
random, or to cross post, and both options suck.

Peace

uriel

> > What do you think about creating an offtopic mailing list in suckless for
> > discussing such
> > kind of topics, instead of using the dwm@ one like nowadays happen.
>
> I think it's been the charme of dwm@ to discuss lot's of other things,
> so I'd rather keep it as it is for now ;)
>
> Kind regards,
> Anselm
>

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Preben Randhol]

> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:55:27PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
>> As to Ubuntu, you can say what you like, but at least for me the
>> maintenance time reduced dramatically after going from Debian to
>> Ubuntu on the 5-6 machines I maintain. And that is something I
>> appreciate, not how small space I can get a distribution to use...
>>
> The time it takes you to go from one version Ubuntu to another takes less
> time
> than upgrading a Debian machine? I don't think so.

Where did I say that? I'm talking about maintenance. Fixing problems,
adding functionality etc...

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Haomin Wen]

Hello,

I upgrade my Ubuntu from 7.04 to 7.10, 8.04, and finally 8.10
successfully. I did not upgrade from 8.10 to 9.04 because I got a new
hard disk on which I installed a fresh new Ubuntu 9.04.

Frankly speaking, there are always something wrong after an upgrade,
but it is not hard to keep Ubuntu working if you can spare several
hours to fix those problems. For example, some old xorg.conf does not
work with newer version of Xorg, dynamically compiled programs no
longer work because old libraries are purged, or certain programs are
no longer supported. These problems are common in most, if not all,
distributions, and unavoidable if your distro keeps up to date.

Haomin Wen
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Jacob Todd  wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 01:17:40PM +, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> On 5/17/09, Jacob Todd  wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:55:27PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
>> >  > As to Ubuntu, you can say what you like, but at least for me the
>> >  > maintenance time reduced dramatically after going from Debian to
>> >  > Ubuntu on the 5-6 machines I maintain. And that is something I
>> >  > appreciate, not how small space I can get a distribution to use...
>> >  >
>> >
>> > The time it takes you to go from one version Ubuntu to another takes less 
>> > time
>> >  than upgrading a Debian machine? I don't think so.
>> >
>>
>> Saying Ubuntu is faster than Debian or vice versa is like saying a
>> green wagon is faster than a blue wagon.  They're the same thing, and
>> most of my admin time is spent undoing the stupid changes to upstream
>> code.
>> --
>> # Kurt H Maier
>>
> What I meant to imply was that you usually can't (or couldn't last time I 
> check
> ed) go from one release of Ubuntu to the next, with out reinstalling the whole
> thing, unlike Debian, where you can do that.
>
>

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Jacob Todd]

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 01:17:40PM +, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On 5/17/09, Jacob Todd  wrote:
> > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:55:27PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
> >  > As to Ubuntu, you can say what you like, but at least for me the
> >  > maintenance time reduced dramatically after going from Debian to
> >  > Ubuntu on the 5-6 machines I maintain. And that is something I
> >  > appreciate, not how small space I can get a distribution to use...
> >  >
> >
> > The time it takes you to go from one version Ubuntu to another takes less 
> > time
> >  than upgrading a Debian machine? I don't think so.
> >
> 
> Saying Ubuntu is faster than Debian or vice versa is like saying a
> green wagon is faster than a blue wagon.  They're the same thing, and
> most of my admin time is spent undoing the stupid changes to upstream
> code.
> -- 
> # Kurt H Maier
> 
What I meant to imply was that you usually can't (or couldn't last time I check
ed) go from one release of Ubuntu to the next, with out reinstalling the whole 
thing, unlike Debian, where you can do that.

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Matthias-Christian Ott]

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 01:17:40PM +, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On 5/17/09, Jacob Todd  wrote:
> > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:55:27PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
> >  > As to Ubuntu, you can say what you like, but at least for me the
> >  > maintenance time reduced dramatically after going from Debian to
> >  > Ubuntu on the 5-6 machines I maintain. And that is something I
> >  > appreciate, not how small space I can get a distribution to use...
> >  >
> >
> > The time it takes you to go from one version Ubuntu to another takes less 
> > time
> >  than upgrading a Debian machine? I don't think so.
> >
> 
> Saying Ubuntu is faster than Debian or vice versa is like saying a
> green wagon is faster than a blue wagon.  They're the same thing, and
> most of my admin time is spent undoing the stupid changes to upstream
> code.

I agree. I use Ubuntu, because its release cycles are shorter, but
prefer Debian over Ubuntu, because Debian aims to be a free GNU/Linux
Distribution while Ubuntu does not (some software Canonical produces is
released as proprietary software).

However, I don't see a big difference between Debian and Ubuntu
for non-GNOME users.

I was quite happy with CRUX until I had some clashes with the developers.

Regards,
Matthias-Christian

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Kurt H Maier]

On 5/17/09, Jacob Todd  wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:55:27PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
>  > As to Ubuntu, you can say what you like, but at least for me the
>  > maintenance time reduced dramatically after going from Debian to
>  > Ubuntu on the 5-6 machines I maintain. And that is something I
>  > appreciate, not how small space I can get a distribution to use...
>  >
>
> The time it takes you to go from one version Ubuntu to another takes less time
>  than upgrading a Debian machine? I don't think so.
>

Saying Ubuntu is faster than Debian or vice versa is like saying a
green wagon is faster than a blue wagon.  They're the same thing, and
most of my admin time is spent undoing the stupid changes to upstream
code.
-- 
# Kurt H Maier

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Jacob Todd]

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:55:27PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
> As to Ubuntu, you can say what you like, but at least for me the
> maintenance time reduced dramatically after going from Debian to
> Ubuntu on the 5-6 machines I maintain. And that is something I
> appreciate, not how small space I can get a distribution to use...
> 
The time it takes you to go from one version Ubuntu to another takes less time
than upgrading a Debian machine? I don't think so.

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Preben Randhol]

On Sat, 16 May 2009 03:31:24 +0200
pancake  wrote:

> I like perl but I agree but it is big for most of uses, but is fast  
> and powerful. I would prefer to use nqp or miniperl which are
> minimal versions of p5 and p6 compiled at build time to compile
> itself and do some processing stuff that makes the build process more
> handful and controllable than using make.
> 
> It is a huge sw, but miniperl is cool :)

I don't give a toss about the size of software. Perl is a crappy
language, that is why I don't like it.

With all minimalistic softwares you have to offer features. However, by
time more and more features needs to be added due to that they are
needed.

Anyway, it is not the size that matters, but rather how the software
helps you do your job. 

As to Ubuntu, you can say what you like, but at least for me the
maintenance time reduced dramatically after going from Debian to
Ubuntu on the 5-6 machines I maintain. And that is something I
appreciate, not how small space I can get a distribution to use...

Besides, making a big comples software in a low level programming
language is not the Thing To Do[tm] unless you plan to write and forget.

-- 
Preben Randhol
http://wee-free-lore.blogspot.com/

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Marc Andre Tanner]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:07:42PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:06:45 +0200
> pancake  wrote:
> 
> > Actually i'm happy with arch linux, but, i really miss a non-gnu
> > linux and minimalistic distribution. We should get a look on
> > alternatives for glibc (google one? uclibc? ..) but maybe the biggest
> > rock we will face it will be the X server...this is probably one of
> > the interesting projects to work on, but without keeping the X
> > compatibility. 
> 
> Any reason why you need a non-gnu distro? I don't see how that would
> make things suckless. I would wish for a perl-free world, but it would
> probably not happen any time soon.

Building a recent Linux kernel actually requires perl and at some point
they even considered rewriting the whole or at least a large part of
the build system in perl. Don't know what they decided in the end.

Marc 

-- 
 Marc Andre Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Marc Andre Tanner]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 03:50:58PM -0500, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Mate Nagy  wrote:
> 
> >  i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU
> > software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and
> > usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have >features<
> > (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic hackjobs.
> 
> Does /bin/ls really need to be 96kb?  Really?  I think the answer is
> no.  Features are fine, but the GNU method seems to be "include
> everything," and that's stupid.  I don't need 96kb worth of ls.  I
> just want to know what files are in a directory. The other half of the
> problem is that you've got GNU coreutils on one end, which are
> freaking huge, and then you've got busybox on the other end, which is
> one binary and a ton of aliases.  A good start to a lightweight
> coreutils package would be breaking the busybox utils apart into
> descrete programs, in my opinion.

What's wrong with the busybox approach? busybox used to support a
build option which compiles every applet to it's own binary optionaly
dynamically linked against libbb for space reasons. Don't know if it
is still supported though.

I agree with the rest of your mail.

Marc

-- 
 Marc Andre Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Mate Nagy]

Greetings,
> Using a prefork or similar technique done by apache f.ex can really  
> accelerate such tasks, so a minimal vi editor with nice features can be 
> really achieved by delegating all such features to external apps or  
> libraries
 a minimal application with a dozen external modules, processes, pipes
to achieve the required functionality will be 10x slower and nastier
than if these things were built in.

 Modularization isn't a cure-all - it has a direct impact on
performance, "user-friendliness", maintainability, and especially on
simplicity. It's also hard to get right.

  when I last used wmii a long time ago, a lot of
functionality was off the core. To listen for keybindings, you had
to interface with a virtual filesystem (because plan9 is automatically
cool, right?) - with a cli util that you had to start everytime to
read/write/touch a file. To drive the keybinding logic, you had to run a
complicated shell script (at least this was the default solution) that
read keyboard events through pipes and wrote back control commands,
everything through this vfs util.
 So to make me able to start a new terminal, you had to continuously run
at least 3 extra processes and a lot of code. How is this minimal or
suckless? No wonder a lot of us flocked to dwm...

 I believe in fast, simple, but powerful CLI interfaces rather than
programs pared down to bones. To be quite honest, I'd miss the color
functionality from ls, dpkg argument-expansion from my shell, or the
standard arguments from all the GNU software - if this means supporting
--version in true, so be it. I'm not running an embedded system, a 97k
ls doesn't hurt me too much.

 (I realize this is the same argument MS supporters use to validate the
existence of a multi-gigabyte Visual Studio etc, but let's be realistic
people, 97k ls in 2009 vs. Visual goddamn Studio.)

Best regards,
 Mate

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Charlie Kester]

On Fri 15 May 2009 at 16:08:07 PDT pancake wrote:



On May 15, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Preben Randhol  wrote:


On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:42:24 +0200
pancake  wrote:


I really miss the conceptual experimentation that dwm was in the
past. But I agree that
we should probably focus on other topics like 'st' or a full OS based
on minimalist software
(based on Linux without GNU craps) ...


Please, make a C, C++ etc.. compiler then.



Tinycc is live again. You should check it.


And last I heard, the work to update pcc is still underway.

Another candidate to replace gcc is llvm/clang.




What do you think about creating an offtopic mailing list in suckless
for discussing such
kind of topics, instead of using the dwm@ one like nowadays happen.


I like that the list is open to somewhat off topic discussions.
Sometimes they lead to a less suckless life for people in that they
solve problems for people :-)



Yep me too :)

Btw what about a minimal mua?

Would be nice to build a database of minimal software and try to  
classify it and comment about it. This way we can get a list of the  
things 'we' have, and the ones missing.


The wiki can be a good place, but maybe we should think on a new page
??.suckless.org


I'd also like to see a more detailed and precise statement of what
counts as minimal or suckless software.  SLOC doesn't seem to say
everything that needs to be said.  Is it only the code or executable
size, or is also a requirement for spartan elegance in the user
interface?  Can we describe what we mean by that kind of elegance?

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[pancake]

On May 15, 2009, at 11:07 PM, Preben Randhol  wrote:


On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:06:45 +0200
pancake  wrote:


Actually i'm happy with arch linux, but, i really miss a non-gnu
linux and minimalistic distribution. We should get a look on
alternatives for glibc (google one? uclibc? ..) but maybe the biggest
rock we will face it will be the X server...this is probably one of
the interesting projects to work on, but without keeping the X
compatibility.


Any reason why you need a non-gnu distro? I don't see how that would
make things suckless. I would wish for a perl-free world, but it would
probably not happen any time soon.

Gnu software is bloated by definition. You only need to take the  
'true' program. Just type strings /bin/true :)


I like perl but I agree but it is big for most of uses, but is fast  
and powerful. I would prefer to use nqp or miniperl which are minimal  
versions of p5 and p6 compiled at build time to compile itself and do  
some processing stuff that makes the build process more handful and  
controllable than using make.


It is a huge sw, but miniperl is cool :)

About busybox.. The reason to be a single binary with aliases is to  
memory usage. The problem maybe is that it ships program we will  
probably not use, but it is something to be ignorable on current hw.


If you ever tried to build glibc,gdb,gcc,binutils... You will  
understand what I want a minimal distro.


About vim, I like it but I really think that lot of features like  
screen handling, colors, ctags, should be external. Pipes are  
powerful, and speed can be pretty good if the core is smart enought.


Using a prefork or similar technique done by apache f.ex can really  
accelerate such tasks, so a minimal vi editor with nice features can  
be really achieved by delegating all such features to external apps or  
libraries



Anyway, it is easy to say that something is bloat, but when you cannot
dictate the development of hardware, don't expect things not to be
complicated.



Suckless hardware will be the next step :P


I find rewriting existing software to make it smaller is seldomly a
productive way. Invent something different and novel in stead.

What minimalistic sw offers to me is new point of view, because it is  
based on constant refactoring and brainstorming.


We need new things, that's true, but we also need to build them on top  
of a decent base system.


Or at least is what I think. And I know that it is not an easy task,  
but we are enought people to organize or discuss such kind of projects.

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[pancake]

On May 15, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Preben Randhol  wrote:


On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:42:24 +0200
pancake  wrote:


I really miss the conceptual experimentation that dwm was in the
past. But I agree that
we should probably focus on other topics like 'st' or a full OS based
on minimalist software
(based on Linux without GNU craps) ...


Please, make a C, C++ etc.. compiler then.



Tinycc is live again. You should check it.


What do you think about creating an offtopic mailing list in suckless
for discussing such
kind of topics, instead of using the dwm@ one like nowadays happen.


I like that the list is open to somewhat off topic discussions.
Sometimes they lead to a less suckless life for people in that they
solve problems for people :-)



Yep me too :)

Btw what about a minimal mua?

Would be nice to build a database of minimal software and try to  
classify it and comment about it. This way we can get a list of the  
things 'we' have, and the ones missing.


The wiki can be a good place, but maybe we should think on a new  
page ??.suckless.org

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Lorenzo Bolla]

Quite true, but the last time I installed FreeBSD or Plan9 on my laptop I
could barely have the mousepad working...


On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Benjamin Conner wrote:

> "Have you seen a piece of software that is small, efficient and easy to
>  read and in each new version it become clumsy, slow and bloated?"
> Ubuntu.
> Worse eatch relese. (sp sp)
>
> On 5/15/09, pmarin  wrote:
> > From Bash and readline man page (bugs section):
> > "It's too big and too slow.
> >
> > I think this bug is the perfect definition of GNU/FSF style.
> >
> > Have you seen a piece of software that is small, efficient and easy to
> > read and in each new version it become clumsy, slow and bloated?
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Preben Randhol 
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:29:11 +0200
> >> Mate Nagy  wrote:
> >>
> >>> > I cannot understand GNU software. ls or cat source in GNU is scary,
> >>> > glibc is even worse. The old UNIX utilities or Plan9 ones have a
> >>> > simplicity which GNU lacks. I don't have anything against the GPL
> >>> > license, but I prefer less restrictive licenses. And, of course, I
> >>> > don't like rms.
> >>>  i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU
> >>> software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and
> >>> usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have
> >>> >features< (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic
> >>> >hackjobs.
> >>>
> >>>  Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but
> >>> obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as
> >>> annoyed with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even
> >>> Firefox as anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI
> >>> userland that make it comfortable is mad. Would you use dash instead
> >>> of zsh as an everyday shell?
> >>>
> >>>  At a risk of being boring, I'll say that the same argument can be
> >>> made about text editors: VIM is quite bloated and big, but it's
> >>> better than any small text editor; because text editing is one of
> >>> those typical tasks that cannot be comfortable without a million
> >>> features that are in no way related to each other. Even if someone
> >>> writes a really small, elegant, suckless editor core, it will be
> >>> unusable until:
> >>>  - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal)
> >>>  - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...)
> >>>  - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp...
> >>>  - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...)
> >>>  - autocompletion, ctags integration
> >>> These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement
> >>> these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application.
> >>> Sucklessness goes through the window.
> >>> (Yes, there are people who make do with mcedit, but.. come on.)
> >>>
> >>>  I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
> >>> suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not
> >>> all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only
> >>> marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper
> >>> handling of this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates
> >>> so much.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>  Mate
> >>> PS. am not trolling :)
> >>>
> >>
> >> I couldn't agree with you more!
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Preben Randhol
> >> http://wee-free-lore.blogspot.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Benjamin Conner]

"Have you seen a piece of software that is small, efficient and easy to
 read and in each new version it become clumsy, slow and bloated?"
Ubuntu.
Worse eatch relese. (sp sp)

On 5/15/09, pmarin  wrote:
> From Bash and readline man page (bugs section):
> "It's too big and too slow.
>
> I think this bug is the perfect definition of GNU/FSF style.
>
> Have you seen a piece of software that is small, efficient and easy to
> read and in each new version it become clumsy, slow and bloated?
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Preben Randhol  wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:29:11 +0200
>> Mate Nagy  wrote:
>>
>>> > I cannot understand GNU software. ls or cat source in GNU is scary,
>>> > glibc is even worse. The old UNIX utilities or Plan9 ones have a
>>> > simplicity which GNU lacks. I don't have anything against the GPL
>>> > license, but I prefer less restrictive licenses. And, of course, I
>>> > don't like rms.
>>>  i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU
>>> software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and
>>> usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have
>>> >features< (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic
>>> >hackjobs.
>>>
>>>  Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but
>>> obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as
>>> annoyed with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even
>>> Firefox as anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI
>>> userland that make it comfortable is mad. Would you use dash instead
>>> of zsh as an everyday shell?
>>>
>>>  At a risk of being boring, I'll say that the same argument can be
>>> made about text editors: VIM is quite bloated and big, but it's
>>> better than any small text editor; because text editing is one of
>>> those typical tasks that cannot be comfortable without a million
>>> features that are in no way related to each other. Even if someone
>>> writes a really small, elegant, suckless editor core, it will be
>>> unusable until:
>>>  - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal)
>>>  - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...)
>>>  - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp...
>>>  - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...)
>>>  - autocompletion, ctags integration
>>> These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement
>>> these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application.
>>> Sucklessness goes through the window.
>>> (Yes, there are people who make do with mcedit, but.. come on.)
>>>
>>>  I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
>>> suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not
>>> all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only
>>> marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper
>>> handling of this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates
>>> so much.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>  Mate
>>> PS. am not trolling :)
>>>
>>
>> I couldn't agree with you more!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Preben Randhol
>> http://wee-free-lore.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[pmarin]

>From Bash and readline man page (bugs section):
"It's too big and too slow.

I think this bug is the perfect definition of GNU/FSF style.

Have you seen a piece of software that is small, efficient and easy to
read and in each new version it become clumsy, slow and bloated?

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Preben Randhol  wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:29:11 +0200
> Mate Nagy  wrote:
>
>> > I cannot understand GNU software. ls or cat source in GNU is scary,
>> > glibc is even worse. The old UNIX utilities or Plan9 ones have a
>> > simplicity which GNU lacks. I don't have anything against the GPL
>> > license, but I prefer less restrictive licenses. And, of course, I
>> > don't like rms.
>>  i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU
>> software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and
>> usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have
>> >features< (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic
>> >hackjobs.
>>
>>  Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but
>> obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as
>> annoyed with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even
>> Firefox as anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI
>> userland that make it comfortable is mad. Would you use dash instead
>> of zsh as an everyday shell?
>>
>>  At a risk of being boring, I'll say that the same argument can be
>> made about text editors: VIM is quite bloated and big, but it's
>> better than any small text editor; because text editing is one of
>> those typical tasks that cannot be comfortable without a million
>> features that are in no way related to each other. Even if someone
>> writes a really small, elegant, suckless editor core, it will be
>> unusable until:
>>  - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal)
>>  - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...)
>>  - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp...
>>  - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...)
>>  - autocompletion, ctags integration
>> These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement
>> these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application.
>> Sucklessness goes through the window.
>> (Yes, there are people who make do with mcedit, but.. come on.)
>>
>>  I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
>> suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not
>> all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only
>> marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper
>> handling of this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates
>> so much.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>  Mate
>> PS. am not trolling :)
>>
>
> I couldn't agree with you more!
>
>
> --
> Preben Randhol
> http://wee-free-lore.blogspot.com/
>
>
>

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Preben Randhol]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:29:11 +0200
Mate Nagy  wrote:

> > I cannot understand GNU software. ls or cat source in GNU is scary,
> > glibc is even worse. The old UNIX utilities or Plan9 ones have a
> > simplicity which GNU lacks. I don't have anything against the GPL
> > license, but I prefer less restrictive licenses. And, of course, I
> > don't like rms.
>  i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU
> software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and
> usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have
> >features< (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic
> >hackjobs.
> 
>  Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but
> obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as
> annoyed with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even
> Firefox as anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI
> userland that make it comfortable is mad. Would you use dash instead
> of zsh as an everyday shell?
> 
>  At a risk of being boring, I'll say that the same argument can be
> made about text editors: VIM is quite bloated and big, but it's
> better than any small text editor; because text editing is one of
> those typical tasks that cannot be comfortable without a million
> features that are in no way related to each other. Even if someone
> writes a really small, elegant, suckless editor core, it will be
> unusable until:
>  - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal)
>  - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...)
>  - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp...
>  - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...)
>  - autocompletion, ctags integration
> These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement
> these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application.
> Sucklessness goes through the window.
> (Yes, there are people who make do with mcedit, but.. come on.)
> 
>  I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
> suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not
> all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only
> marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper
> handling of this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates
> so much.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Mate
> PS. am not trolling :)
> 

I couldn't agree with you more!


-- 
Preben Randhol
http://wee-free-lore.blogspot.com/

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Preben Randhol]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:06:45 +0200
pancake  wrote:

> Actually i'm happy with arch linux, but, i really miss a non-gnu
> linux and minimalistic distribution. We should get a look on
> alternatives for glibc (google one? uclibc? ..) but maybe the biggest
> rock we will face it will be the X server...this is probably one of
> the interesting projects to work on, but without keeping the X
> compatibility. 

Any reason why you need a non-gnu distro? I don't see how that would
make things suckless. I would wish for a perl-free world, but it would
probably not happen any time soon.

Anyway, it is easy to say that something is bloat, but when you cannot
dictate the development of hardware, don't expect things not to be
complicated.

I find rewriting existing software to make it smaller is seldomly a
productive way. Invent something different and novel in stead.

-- 
Preben Randhol
http://wee-free-lore.blogspot.com/

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Preben Randhol]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:42:24 +0200
pancake  wrote:

> I really miss the conceptual experimentation that dwm was in the
> past. But I agree that
> we should probably focus on other topics like 'st' or a full OS based
> on minimalist software
> (based on Linux without GNU craps) ...

Please, make a C, C++ etc.. compiler then.

> What do you think about creating an offtopic mailing list in suckless 
> for discussing such
> kind of topics, instead of using the dwm@ one like nowadays happen.

I like that the list is open to somewhat off topic discussions.
Sometimes they lead to a less suckless life for people in that they
solve problems for people :-)

-- 
Preben Randhol
http://wee-free-lore.blogspot.com/

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Kurt H Maier]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Mate Nagy  wrote:

>  i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU
> software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and
> usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have >features<
> (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic hackjobs.

Does /bin/ls really need to be 96kb?  Really?  I think the answer is
no.  Features are fine, but the GNU method seems to be "include
everything," and that's stupid.  I don't need 96kb worth of ls.  I
just want to know what files are in a directory. The other half of the
problem is that you've got GNU coreutils on one end, which are
freaking huge, and then you've got busybox on the other end, which is
one binary and a ton of aliases.  A good start to a lightweight
coreutils package would be breaking the busybox utils apart into
descrete programs, in my opinion.

>  Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but
> obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as annoyed
> with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even Firefox as
> anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI userland that
> make it comfortable is mad. Would you use dash instead of zsh as an
> everyday shell?

I use ash more frequently -- lots of time spent in busybox.  It's like
anything else: once you learn how to get along without animated
prompts and regular expressions built into the shell, you realize it's
not that bad.  Personally, I prefer to call sed over using (for
instance) bash's regex support.  Some of us would *rather* use awk.

>  At a risk of being boring, I'll say that the same argument can be made
> about text editors: VIM is quite bloated and big, but it's better than
> any small text editor; because text editing is one of those typical
> tasks that cannot be comfortable without a million features that are in
> no way related to each other.

Cannot be made comfortable _for_you_.  You are not everyone.  I'm
perfectly comfortable in vi.  If I want syntax highlighting, I can
always run vim, but there's no reason to load up all that shit if I
just want to write a small script.

>Even if someone writes a really small,
> elegant, suckless editor core, it will be unusable until:
>  - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal)

Not really incompatible with lightweight design.

>  - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...)

busybox's vi already does this.

>  - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp...

There is _no_reason_ that has to be compiled into the core and enabled
for every single file.  Any well-designed piece of software can be
made extensible, and stuff like syntax highlighting is perfect plugin
material.

>  - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...)

which character set are you using that has a half-tab character?
ctrl+lower-case i?

>  - autocompletion, ctags integration

see above about plugin material.  If you require autocompletion you're
not cut out (to be charitable) for a minimal environment anyway and
(to be less charitable) might want to better familiarize yourself with
the programming language.  ctags are useful for programming but that's
no reason to integrate them into a general-purpose text editor.  many
of us edit text for purposes other than python.

> These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement

syntax highlighting, autocompletion, and ctags are _not_ "necessary
basics" in a text editor.

> these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application.

...and that's the problem we're complaining about.  We're sick of
multi-ten-thousand line applications full of things we don't often
need.  vi is supposed to be a "Visual Interface" to ex, which by your
definition of "absolutely necessary basics" isn't even a text editor.
vim is often called a "programmer's editor" because it does all these
things you want, but vi is just meant to edit text, not write your
code for you and give you a light show while it does it.

>  I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
> suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not
> all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only
> marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper handling of
> this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates so much.

yep, and that's why many of us hope that we can leave dwm alone and
have an mdwm (multihead dwm) branch or something similar.  unix used
to be about having the right tool for the job, not having a
four-megabyte (dynamically linked!) text editor for every purpose.
some of us miss that commitment to purpose.

-- 
# Kurt H Maier

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Antoni Grzymala]

Mate Nagy dixit (2009-05-15, 20:29):

[...]

> no way related to each other. Even if someone writes a really small,
> elegant, suckless editor core, it will be unusable until:
>  - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal)
>  - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...)
>  - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp...
>  - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...)
>  - autocompletion, ctags integration
> These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement
> these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application.
> Sucklessness goes through the window.
> (Yes, there are people who make do with mcedit, but.. come on.)
> 
>  I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
> suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not

[...]

Very much agreed. As to the lisp part, even emacs cannot properly indent
the loop macro yet :).

-- 
[a]


pgp6QrukIGIuU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Jake Todd]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:29:11 +0200
Mate Nagy  wrote:

> > I cannot understand GNU software. ls or cat source in GNU is scary,
> > glibc is even worse. The old UNIX utilities or Plan9 ones have a
> > simplicity which GNU lacks. I don't have anything against the GPL
> > license, but I prefer less restrictive licenses. And, of course, I
> > don't like rms.
>  i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU
> software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and
> usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have >features<
> (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic hackjobs.
> 
>  Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but
> obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as annoyed
> with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even Firefox as
> anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI userland that
> make it comfortable is mad. Would you use dash instead of zsh as an
> everyday shell?
> 
>  At a risk of being boring, I'll say that the same argument can be made
> about text editors: VIM is quite bloated and big, but it's better than
> any small text editor; because text editing is one of those typical
> tasks that cannot be comfortable without a million features that are in
> no way related to each other. Even if someone writes a really small,
> elegant, suckless editor core, it will be unusable until:
>  - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal)
>  - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...)
>  - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp...
>  - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...)
>  - autocompletion, ctags integration
> These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement
> these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application.
> Sucklessness goes through the window.
> (Yes, there are people who make do with mcedit, but.. come on.)
> 
>  I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
> suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not
> all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only
> marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper handling of
> this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates so much.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Mate
> PS. am not trolling :)
> 

That't what I wanted to say. :D

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Brendan MacDonell]

On Fri, 15 May 2009, Mate Nagy wrote:


Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but
obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as annoyed
with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even Firefox as
anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI userland that
make it comfortable is mad.
I was just about to write the exact same thing. However, coreutils could 
likely use some love to cut down on functionality duplicated across 
binaries, not to mention some extraneous options which few people ever 
use. In my opinion, it's about finding the balance between simplicity (so 
that people can hold the entire model of a command/utility in their head) 
and features (to allow users to achieve something without spending all of 
their time trying to fill in the gaps with awk.)



I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not
all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only
marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper handling of
this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates so much.
Exactly. dwm was largely well-adopted initially because there were no 
alternatives for dynamically managing windows. Since then, awesome and 
xmonad have largely poached the people looking for features and 
extensibility, while dwm has remained the ideal minimal core to play with 
and experiment on. People advocating for the recreation of cut-down 
versions of things just to be suckless fail to see that these will suck 
just as much, only there will be fewer useful _and_ extraneous features.


Take it from me: I hate Wirth's Law, and I try to implement minimal, 
well-specified utilities myself, but I try to do this in a way which 
_improves_ on existing models instead of wasting my time duplicating 
existing efforts.


Brendan MacDonell

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Mate Nagy]

> I cannot understand GNU software. ls or cat source in GNU is scary,
> glibc is even worse. The old UNIX utilities or Plan9 ones have a
> simplicity which GNU lacks. I don't have anything against the GPL
> license, but I prefer less restrictive licenses. And, of course, I
> don't like rms.
 i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU
software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and
usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have >features<
(imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic hackjobs.

 Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but
obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as annoyed
with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even Firefox as
anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI userland that
make it comfortable is mad. Would you use dash instead of zsh as an
everyday shell?

 At a risk of being boring, I'll say that the same argument can be made
about text editors: VIM is quite bloated and big, but it's better than
any small text editor; because text editing is one of those typical
tasks that cannot be comfortable without a million features that are in
no way related to each other. Even if someone writes a really small,
elegant, suckless editor core, it will be unusable until:
 - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal)
 - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...)
 - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp...
 - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...)
 - autocompletion, ctags integration
These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement
these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application.
Sucklessness goes through the window.
(Yes, there are people who make do with mcedit, but.. come on.)

 I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not
all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only
marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper handling of
this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates so much.

Best regards,
 Mate
PS. am not trolling :)

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[yy]

2009/5/15 Leandro Chescotta :
> 2009/5/15 yy < yiyu@gmail.com >:
>> There is a suckless alternative to GNU: Plan9.
>
> I don't know that, there are apps under Plan9 like GNU? Why make it suckless 
> comparative to GNU?
>

In the sense that GNU aims to be a similar to UNIX operating system,
but not UNIX, it is almost the same thing than Plan9. But now I was
talking about glibc and the GNU tools, you could read
http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/ to get the idea, or some info pages.

>> every initiative to remove GNU from the world has my vote. I have also 
>> listened good things about http://www.tinycorelinux.com, but have not tried 
>> the real thing myself.
>
> Why you don't like GNU? I only ask because I don't know, I only want to know 
> what's wrong with it, I only use it, and thinked it was great, I mean, I love 
> open source software, but I really don't know the license thing
>

I cannot understand GNU software. ls or cat source in GNU is scary,
glibc is even worse. The old UNIX utilities or Plan9 ones have a
simplicity which GNU lacks. I don't have anything against the GPL
license, but I prefer less restrictive licenses. And, of course, I
don't like rms.


-- 
- yiyus || JGL .

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Benjamin Conner]

I hate X.  One of my frineds is doing a thing and seeing how long he can go
without X, just on the command line.  So far, it's gone good.  Though you'll
need some X alternitive.

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM, pancake  wrote:

> +1 :D
>
>
> nilp wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:38:51PM +0200, yy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> effort, but it would not give me any real benefit. There is a suckless
>>> alternative to GNU: Plan9. If I still run (arch)linux is because I
>>> often need things like a full featured web browser, pdflatex, the
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How about Glendix?
>>
>> "Our ultimate goal is to create a minimalist Linux distribution that
>> contains
>> a Plan 9 userspace, instead of the GNU software that is usually provided
>> by
>> most distributions."
>>
>> http://www.glendix.org/
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[pancake]

+1 :D

nilp wrote:

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:38:51PM +0200, yy wrote:
  

effort, but it would not give me any real benefit. There is a suckless
alternative to GNU: Plan9. If I still run (arch)linux is because I
often need things like a full featured web browser, pdflatex, the



How about Glendix?

"Our ultimate goal is to create a minimalist Linux distribution that contains
a Plan 9 userspace, instead of the GNU software that is usually provided by
most distributions."

http://www.glendix.org/
  

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[nilp]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:38:51PM +0200, yy wrote:
> effort, but it would not give me any real benefit. There is a suckless
> alternative to GNU: Plan9. If I still run (arch)linux is because I
> often need things like a full featured web browser, pdflatex, the

How about Glendix?

"Our ultimate goal is to create a minimalist Linux distribution that contains
a Plan 9 userspace, instead of the GNU software that is usually provided by
most distributions."

http://www.glendix.org/


pgpsYkYSGdDaJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: [dwm] musca wm

[Leandro Chescotta]

2009/5/15 yy < yiyu@gmail.com >:
> There is a suckless alternative to GNU: Plan9.

I don't know that, there are apps under Plan9 like GNU? Why make it suckless 
comparative to GNU?

> every initiative to remove GNU from the world has my vote. I have also 
> listened good things about http://www.tinycorelinux.com, but have not tried 
> the real thing myself.

Why you don't like GNU? I only ask because I don't know, I only want to know 
what's wrong with it, I only use it, and thinked it was great, I mean, I love 
open source software, but I really don't know the license thing


La información del presente documento es clasificada como Confidencial.

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[yy]

2009/5/15 pancake :
> A friend of me is writing a pkgsystem that builds everything inside a chroot
> and allows to create a full usable distribution, the pkgsystem itself is not
> yet finished, but is pretty fast , written in C and shellscript and I really
> think it is a good project. But actually it is a single-man project. We can
> use this project as a tool to build the base system.
>
> http://repo.or.cz/w/xbps.git/
>
> Actually i'm happy with arch linux, but, i really miss a non-gnu linux and
> minimalistic distribution. We should get a look on alternatives for glibc
> (google one? uclibc? ..) but maybe the biggest rock we will face it will be
> the X server...this is probably one of the interesting projects to work on,
> but without keeping the X compatibility. (just as an emulation layer) X11 is
> bloat. (as we have already discussed, we can reuse the drivers of xorg) but
> designing a better and simpler API. But this is probably a long topic to
> talk about, and we're of course not the first ones to claim for an X11
> replacement.
>
> --pancake
>

I'd like to agree with you, and I would be glad to help in such an
effort, but it would not give me any real benefit. There is a suckless
alternative to GNU: Plan9. If I still run (arch)linux is because I
often need things like a full featured web browser, pdflatex, the
gimp, or ardour, for example, so I will need all the gnu-x-crap
anyway. The same thing happens with that pkgsystem: it looks good, but
what I really need from a pkgsystem is pre-packaged software, IMO
compatibility with pacman (or any other widely used pm) would be
better. But if you - or anybody else - go for it, every iniciative to
remove GNU from the world has my vote. I have also listened good
things about http://www.tinycorelinux.com, but have not tried the real
thing myself.


-- 
- yiyus || JGL .

RE: [dwm] musca wm

[Leandro Chescotta]

I see some time ago that there is a framebuffer option like X as I recall, 
maybe im confuse and didn't understand what that where, but I think it even has 
3d acceleration, im at work without internet connection, but maybe someone can 
tell me what that is, I think it was fb


-Mensaje original-
De: pancake [mailto:panc...@youterm.com] 
Enviado el: viernes, 15 de mayo de 2009 12:07 p.m.
Para: dwm mail list
Asunto: Re: [dwm] musca wm

A friend of me is writing a pkgsystem that builds everything inside a 
chroot and allows to create a full usable distribution, the pkgsystem 
itself is not yet finished, but is pretty fast , written in C and 
shellscript and I really think it is a good project. But actually it is 
a single-man project. We can use this project as a tool to build the 
base system.

http://repo.or.cz/w/xbps.git/

Actually i'm happy with arch linux, but, i really miss a non-gnu linux 
and minimalistic distribution. We should get a look on alternatives for 
glibc (google one? uclibc? ..) but maybe the biggest rock we will face 
it will be the X server...this is probably one of the interesting 
projects to work on, but without keeping the X compatibility. (just as 
an emulation layer) X11 is bloat. (as we have already discussed, we can 
reuse the drivers of xorg) but designing a better and simpler API. But 
this is probably a long topic to talk about, and we're of course not the 
first ones to claim for an X11 replacement.

--pancake

Benjamin Conner wrote:
> > What do you think about creating an offtopic mailing list in 
> suckless for
> > discussing such
> > kind of topics, instead of using the dwm@ one like nowadays happen.
> I agree with Anselm.  I like a lot of your ideas in that message.
> "I really miss the conceptual experimentation that dwm was in the 
> past. But I agree that
> we should probably focus on other topics like 'st' or a full OS based 
> on minimalist software
> (based on Linux without GNU craps) ...
> "
> That's a good idea.  Maybe do an lfs.  I'd use wmii as the Wm, so you 
> don't have to recompile.  Or maybe have no WM and just X so that you 
> can put one in yourself and customize it.  IDK.
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Leandro Chescotta 
> mailto:lchesco...@banelco.com.ar>> wrote:
>
> 2009/5/15 Anselm R Garbe < garb...@gmail.com
> <mailto:garb...@gmail.com> >:
>
> > I'll provide a new multiscreen support this weekend in dwm. It's
> based on assigning specific tags to specific screens.
>
> I really like the idea
>
>
> La información del presente documento es clasificada como
> Confidencial.
>
>




La información del presente documento es clasificada como Confidencial.

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[pancake]

A friend of me is writing a pkgsystem that builds everything inside a 
chroot and allows to create a full usable distribution, the pkgsystem 
itself is not yet finished, but is pretty fast , written in C and 
shellscript and I really think it is a good project. But actually it is 
a single-man project. We can use this project as a tool to build the 
base system.


http://repo.or.cz/w/xbps.git/

Actually i'm happy with arch linux, but, i really miss a non-gnu linux 
and minimalistic distribution. We should get a look on alternatives for 
glibc (google one? uclibc? ..) but maybe the biggest rock we will face 
it will be the X server...this is probably one of the interesting 
projects to work on, but without keeping the X compatibility. (just as 
an emulation layer) X11 is bloat. (as we have already discussed, we can 
reuse the drivers of xorg) but designing a better and simpler API. But 
this is probably a long topic to talk about, and we're of course not the 
first ones to claim for an X11 replacement.


--pancake

Benjamin Conner wrote:
> What do you think about creating an offtopic mailing list in 
suckless for

> discussing such
> kind of topics, instead of using the dwm@ one like nowadays happen.
I agree with Anselm.  I like a lot of your ideas in that message.
"I really miss the conceptual experimentation that dwm was in the 
past. But I agree that
we should probably focus on other topics like 'st' or a full OS based 
on minimalist software

(based on Linux without GNU craps) ...
"
That's a good idea.  Maybe do an lfs.  I'd use wmii as the Wm, so you 
don't have to recompile.  Or maybe have no WM and just X so that you 
can put one in yourself and customize it.  IDK.
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Leandro Chescotta 
mailto:lchesco...@banelco.com.ar>> wrote:


2009/5/15 Anselm R Garbe < garb...@gmail.com
 >:

> I'll provide a new multiscreen support this weekend in dwm. It's
based on assigning specific tags to specific screens.

I really like the idea


La información del presente documento es clasificada como
Confidencial.

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Benjamin Conner]

> What do you think about creating an offtopic mailing list in suckless for
> discussing such
> kind of topics, instead of using the dwm@ one like nowadays happen.
I agree with Anselm.  I like a lot of your ideas in that message.
"I really miss the conceptual experimentation that dwm was in the past. But
I agree that
we should probably focus on other topics like 'st' or a full OS based on
minimalist software
(based on Linux without GNU craps) ...
"
That's a good idea.  Maybe do an lfs.  I'd use wmii as the Wm, so you don't
have to recompile.  Or maybe have no WM and just X so that you can put one
in yourself and customize it.  IDK.
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Leandro Chescotta <
lchesco...@banelco.com.ar> wrote:

> 2009/5/15 Anselm R Garbe < garb...@gmail.com >:
>
> > I'll provide a new multiscreen support this weekend in dwm. It's based on
> assigning specific tags to specific screens.
>
> I really like the idea
>
>
> La información del presente documento es clasificada como Confidencial.
>

RE: [dwm] musca wm

[Leandro Chescotta]

2009/5/15 Anselm R Garbe < garb...@gmail.com >:

> I'll provide a new multiscreen support this weekend in dwm. It's based on 
> assigning specific tags to specific screens.

I really like the idea


La información del presente documento es clasificada como Confidencial.

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Anselm R Garbe]

2009/5/15 pancake :
> What I find interesting is the support for multi-screen. Actually I'm using
> wmii at work,
> because dwm cannot properly handle multiscreen layouts and this made me use
> the
> mouse too much.
>
> Wmii has some bugs, but at least is IMHO better for multiscreen layouts. I
> think this is
> the eternal discussion, because it is hard to find the 'best' approach to
> this problem
> for dwm.
>
> But for single-screen environments dwm still rocks :)
>
> I really miss the conceptual experimentation that dwm was in the past. But I
> agree that
> we should probably focus on other topics like 'st' or a full OS based on
> minimalist software
> (based on Linux without GNU craps) ...

I'll provide a new multiscreen support this weekend in dwm. It's based
on assigning specific tags to specific screens.

> What do you think about creating an offtopic mailing list in suckless for
> discussing such
> kind of topics, instead of using the dwm@ one like nowadays happen.

I think it's been the charme of dwm@ to discuss lot's of other things,
so I'd rather keep it as it is for now ;)

Kind regards,
Anselm

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[pancake]

What I find interesting is the support for multi-screen. Actually I'm 
using wmii at work,
because dwm cannot properly handle multiscreen layouts and this made me 
use the

mouse too much.

Wmii has some bugs, but at least is IMHO better for multiscreen layouts. 
I think this is
the eternal discussion, because it is hard to find the 'best' approach 
to this problem

for dwm.

But for single-screen environments dwm still rocks :)

I really miss the conceptual experimentation that dwm was in the past. 
But I agree that
we should probably focus on other topics like 'st' or a full OS based on 
minimalist software

(based on Linux without GNU craps) ...

What do you think about creating an offtopic mailing list in suckless 
for discussing such

kind of topics, instead of using the dwm@ one like nowadays happen.

--pancake

Benjamin Conner wrote:

it's interesting.  But I prefer dwm or wmii.

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Anselm R Garbe > wrote:


2009/5/15 pancake mailto:panc...@youterm.com>>:
> another tiling manager with interesting features:
>
> http://aerosuidae.net/musca.html

Looks to me it's aiming the original WMI without tabbing a little bit.
I definately prefer the dwm way after all ;)

Kind regards,
Anselm

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Benjamin Conner]

it's interesting.  But I prefer dwm or wmii.

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Anselm R Garbe  wrote:

> 2009/5/15 pancake :
> > another tiling manager with interesting features:
> >
> > http://aerosuidae.net/musca.html
>
> Looks to me it's aiming the original WMI without tabbing a little bit.
> I definately prefer the dwm way after all ;)
>
> Kind regards,
> Anselm
>
>

Re: [dwm] musca wm

[Anselm R Garbe]

2009/5/15 pancake :
> another tiling manager with interesting features:
>
> http://aerosuidae.net/musca.html

Looks to me it's aiming the original WMI without tabbing a little bit.
I definately prefer the dwm way after all ;)

Kind regards,
Anselm