Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
Sylvain BERTRAND writes: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:32:33PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > > Sylvain BERTRAND writes: > >> I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt > >> by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for > >> all open source coders. And communication would have been > >> an enrichment for the suckless community. > >> The thread will die because I think those facts do not exist. > > > > You have already been provided with the classical case, which you immediate > ly > > dismissed as "biased", no reason given. Other real-world examples, like the > > gratuitous incompatibility of different GPL versions as in LibreDWG or Samb > a, > > have been brought up on this list in previous discussions. > > I heard about GNU GPL version wars, was only aware of the benign > Linus T. one. > > Let me laught: > Do you really think a GNU GPL version war can reasonnably > compensate the defect of code closing from MIT/BSD-like licenses. Yes. -- Anthony J. Bentley
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:32:33PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > Sylvain BERTRAND writes: >> I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt >> by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for >> all open source coders. And communication would have been >> an enrichment for the suckless community. >> The thread will die because I think those facts do not exist. > > You have already been provided with the classical case, which you immediately > dismissed as "biased", no reason given. Other real-world examples, like the > gratuitous incompatibility of different GPL versions as in LibreDWG or Samba, > have been brought up on this list in previous discussions. I heard about GNU GPL version wars, was only aware of the benign Linus T. one. Let me laught: Do you really think a GNU GPL version war can reasonnably compensate the defect of code closing from MIT/BSD-like licenses. I'm not weak/stupid enough to let go the advantages of the protection of the GNU GPL for that. Please! I know what's the most important: protection against code closing. (Hey! I'm not going to stop driving a car because there are accidents) How can I get my hands on the libreDWG and Samba cases? Google? Suckless mailing list archive? -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
Sylvain BERTRAND writes: > I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt > by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for > all open source coders. And communication would have been > an enrichment for the suckless community. > The thread will die because I think those facts do not exist. You have already been provided with the classical case, which you immediately dismissed as "biased", no reason given. Other real-world examples, like the gratuitous incompatibility of different GPL versions as in LibreDWG or Samba, have been brought up on this list in previous discussions. -- Anthony J. Bentley
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:12:10PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > Sylvain BERTRAND writes: >> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. >> >> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source >> files to recompile for a build increment. > > For an opinion that matters, try Kernighan & Pike (The Unix Programming > Environment, pg. 241): > > It's a nuisance to have to type two commands to compile a new version of > [our example]. Although it's certainly easy to make a shell file that does > the job, there's a better way, one that will generalize nicely later on > when there is more than one source file in the program. ... > > make is most useful when the program being created is large enough to be > spread over several source files, but it's handy even for something as > small as [our example]. > > In other words, one advantage that make provides is a simple interface for > building any program, whether small or large. Said interface should not > come at the cost of complexity, but good makefiles are simple anyway (the > one in their example is two lines). Well, I disagree on that point with Kernighan & Pike (The Unix Programming Environment, pg. 241). And come on... :) regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:11:38AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to > > trolls). > > On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the > > time except, of course, regarding closed source system software > > manufacturers. Could you pinpoint to me some parts I was > > insulting the participating "subscribers" or engaged in active > > public discredit (like making fun of published code)? > > In most parts of the world "dirty lie" is not considered to be very > friendly. Just because you didn't specifically make fun of somebody's > code doesn't mean you were being civil and polite. You were very > aggressive, just take a look back at the things you have written. I did. It is order of magnitude less that the other guys. A drop in the middle of a public wipping. It's neglectable compared to the other guys. Please be fair: do provide the same treatement you are giving me to the other guys. > > Hey! I was asked to start a new thread. I know it's bad to "steal" the > > topic of a thread like that. Then I did it, and in an instant I > > was told to kill that thread ??? > > > I started another thread regarding a real life GNU GPL license > > issue of one of suckless subscribers (the holy graal for me). The > > thread was immedialtly "stolen" and strayed away from its primary > > purpose. > > > Then I rebooted the thread, and ask the people to be nice and > > respect the purpose of this thread. Code license is important for > > all suckless software and, finally, and we have somebody able to > > reveal to suckless people a real life issue with the GNU GPL. > > This is reasonnably valid to be dealed and discussed by the > > suckless community. > > You started an entire thread when you only wanted an answer from one > person. On a topic you have to know is going nowhere, its even been > discussed on the suckless mailing lists before. > > I agree that this thread needs to die very soon. It's good advice on > account of there is no beneficial communication happening here. I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for all open source coders. And communication would have been an enrichment for the suckless community. The thread will die because I think those facts do not exist. > > Nobody has been able to pinpoint to me pertinent, real life, > > issues with the GNU GPL licenses that would make prefer MIT/BSD > > like licenses. The only thing I have got is, to summerize, > > "trust me, there are some". > > If you have some, I'll be pleased to read about them, because the > > issue from a subscriber seems top secret/classified (how > > convenient!) > > And hey! I cannot disagree on things I'm not told about yet! Come > > on :). I only can disagree on keeping it a secret, that's it. > > > I was happy, in a technical argument about choice of SDK build > > system, a "subcriber" swore to me he had real troubles with the > > GNU GPL. Again, when I'm about to get that intell, abracadabra, It > > disappears, and people are frowing eyebrows hard! > > The main argument is idealogical in nature. Whether the added > restrictions in the GPL are hurtful or not has never been proven, nor > will it likely ever be. Real examples will be something like "Party A > GPLs his code, Party B could improve it, but doesn't because he > disagrees with GPL/wants to use a different license, therefore the > world is deprived of an improvement to Party A's software". I don't > use GPL because I believe all restriction inhibits progress, and I > have to do extra work to make sure I never derive anything from a > GPL'd source, so GPL hurts me. "Whether the added restrictions in the GPL are hurtful or not has never been proven, nor will it likely ever be..." Thank you. Then you were right, it would have ended in public humiliation. (I don't debuck the quite common pro-BSD/MIT license example you selected above, it's of course completely biased, I was asked off-list to let go (bash?) all licenses issues from the list, you can ask me the details off-list). > Do a search on Google, lot's of people complain about GPL and give > good reasons for it. and valid arguments have been stated here as > well. Its an argument as old as the GPL itself, even you refered to > the disagreement between Stallman and Torvalds over the GPLv3, so you > _must_ be aware of some of the arguments. My own argument is very > similar to Torvalds problem with the v3. I have never ever encountered "good" reasons from a clean and honest point of view... Never ever... Usually, I get to face a bunch of hypocrites who only think of open source software as a reservoir of free, as in free beer, code to perform vendor lock-in with closed then enhanced/modified open source code. >> It's common on web public forums (trolls and super stealth >> kiddies using tor). Why
Re: [dev] [st] [PATCH] Use monotonic clock to prevent timing issues
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:27:52PM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, FRIGN wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:47:27 +0200 > > "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote: > > > >> I agree with you and I like the patch. If nobody have problems with > >> it I will apply it. > > > > Cool! :) > > > > Yeah, it's the first step on refactoring the main loop. I see some > > potential. > > A problem seems to have appeared! This patch creates an st that is > unusably slow for me. Using the coarse clock doesn’t seem to help > either. Is anyone else experiencing the same behaviour? It’s > definitely 738f555f→5edeec1b, and judging by the processor time, it’s > an issue of inefficiency rather than, say, sleeping for too long. Yeah, this was also reported on IRC, I just posted a patch to fix it. -- Ivan "Colona" Delalande
[dev] [st] [PATCH] Fixed wrong nanosecond factor 10E6.
Commit 5edeec1 introduced a wrong factor for nanosecond computation, the correct
value is 1E6. Time and timeout values are 10 times less than they should be and
this cause high CPU usage.
Reported by pyroh on IRC. Thanks!
---
st.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index 17142a4..f9c9f7a 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ char *argv0;
#define LIMIT(x, a, b)(x) = (x) < (a) ? (a) : (x) > (b) ? (b) : (x)
#define ATTRCMP(a, b) ((a).mode != (b).mode || (a).fg != (b).fg || (a).bg !=
(b).bg)
#define IS_SET(flag) ((term.mode & (flag)) != 0)
-#define TIMEDIFF(t1, t2) ((t1.tv_sec-t2.tv_sec)*1000 +
(t1.tv_nsec-t2.tv_nsec)/10E6)
+#define TIMEDIFF(t1, t2) ((t1.tv_sec-t2.tv_sec)*1000 +
(t1.tv_nsec-t2.tv_nsec)/1E6)
#define CEIL(x) (((x) != (int) (x)) ? (x) + 1 : (x))
#define MODBIT(x, set, bit) ((set) ? ((x) |= (bit)) : ((x) &= ~(bit)))
@@ -3753,7 +3753,7 @@ run(void) {
clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &now);
drawtimeout.tv_sec = 0;
- drawtimeout.tv_nsec = (1000/xfps) * 10E6;
+ drawtimeout.tv_nsec = (1000/xfps) * 1E6;
tv = &drawtimeout;
dodraw = 0;
@@ -3790,7 +3790,7 @@ run(void) {
> blinktimeout) {
drawtimeout.tv_nsec = 1000;
} else {
- drawtimeout.tv_nsec = (10E6 * \
+ drawtimeout.tv_nsec = (1E6 * \
(blinktimeout - \
TIMEDIFF(now,
lastblink)));
--
2.0.0
--
Ivan "Colona" Delalande
Re: [dev] [st] [PATCH] Use monotonic clock to prevent timing issues
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, FRIGN wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:47:27 +0200 > "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote: > >> I agree with you and I like the patch. If nobody have problems with >> it I will apply it. > > Cool! :) > > Yeah, it's the first step on refactoring the main loop. I see some > potential. A problem seems to have appeared! This patch creates an st that is unusably slow for me. Using the coarse clock doesn’t seem to help either. Is anyone else experiencing the same behaviour? It’s definitely 738f555f→5edeec1b, and judging by the processor time, it’s an issue of inefficiency rather than, say, sleeping for too long.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
Sylvain BERTRAND writes: > Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. > > Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source > files to recompile for a build increment. For an opinion that matters, try Kernighan & Pike (The Unix Programming Environment, pg. 241): It's a nuisance to have to type two commands to compile a new version of [our example]. Although it's certainly easy to make a shell file that does the job, there's a better way, one that will generalize nicely later on when there is more than one source file in the program. ... make is most useful when the program being created is large enough to be spread over several source files, but it's handy even for something as small as [our example]. In other words, one advantage that make provides is a simple interface for building any program, whether small or large. Said interface should not come at the cost of complexity, but good makefiles are simple anyway (the one in their example is two lines). -- Anthony J. Bentley
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to > trolls). > On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the > time except, of course, regarding closed source system software > manufacturers. Could you pinpoint to me some parts I was > insulting the participating "subscribers" or engaged in active > public discredit (like making fun of published code)? In most parts of the world "dirty lie" is not considered to be very friendly. Just because you didn't specifically make fun of somebody's code doesn't mean you were being civil and polite. You were very aggressive, just take a look back at the things you have written. > Hey! I was asked to start a new thread. I know it's bad to "steal" the > topic of a thread like that. Then I did it, and in an instant I > was told to kill that thread ??? > I started another thread regarding a real life GNU GPL license > issue of one of suckless subscribers (the holy graal for me). The > thread was immedialtly "stolen" and strayed away from its primary > purpose. > Then I rebooted the thread, and ask the people to be nice and > respect the purpose of this thread. Code license is important for > all suckless software and, finally, and we have somebody able to > reveal to suckless people a real life issue with the GNU GPL. > This is reasonnably valid to be dealed and discussed by the > suckless community. You started an entire thread when you only wanted an answer from one person. On a topic you have to know is going nowhere, its even been discussed on the suckless mailing lists before. I agree that this thread needs to die very soon. It's good advice on account of there is no beneficial communication happening here. > Nobody has been able to pinpoint to me pertinent, real life, > issues with the GNU GPL licenses that would make prefer MIT/BSD > like licenses. The only thing I have got is, to summerize, > "trust me, there are some". > If you have some, I'll be pleased to read about them, because the > issue from a subscriber seems top secret/classified (how > convenient!) > And hey! I cannot disagree on things I'm not told about yet! Come > on :). I only can disagree on keeping it a secret, that's it. > I was happy, in a technical argument about choice of SDK build > system, a "subcriber" swore to me he had real troubles with the > GNU GPL. Again, when I'm about to get that intell, abracadabra, It > disappears, and people are frowing eyebrows hard! The main argument is idealogical in nature. Whether the added restrictions in the GPL are hurtful or not has never been proven, nor will it likely ever be. Real examples will be something like "Party A GPLs his code, Party B could improve it, but doesn't because he disagrees with GPL/wants to use a different license, therefore the world is deprived of an improvement to Party A's software". I don't use GPL because I believe all restriction inhibits progress, and I have to do extra work to make sure I never derive anything from a GPL'd source, so GPL hurts me. Do a search on Google, lot's of people complain about GPL and give good reasons for it. and valid arguments have been stated here as well. Its an argument as old as the GPL itself, even you refered to the disagreement between Stallman and Torvalds over the GPLv3, so you _must_ be aware of some of the arguments. My own argument is very similar to Torvalds problem with the v3. > It's common on web public forums (trolls and super stealth > kiddies using tor). Why not on a public mailing > list. Here, they are a bit smarter than their web counter parts, > that's all, but we are not a lot higher than the sea level (I > wonder, could they be bots to win the turing price?) Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll or a bot. A lot of suckless software already uses MIT/BSD licenses, so you should have known your ideas would not be popular. The people on this list are real people that disagree with you. > That, I just posted it. Apparently, the damage happened before. I > wonder when... as I said, I'm open minded, I do accept > constructive critisism. Saying it is not enough.
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:07:26AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: > It's the internet, people say stuff, don't let it get to you. It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to trolls). On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the time except, of course, regarding closed source system software manufacturers. Could you pinpoint to me some parts I was insulting the participating "subscribers" or engaged in active public discredit (like making fun of published code)? > You did start 3 threads, that's not good ml etiquette. Probably > could have dealt with this off the mailing list, or not taken it > personally. There were lots of better options. Hey! I was asked to start a new thread. I know it's bad to "steal" the topic of a thread like that. Then I did it, and in an instant I was told to kill that thread ??? I started another thread regarding a real life GNU GPL license issue of one of suckless subscribers (the holy graal for me). The thread was immedialtly "stolen" and strayed away from its primary purpose. Then I rebooted the thread, and ask the people to be nice and respect the purpose of this thread. Code license is important for all suckless software and, finally, and we have somebody able to reveal to suckless people a real life issue with the GNU GPL. This is reasonnably valid to be dealed and discussed by the suckless community. Basically, out of the blue, I was instantly asked to stop all my threads. Quite weird actually. > You aren't getting anywhere by using terms like "dirty lie". > There are lots of arguments against the GPL. Just because you > don't agree doesn't justify calling people liars. Nobody has been able to pinpoint to me pertinent, real life, issues with the GNU GPL licenses that would make prefer MIT/BSD like licenses. The only thing I have got is, to summerize, "trust me, there are some". If you have some, I'll be pleased to read about them, because the issue from a subscriber seems top secret/classified (how convenient!) And hey! I cannot disagree on things I'm not told about yet! Come on :). I only can disagree on keeping it a secret, that's it. I was happy, in a technical argument about choice of SDK build system, a "subcriber" swore to me he had real troubles with the GNU GPL. Again, when I'm about to get that intell, abracadabra, It disappears, and people are frowing eyebrows hard! >> It seems some "subscribers" may be malicious accounts to >> sabotage any attempt to get a constructive argument (directed >> against some specific people?). > > You seriously believe this? I hope you don't. It's common on web public forums (trolls and super stealth kiddies using tor). Why not on a public mailing list. Here, they are a bit smarter than their web counter parts, that's all, but we are not a lot higher than the sea level (I wonder, could they be bots to win the turing price?) >> Do note that the "people" behind those accounts are worth >> quite less than those from microsoft/apple/sap/oracle/etc, >> even if they write open source software. > > Again, if you don't want to be attacked, trying to offend others will > get you nowhere and doesn't help your case at all. That, I just posted it. Apparently, the damage happened before. I wonder when... as I said, I'm open minded, I do accept constructive critisism. regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > I'm very disappointed: I was the guy who was attacked on his > published work on internet (in a rather clumsy and harsh way). It's the internet, people say stuff, don't let it get to you. > Nethertheless, when I'm about to get a very important piece of > information, I'm only being silenced for good and I get more bashing? You did start 3 threads, that's not good ml etiquette. Probably could have dealt with this off the mailing list, or not taken it personally. There were lots of better options. > That piece of information: a real life issue with the GNU GPL > license (which end up being a dirty lie?). You aren't getting anywhere by using terms like "dirty lie". There are lots of arguments against the GPL. Just because you don't agree doesn't justify calling people liars. > It seems some "subscribers" may be malicious accounts to sabotage > any attempt to get a constructive argument (directed against some > specific people?). You seriously believe this? I hope you don't. > Do note that the "people" behind those accounts are worth quite less > than those from microsoft/apple/sap/oracle/etc, even if they > write open source software. Again, if you don't want to be attacked, trying to offend others will get you nowhere and doesn't help your case at all.
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:59:09AM +0800, Chris Down wrote: > Sylvain, > > You've had positive contributions here before. Please have consideration > for the many subscribers who are here to participate in discussion > related to suckless.org and suckless philosophy, and have no interest in > meaningless mud slinging between two people. > > There is a good way to approach discussion, and a bad way; certainly > this thread falls in the latter category. Cool down, take some time out, > and then reapproach the problem with a more productive mindset that > isn't focussed on baying for public humiliation. :-) > > Thanks. I'm very disappointed: I was the guy who was attacked on his published work on internet (in a rather clumsy and harsh way). Nethertheless, when I'm about to get a very important piece of information, I'm only being silenced for good and I get more bashing? That piece of information: a real life issue with the GNU GPL license (which end up being a dirty lie?). It seems some "subscribers" may be malicious accounts to sabotage any attempt to get a constructive argument (directed against some specific people?). Do note that the "people" behind those accounts are worth quite less than those from microsoft/apple/sap/oracle/etc, even if they write open source software. Well... it's the price of a public mailing-list, I guess. cheers, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:24:23AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following: > > > > "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:" > > > > Specifically in regards to binary redistribution: > > > > "2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." > > > > The MIT/X license allows for this as well. > > > > Am I missing something here? > > If I release some code under BSD/MIT, on say, my website, then > somebody takes my code, compiles it and offers that binary form on > their website, then the code is still freely available on my website, > they haven't made it non-free. They can't make me stop offering the > source code, the law would protect me if they tried. Ah, of course yes. Sorry too late for me.
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following: > > "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:" > > Specifically in regards to binary redistribution: > > "2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." > > The MIT/X license allows for this as well. > > Am I missing something here? If I release some code under BSD/MIT, on say, my website, then somebody takes my code, compiles it and offers that binary form on their website, then the code is still freely available on my website, they haven't made it non-free. They can't make me stop offering the source code, the law would protect me if they tried. Regards, --Phil
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:30:28PM +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > In my understanding, GPL enforces that derived work of your code > will still be free to its users. This covers 2 major aspects: > * One cannot repackage or modify GPL software and make it non-free > I think that is a guarantee that your code will _stay_ free, > even after modifications. > > * People that are not using the software, have absolutely no rights. > If I modify my linux kernel on my system, even Linus himself has > no rights to see. > Strictly speaking, only users of my computer that runs that kernel > can force me to give the sources. > > Am I wrong in this? Nope, you are right. Let me add some infos. You have other GNU GPL licences, for instance: - GNU *lesser* GPL: allows a "closed source" component to be linked to the component protected by the license. Perfect for middleware for instance. That's why most the libs are protected with a *lesser* version of the GNU GPL. - GNU *affero* GPL: this extends the GNU GPL to software components providing services over the network. For instance, the source code of a HTTP server protected with this licence would have to be provided to users. (this license is extremly rare, I have never seen it, except on some of my components ;) ). - *linux* GNU GPLv2. The linux GNU GPLv2 is a modified version of a plain GNU GPLv2: closed source userland programs are allowed till they are "normal". Basically, a device driver, even in userland is covered by the GNU GPLv2. Closed source device drivers are tolerated in the linux kernel (for various reasons), but in no way are legal. - GNU GPLv3: it's very hard to cheat it, because written by legalists. v2->v3 Highlights: Adds protection against those who open some code, but put "software patents" on that very code. Adds protection against those who open the code, but make it unmodifiable by users by a technical mean (tivo-ization, I may be wrong, but it one of the main things Linus T. does not like with v3). regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 06:33:17AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: > Nobody can take your code and make it non-free under a MIT/BSD license, > they can only make their modifications non-free. I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:" Specifically in regards to binary redistribution: "2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." The MIT/X license allows for this as well. Am I missing something here? [0] http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:52:33 -0400 Calvin Morrison wrote: > Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with > it. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but > leave my name on it. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to > contribute back any changes you make or else. > I disagree that "contribute back or else" is a fair description of the GPL. You aren't forced to release your modified versions, or share your copies of the program - see [0]. I would love to hear your perspective on why it feels like "contribute back or else" communism. Like Sylvain I am still making up my mind on the issue, but the relevant point I see is this: we all agree that software should be free, but through what means do we wish that freeness to be enforced? Legal action -- which amounts to the use of force -- is GNU's answer. I would rather closed source software be banished by people's refusal to use it, but this may be wishful thinking. Meanwhile, there are modern issues today (NSA, etc.) that make free software vital regardless of longterm ideals. The GPL, while it may not reflect our philosophical viewpoints, may be a tool worth using to make free software a little more ubiquitous. Caleb [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: >> > The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. >> >> No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I >> release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free >> and there's nothing anybody else can do about it. > > Your opinion is about static code. > >> >> GPL tries to control what other people do with code they wrote. > > Any license controls what other people can or may do with the code. > >> In my opinion that's kinda f'ed up. GPL does not protect your code, any >> license will do that, > > In my understanding, GPL enforces that derived work of your code > will still be free to its users. This covers 2 major aspects: > * One cannot repackage or modify GPL software and make it non-free > I think that is a guarantee that your code will _stay_ free, > even after modifications. > > * People that are not using the software, have absolutely no rights. > If I modify my linux kernel on my system, even Linus himself has > no rights to see. > Strictly speaking, only users of my computer that runs that kernel > can force me to give the sources. > > Am I wrong in this? > I don't think you quite understood what I meant. All licenses control what people can do with your code, yes, I didn't say anything to the contrary. I said it tries to control what people do with _their_ code, not your code. If someone mades a modification, that modification is something that they wrote, not you, GPL takes away that that person's right to their own creation (their "modification", which is their own work). Nobody can take your code and make it non-free under a MIT/BSD license, they can only make their modifications non-free. That's the problem with the GPL, (in my opinion), it has no effect on your code, but only on "modifications", which are NOT your code. And the whole thing about non-users, of course, but that doesn't really affect anybody, and I don't think it's ever been part of the argument. Regards, --Phil
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 04:07:14AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: > > You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed > > first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them. > > Ok, well then in popularized or spread "free" software. My point was > just that "has done good" doesn't justify its continued use, and > doesn't make it suckless. That's all. Well, in my opinion Linux is a nice example of the positive effect the GPL has. I hope that many other projects will choose the GPL as their license. Please note that I do not think that it's the right license for everything and I for sure don't want to suggest it would be the right license for the suckless.org software. Kind regards, -Alex
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: > > The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. > > No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I > release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free > and there's nothing anybody else can do about it. Yes, you are right about that, I wasn't clear enough. > GPL tries to control what other people do with code they wrote. In my > opinion that's kinda f'ed up. GPL does not protect your code, any > license will do that, GPL has no additional effect on your code above > what MIT/BSD does. The only place GPL works differently is on code > that is written by somebody else. Not necessarily by somebody else. > Granted, GPL did a lot of good, it created a free software culture and > made Linux what it is. Ubuntu has also done a lot of good by getting > people started in Linux, but that doesn't make it suckless. I never fully understood why people use Ubuntu. Kind regards, -Alex
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: > > The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. > > No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I > release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free > and there's nothing anybody else can do about it. Your opinion is about static code. > > GPL tries to control what other people do with code they wrote. Any license controls what other people can or may do with the code. > In my opinion that's kinda f'ed up. GPL does not protect your code, any > license will do that, In my understanding, GPL enforces that derived work of your code will still be free to its users. This covers 2 major aspects: * One cannot repackage or modify GPL software and make it non-free I think that is a guarantee that your code will _stay_ free, even after modifications. * People that are not using the software, have absolutely no rights. If I modify my linux kernel on my system, even Linus himself has no rights to see. Strictly speaking, only users of my computer that runs that kernel can force me to give the sources. Am I wrong in this? Kurt
Re: [dev] [st][dev 1/4] Add 8 bit version of DECID
On June 25, 2014 8:00:30 PM CEST, "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero"
wrote:
>DECID version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
>This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
>---
> st.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
>index f8f262a..4813524 100644
>--- a/st.c
>+++ b/st.c
>@@ -2419,7 +2419,9 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar ascii) {
> case 0x8f: /* TODO: SS3 */
> case 0x90: /* TODO: DCS */
> case 0x98: /* TODO: SOS */
>- case 0x9a: /* TODO: DECID */
>+ case 0x9a: /* DECID -- Identify Terminal */
>+ ttywrite(VT102ID, sizeof(VT102ID) - 1);
>+ break;
> case 0x9b: /* TODO: CSI */
> case 0x9c: /* TODO: ST */
> case 0x9d: /* TODO: OSC */
Careful, all the previous cases will fall through.
Re: [dev] Re: arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:09:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > Hey Sylvain, > > the GNU GPL is best describes as the prophecy of the beast and the > legend of Dovahkiin, the Last Dragonborn. > The appearance of the last Dragonborn was prophesied upon the GNU GPL, > a large edifice found within GNU Haven Temple. > It depicts several events that would preface the return of the Nordic > god of destruction, Richard Stallman. The prophecy itself is dire, but > scholars believed that its omens had been fulfilled and that a single > individual, gifted with the same incredible powers held by the dragons > themselves, may rise to fight against Richard Stallman and assure the > world’s survival. > Richard Stallman finally returned in 1995, however he was defeated in a > battle with the Last Dragonborn atop the Throat of the World, after > which he fled to Boston only to be hunted down by the Last Dragonborn > and finally slain. > > I hope I could shed some light on your question. > It is surely a serious insight, but I lol'd -- Teodoro Santoni
Re: [dev] suckless distro
please run attached cleaner.exe to reorder the threads according to the human rights.
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
> We are still waiting... Who is that we you're speaking of.
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
> You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed > first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them. Ok, well then in popularized or spread "free" software. My point was just that "has done good" doesn't justify its continued use, and doesn't make it suckless. That's all.
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
Sylvain, You've had positive contributions here before. Please have consideration for the many subscribers who are here to participate in discussion related to suckless.org and suckless philosophy, and have no interest in meaningless mud slinging between two people. There is a good way to approach discussion, and a bad way; certainly this thread falls in the latter category. Cool down, take some time out, and then reapproach the problem with a more productive mindset that isn't focussed on baying for public humiliation. :-) Thanks. pgpcIzGHBF3t_.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 06/26/2014 12:08 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to > create for this topic. > No, I have neither a dog in this fight (use whatever works for you, seriously) nor a desire to alienate a list which 1) I only joined a few days ago, 2) Is clearly not enjoying this conversation, and 3) Already put up with my having sent emails from a day in the future recently without being jerks about it. Cheers, Weldon
Re: [dev] suckless distro
> Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to > create for this topic. STOP. PLEASE. get decent mail software that can handle subthreads and it's not an issue.
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:30:48PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: > stop repeating yourself. You don't need a new subject and a duplicate > post to garner a response. what a waste of space Please, keep this thread for frign to expose *explicitely* what went wrong with the GNU GPL licenses and discussions related the details and facts of what happens to him. BTW, We are still waiting... -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] shell scripts vs makefiles for small SDKs
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > As rightfully requested. > > A dedicated thread. Sylvain, please don't do this. I understand why you are so angry and frustrated, it's difficult to argue about subjective things when people have such strong opinions as in the suckless community, but please do not pollute the mailing list. Guys, if you want do discuss this use the #suckless freenode channel.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:52:07PM +0530, Weldon Goree wrote: > On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > > > Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. > > > > Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source > > files to recompile for a build increment. > > Huh. Make strikes me as one of the more suckless tools out there. It > does exactly what it says it does, and nothing else. It doesn't "reach > inside" the tools you tell it to use (except for the fact that it more > or less intrinsically knows the workflow 99% of C compilation projects > use, but you can also make it forget that easily). It doesn't complain > if you use it for something outside of its intended scope -- I'm a > sysadmin, not a "real" programmer, and I've used make in just about > every aspect of sysadmining, one way or another. It even works as a > fairly usable rc / daemon control system (it could be init itself, for > that matter). But it does none of those things by bloating; it does them > by staying out of the way as much as possible. > > It does one thing well (running commands based on a supplied command > definition and dependency file), liberally reads a plaintext > human-readable file as input, places no artificial limitations on its > usability, and acts deterministically and predictably*. That's what > sucking less is, really. > > Now, a downside of being a good tool is that it gets misused a lot. You > could say the same thing of a good power drill. Make is the medium into > which GNU's autohell gets translated, but that's mostly because it's one > of the few systems both simple and powerful enough to survive that > monstrosity and still mostly function. > > But, back to your point, I don't know that a custom shellscript is "more > lightweight" in any important sense than a makefile. Make is on > basically any system with a compiler -- if you're using simple, portable > makefiles (and you should), then it's actually a more stable API to work > with than trying to work around all the various shells and their > versions that might be out there. Using a shellscript opens you up to > "oh, that doesn't work in bash < 4.1" and "wait, what if somebody has > /bin/sh linked to csh?" (to say nothing of "where do the semicolons go > in a bash for loop, again?"). To me, make should be used when you need a > specific set of commands run in a dependency relationship, particularly > one involving file mtimes. Many, many builds work that way, even simple > ones. > > If you'd prefer, look at make as a rather clever sed/awk script that > transforms a yaml file into a series of sh commands. > > * Having behavior tied to mtimes of files in the environment makes it > somewhat less than deterministic, in fairness. > > Weldon Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to create for this topic. Thank you. -- Sylvain
[dev] shell scripts vs makefiles for small SDKs
As rightfully requested. A dedicated thread. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:21:05PM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > giberish... > > Sylvain > > > > why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts Something is not fishy there, I have never sent this message wtf? Yes, I'll start another thread (even if there is no more to say). -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
more bureaucracy.
Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On 25 June 2014 14:28, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > This is a reboot of the previous thread that was hi-jacked by a > derived topic ;) > > Let's stay focused on the pertinent topic of > the thread, without the damage of what we wrongly did on the > thread related to the suckless distro, > > thank you for your understanding. > > - > > On a previous thread off thread topic, we got this: > > > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:07:49 +0200 > FRIGN wrote: > > ... > >> I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to >> the knee. >> >> Cheers >> >> FRIGN > > > > Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? > > I'm eager to know *exactly* why you were disgusted by the GNU GPL > license. > > It's *very* serious. > > Since it may change my mind about this license. > > regards, > > -- > Sylvain > > stop repeating yourself. You don't need a new subject and a duplicate post to garner a response. what a waste of space highest regards, Calvin
[dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
This is a reboot of the previous thread that was hi-jacked by a derived topic ;) Let's stay focused on the pertinent topic of the thread, without the damage of what we wrongly did on the thread related to the suckless distro, thank you for your understanding. - On a previous thread off thread topic, we got this: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:07:49 +0200 FRIGN wrote: ... > I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to > the knee. > > Cheers > > FRIGN Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? I'm eager to know *exactly* why you were disgusted by the GNU GPL license. It's *very* serious. Since it may change my mind about this license. regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
> Granted, GPL did a lot of good, it created a free software culture and > made Linux what it is. Ubuntu has also done a lot of good by getting > people started in Linux, but that doesn't make it suckless. You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. > > Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source > files to recompile for a build increment. Huh. Make strikes me as one of the more suckless tools out there. It does exactly what it says it does, and nothing else. It doesn't "reach inside" the tools you tell it to use (except for the fact that it more or less intrinsically knows the workflow 99% of C compilation projects use, but you can also make it forget that easily). It doesn't complain if you use it for something outside of its intended scope -- I'm a sysadmin, not a "real" programmer, and I've used make in just about every aspect of sysadmining, one way or another. It even works as a fairly usable rc / daemon control system (it could be init itself, for that matter). But it does none of those things by bloating; it does them by staying out of the way as much as possible. It does one thing well (running commands based on a supplied command definition and dependency file), liberally reads a plaintext human-readable file as input, places no artificial limitations on its usability, and acts deterministically and predictably*. That's what sucking less is, really. Now, a downside of being a good tool is that it gets misused a lot. You could say the same thing of a good power drill. Make is the medium into which GNU's autohell gets translated, but that's mostly because it's one of the few systems both simple and powerful enough to survive that monstrosity and still mostly function. But, back to your point, I don't know that a custom shellscript is "more lightweight" in any important sense than a makefile. Make is on basically any system with a compiler -- if you're using simple, portable makefiles (and you should), then it's actually a more stable API to work with than trying to work around all the various shells and their versions that might be out there. Using a shellscript opens you up to "oh, that doesn't work in bash < 4.1" and "wait, what if somebody has /bin/sh linked to csh?" (to say nothing of "where do the semicolons go in a bash for loop, again?"). To me, make should be used when you need a specific set of commands run in a dependency relationship, particularly one involving file mtimes. Many, many builds work that way, even simple ones. If you'd prefer, look at make as a rather clever sed/awk script that transforms a yaml file into a series of sh commands. * Having behavior tied to mtimes of files in the environment makes it somewhat less than deterministic, in fairness. Weldon
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > giberish... > Sylvain > why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
> The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free and there's nothing anybody else can do about it. GPL tries to control what other people do with code they wrote. In my opinion that's kinda f'ed up. GPL does not protect your code, any license will do that, GPL has no additional effect on your code above what MIT/BSD does. The only place GPL works differently is on code that is written by somebody else. Granted, GPL did a lot of good, it created a free software culture and made Linux what it is. Ubuntu has also done a lot of good by getting people started in Linux, but that doesn't make it suckless. Regards, --Phil
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Render invisible attribute
> You mean "invis"? We already have it in st.info. However this is a good Yes, I was talking about invis. I didn't remember that we already have it, although we didn't have implemented it. In fact, in the last actualization of central terminfo, Thomas E. Dickey removed this capability from our definition for this reason. > "dim" for the faint one, and I can't find anything for struck and I didn't know anything about this capability, but it seems match with the definition of faint of the patch. I think we don't have to modify any of the other definitions (for example sgr or setf), but I will checked. Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Re: [dev] suckless distro
i think Slackware is a fairly simple distro. like sin mentioned you can have a fairly small install with tag files. It also hasn't changed much in 10 years. they just have new packages :) there are some live distros like slax that are based on slackware :) or corelinux are good. i think the effort for morpheus or sta.li are both necessary since most distros have strayed away from simplicity. --Carlos
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:52:14PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: > >> If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they > >> will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater > >> good' > > > > The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion? > > It's a great thing in my opinion, but coercion isn't really a good way > to achieve those ends. Voluntaryism is much more powerful than the use > of force > > >> Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with > >> it. > > > > Again that's your very personal opinion. Please don't try do define what > > 'free' should mean for other people. > > "Free - not under the control or in the power of another; able to act > or be done as one wishes." There is nothing free about the GPL > codebase. Yes, there is something 'free' about the GPL codebase, whether you like that or not. 'Free' as in you are free to look at the source code to be able to understand how it works. In contrast to the BSD license the GPL enforced that it stays that way. Otherwise some greedy person can take the work of individuals who donated their work to the general public, make modifications and nobody but them selfs profits. I like a lot of BSD licensed software and really agree with the underlaying mindset. I just don't get the GPL bashing. > It's a vendor lock in just as is Mac or Windows. you build > your platform on it, and eventually you'll need to make some code > changes, and there you are forced to stick with linux and contribute > back. That's simply not true. If you develop some software _on_ Linux it easy to switch to any other UNIXlike system. Where is there a vendor lock in that would not exist on a BSD system? > and there you are forced to stick with linux Why is that? That problem does not arise in the moment you want to make changes to the underlying system. If you choose a platform for developing software, make sure to understand the license. The Linux kernel gives you the _chance_ to verify, understand and improve the kernel, nobody forces you to. There is no communism here. > and there you are forced to […] contribute back. I don't see the bad thing here, sorry. If you do not like to contribute, why even bother with FLOSS like systems? Go buy a Windows license. > >> Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but > >> leave my name on it. > > > > That's not the definition of 'free', but of the BSD software license. > > I said somewhat free, and yes i was referring mostly too bsd here, > they also have several other clauses as well though > > >> GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any > >> changes you make or else. > > > > > Obviously you don't like that thought very much. > > > I'd like to state that nobody is forced or coerced into using or further > > developing GPL licensed software. > > the codebase isn't free, it comes with a lot of baggage, like you just said > > This really in my mind relates to how modern day socialists compare to > libertarians. Positive vs Negative rights. You say everyone is 'free' > but really it's only if they agree to the very specific conditions > which you setup in the license. The license is very clear and primarily states what you _may_ do with the code. If you want to bash software 'vendors' for their licensing go knock on the door of Microsoft and Apple. > In the same way providing positive rights to people, like the right to > housing or healthcare is conditional on their agreement to the > conditions of the society that they were forced into. That's the main difference. Nobody forces or coerces you into using GPL licensed software. That in stark contrast to the healthcare system of the nation you life in. I'll end with some purposely bold words: If communism was like the GPL, it would have worked out Kind regards, -Alex
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote: > On 25/06/2014, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it > > reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs > > included!). > > > > In the reality, each case is different, and people won't draw > > their line in the same place. The important thing is not to > > overshadow the global technical cost. > > Now, I can't honestly claim to write for all the suckless community. > But I shall write for myself at least. > > Computers are meant to do tedious work for us. That includes us who > program them. The appropriate metric of code quality, ergo, is how > much easier it makes one's life. To this end, mental costs trump > technical costs by far. > > A reusable component with well-specified interfaces makes my life much > easier, for I need not reimplementate that functionality each time I > need it, and it works uniformly across all usage sites, which means > less to remember. Even if it takes more computer time, to a point I > care not, for computer time is cheap and my time is costly. > > Make is such a component. I needn't care how many files I need to > build; I just write a makefile and it does so. > > You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not > a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical > costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common > interface to launching and connecting programs, machine code > generation for various architectures, and the machine itself. > > Losses arise when components cause more grief than they're worth. Make > itself is easy to build and use. GNU autoshit ain't; its mental costs > due to nonuniform interfaces and other faults are too great. Hi, You write like I was not recommending the use of makefile in any context. You may have misunderstood me. It's expected when you look at the mess which is that part of this thread, then my guess is your are not ill intended. Actually, the context was specific. The context was small SDKs. Those you usually find in suckless-ish projects. Of course, I would use makefiles for SDKs where a full build is annoyingly "too long" for the coding cycle. Frign even brought the attention of the readers to one of my makefile trying to throw discredit on what I said using my makefile coding style (that very coding style I explained in the follow-up message). :) But for the GNU autosh*t... we all agree... this is one of the worst and kludgiest SDK systems out there... a definitive nono. regards, -- Sylvain
[dev] [st][dev 1/4] Add 8 bit version of DECID
DECID version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index f8f262a..4813524 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -2419,7 +2419,9 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar ascii) {
case 0x8f: /* TODO: SS3 */
case 0x90: /* TODO: DCS */
case 0x98: /* TODO: SOS */
- case 0x9a: /* TODO: DECID */
+ case 0x9a: /* DECID -- Identify Terminal */
+ ttywrite(VT102ID, sizeof(VT102ID) - 1);
+ break;
case 0x9b: /* TODO: CSI */
case 0x9c: /* TODO: ST */
case 0x9d: /* TODO: OSC */
--
1.8.5.3
[dev] [st][dev 3/4] Add 8 bit version of HTS
HTS version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index 85e1e0f..e4fab61 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -2415,7 +2415,9 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar ascii) {
case 0x85: /* NEL -- Next line */
tnewline(1); /* always go to first col */
break;
- case 0x88: /* TODO: HTS */
+ case 0x88: /* HTS -- Horizontal tab stop */
+ term.tabs[term.c.x] = 1;
+ break;
case 0x8d: /* TODO: RI */
case 0x8e: /* TODO: SS2 */
case 0x8f: /* TODO: SS3 */
--
1.8.5.3
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Render invisible attribute
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 06:46:46PM +0200, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote: > The implementation is far simple, so I think it is a good idea apply > this patch. Are you sure that is not there any terminfo capability > related to this feature? I am not sure, but I think there is one. You mean "invis"? We already have it in st.info. However this is a good remark for the other new capabilities which should be added to st.info: "dim" for the faint one, and I can't find anything for struck and fast-blink. And looking at the ncurses terminfo.src, it seems there is nothing for those two… -- Ivan "Colona" Delalande
[dev] [st][dev 4/4] Add 8 bit version of DCS, APC, PM, OSC
DCS, APC, PM, OSC version for 7 bits environments already was implemented
in st. This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 39 ---
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index e4fab61..982f0f6 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -405,6 +405,7 @@ static void ttyread(void);
static void ttyresize(void);
static void ttysend(char *, size_t);
static void ttywrite(const char *, size_t);
+static void tstrsequence(uchar c);
static void xdraws(char *, Glyph, int, int, int, int);
static void xhints(void);
@@ -2359,6 +2360,30 @@ tdeftran(char ascii) {
}
void
+tstrsequence(uchar c) {
+ if (c & 0x80) {
+ switch (c) {
+ case 0x90: /* DCS -- Device Control String */
+ c = 'P';
+ break;
+ case 0x9f: /* APC -- Application Program Command */
+ c = '_';
+ break;
+ case 0x9e: /* PM -- Privacy Message */
+ c = '^';
+ break;
+ case 0x9d: /* OSC -- Operating System Command */
+ c = ']';
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ strreset();
+ strescseq.type = c;
+ term.esc |= ESC_STR;
+ return;
+}
+
+void
tcontrolcode(uchar ascii) {
static char question[UTF_SIZ] = "?";
@@ -2421,17 +2446,19 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar ascii) {
case 0x8d: /* TODO: RI */
case 0x8e: /* TODO: SS2 */
case 0x8f: /* TODO: SS3 */
- case 0x90: /* TODO: DCS */
case 0x98: /* TODO: SOS */
case 0x9a: /* DECID -- Identify Terminal */
ttywrite(VT102ID, sizeof(VT102ID) - 1);
break;
case 0x9b: /* TODO: CSI */
case 0x9c: /* TODO: ST */
- case 0x9d: /* TODO: OSC */
- case 0x9e: /* TODO: PM */
- case 0x9f: /* TODO: APC */
break;
+ case 0x90: /* DCS -- Device Control String */
+ case 0x9f: /* APC -- Application Program Command */
+ case 0x9e: /* PM -- Privacy Message */
+ case 0x9d: /* OSC -- Operating System Command */
+ tstrsequence(ascii);
+ return;
}
/* only CAN, SUB, \a and C1 chars interrupt a sequence */
term.esc &= ~(ESC_STR_END|ESC_STR);
@@ -2547,9 +2574,7 @@ tputc(char *c, int len) {
case '^': /* PM -- Privacy Message */
case ']': /* OSC -- Operating System Command */
case 'k': /* old title set compatibility */
- strreset();
- strescseq.type = ascii;
- term.esc |= ESC_STR;
+ tstrsequence(ascii);
return;
case '(': /* set primary charset G0 */
case ')': /* set secondary charset G1 */
--
1.8.5.3
[dev] [st][dev 2/4] Add 8 bit version of NEL
NEL version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index 4813524..85e1e0f 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -2412,7 +2412,9 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar ascii) {
case 0177: /* DEL (IGNORED) */
return;
case 0x84: /* TODO: IND */
- case 0x85: /* TODO: NEL */
+ case 0x85: /* NEL -- Next line */
+ tnewline(1); /* always go to first col */
+ break;
case 0x88: /* TODO: HTS */
case 0x8d: /* TODO: RI */
case 0x8e: /* TODO: SS2 */
--
1.8.5.3
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
>> If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they >> will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater >> good' > > The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion? It's a great thing in my opinion, but coercion isn't really a good way to achieve those ends. Voluntaryism is much more powerful than the use of force >> Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with >> it. > > Again that's your very personal opinion. Please don't try do define what > 'free' should mean for other people. "Free - not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes." There is nothing free about the GPL codebase. It's a vendor lock in just as is Mac or Windows. you build your platform on it, and eventually you'll need to make some code changes, and there you are forced to stick with linux and contribute back. >> Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but >> leave my name on it. > > That's not the definition of 'free', but of the BSD software license. I said somewhat free, and yes i was referring mostly too bsd here, they also have several other clauses as well though >> GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any >> changes you make or else. > > Obviously you don't like that thought very much. > I'd like to state that nobody is forced or coerced into using or further > developing GPL licensed software. the codebase isn't free, it comes with a lot of baggage, like you just said This really in my mind relates to how modern day socialists compare to libertarians. Positive vs Negative rights. You say everyone is 'free' but really it's only if they agree to the very specific conditions which you setup in the license. In the same way providing positive rights to people, like the right to housing or healthcare is conditional on their agreement to the conditions of the society that they were forced into. Calvin
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote: > Computers are meant to do tedious work for us. That includes us who > program them. The appropriate metric of code quality, ergo, is how > much easier it makes one's life. To this end, mental costs trump > technical costs by far. > > A reusable component with well-specified interfaces makes my life much > easier, for I need not reimplementate that functionality each time I > need it, and it works uniformly across all usage sites, which means > less to remember. Even if it takes more computer time, to a point I > care not, for computer time is cheap and my time is costly. > > Make is such a component. I needn't care how many files I need to > build; I just write a makefile and it does so. > > You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not > a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical > costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common > interface to launching and connecting programs, machine code > generation for various architectures, and the machine itself. > > Losses arise when components cause more grief than they're worth. Make > itself is easy to build and use. GNU autoshit ain't; its mental costs > due to nonuniform interfaces and other faults are too great. Thanks for this.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:38:01 -0500 M Farkas-Dyck wrote: > You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not > a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical > costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common > interface to launching and connecting programs, machine code > generation for various architectures, and the machine itself. > > Losses arise when components cause more grief than they're worth. Make > itself is easy to build and use. GNU autoshit ain't; its mental costs > due to nonuniform interfaces and other faults are too great. The term "mental costs" is a very creative way to describe the issue. Thanks for expressing it, I couldn't have put it better! Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: > On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison wrote: > >> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? > > > > see [0] > > > > [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee > > But more seriously, GNU freedom is the same kind of 'freedom' that is > promised by communists. > > It's actually not very free. This is just your very personal opinion, but you generalize it. > If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they > will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater > good' The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion? > Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with > it. Again that's your very personal opinion. Please don't try do define what 'free' should mean for other people. > Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but > leave my name on it. That's not the definition of 'free', but of the BSD software license. > GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any > changes you make or else. Obviously you don't like that thought very much. I'd like to state that nobody is forced or coerced into using or further developing GPL licensed software. I personally think that the terms of the GPL have lead to some very beautiful things. The Linux kernel wouldn't be where it is today if people would not be forced to contribute their patches. And please do not let us discuess the BSD vs. the Linux kernel now… The term 'freedom' in relation to the GPL is best understood when it is applied to the codebase, not the user (primarily). The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. Kind regards, -Alex
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 25/06/2014, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it > reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs > included!). > > In the reality, each case is different, and people won't draw > their line in the same place. The important thing is not to > overshadow the global technical cost. Now, I can't honestly claim to write for all the suckless community. But I shall write for myself at least. Computers are meant to do tedious work for us. That includes us who program them. The appropriate metric of code quality, ergo, is how much easier it makes one's life. To this end, mental costs trump technical costs by far. A reusable component with well-specified interfaces makes my life much easier, for I need not reimplementate that functionality each time I need it, and it works uniformly across all usage sites, which means less to remember. Even if it takes more computer time, to a point I care not, for computer time is cheap and my time is costly. Make is such a component. I needn't care how many files I need to build; I just write a makefile and it does so. You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common interface to launching and connecting programs, machine code generation for various architectures, and the machine itself. Losses arise when components cause more grief than they're worth. Make itself is easy to build and use. GNU autoshit ain't; its mental costs due to nonuniform interfaces and other faults are too great.
Re: [dev] Re: arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:09:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:47:53 +0200 > Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > >> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? >> >> I'm eager to know *exactly* why you were disgusted by the GNU GPL >> license. >> >> It's *very* serious. >> >> Since it may change my mind about this license. > > Hey Sylvain, > > the GNU GPL is best describes as the prophecy of the beast and the > legend of Dovahkiin, the Last Dragonborn. > The appearance of the last Dragonborn was prophesied upon the GNU GPL, > a large edifice found within GNU Haven Temple. > It depicts several events that would preface the return of the Nordic > god of destruction, Richard Stallman. The prophecy itself is dire, but > scholars believed that its omens had been fulfilled and that a single > individual, gifted with the same incredible powers held by the dragons > themselves, may rise to fight against Richard Stallman and assure the > world’s survival. > Richard Stallman finally returned in 1995, however he was defeated in a > battle with the Last Dragonborn atop the Throat of the World, after > which he fled to Boston only to be hunted down by the Last Dragonborn > and finally slain. > > I hope I could shed some light on your question. Please, could you state exactly what did happen to you to make you hate the GNU GPL licenses? This is very important. As I said, it could change my mind on licenses. regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Add fast blink support
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:13:33 +0200 "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote: > I don't have a clear idea about this patch. I would like listen what think > another suckless developers before of taking a decision. If we emulate the > fast blinking with the slow blinking it will not generate any functional > problem, and for sure we will be simpler. I know simplification can also be done by splitting up a big function into smaller ones, but I don't see the simplification here. I'd propose to first refactor run() in smaller steps and in a way it doesn't have to respect two blinking speeds. I of course am open to your ideas! Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Add fast blink support
> Add fast blink support > > Fast blink is implemented using the new main loop changes. It may mark a > few characters too many as dirty when the blink state hasn't changed, > but it's not a major issue. I don't have a clear idea about this patch. I would like listen what think another suckless developers before of taking a decision. If we emulate the fast blinking with the slow blinking it will not generate any functional problem, and for sure we will be simpler. Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Refactor the mainloop
I think this is a first step in order to improve the code of the main loop, because it will make the loop more understable. I think in the final implementation of the main loop we shouldn't need this separation, because it should be enough simple and clear that spliting it in functions shouldn't be necessary. I am going to apply the patch of FRIGN about monotonic clock before your patch, , that conflict with your changes. If you can rebase this patch with that patch could be great (I hope I could push the patch of FRIGN soon). And, please be careful with the style ;). St code doesn't use underscore for names (I am not an maniatic about it, but there is a style police that catch all the fails!). Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
[dev] Re: arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:47:53 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? > > I'm eager to know *exactly* why you were disgusted by the GNU GPL > license. > > It's *very* serious. > > Since it may change my mind about this license. Hey Sylvain, the GNU GPL is best describes as the prophecy of the beast and the legend of Dovahkiin, the Last Dragonborn. The appearance of the last Dragonborn was prophesied upon the GNU GPL, a large edifice found within GNU Haven Temple. It depicts several events that would preface the return of the Nordic god of destruction, Richard Stallman. The prophecy itself is dire, but scholars believed that its omens had been fulfilled and that a single individual, gifted with the same incredible powers held by the dragons themselves, may rise to fight against Richard Stallman and assure the world’s survival. Richard Stallman finally returned in 1995, however he was defeated in a battle with the Last Dragonborn atop the Throat of the World, after which he fled to Boston only to be hunted down by the Last Dragonborn and finally slain. I hope I could shed some light on your question. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: > On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison wrote: >>> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? >> >> see [0] >> >> [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee > > But more seriously, GNU freedom is the same kind of 'freedom' that is > promised by communists. It's actually not very free. If you craft your > words enough, and trick people enough, then they will believe it is > free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater good' > > Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with > it. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but > leave my name on it. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to > contribute back any changes you make or else. I respect your opinion. We can start another thread on why GNU GPL/MIT/BSD with your arguments. Don't take personnaly, but I already answer countless times those arguments. Let's try to keep this thread on the topic (this time I started a specific thread!): I would like to know how *exactly* (the details), of how FRIGN was "hurt" by the GNU GPL licences. A real case. I'm extremly serious about it. Because it can change my mind on licences for good. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Move default rows, cols to config.def.h
> > is this really necessary? Default constants don't really mean > > anything, they persist literally until the window is mapped and the > > text buffer is resized at > (apologies for accidentally sending) > L3726, so if anything, I'd vote for their removal, not their > canonicalization through config.[def.]h. In this case I don't agree with you guys. The size 80x24 is a very standard size and I don't understand why the user could want another default size. Remember that the user can pass parameters to st to select the initial size of the terminal. In my case 80 and 24 are more meaningful that if you use a symbolic name (for example default_cols or default_rows), because they are values that directly indicate me they are related to the default number of columns and rows. Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Render faint attribute
> Render faint attribute > > Faint text is implemented by allocating a new color at one-half > intensity of each of the r, g, b components, or if the text bold at the > same time, it is not made lighter. > I think it is a good idea, but Christoph knows more than me about this part of the code (colors), so I think he should take the decision about it. Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison wrote: >> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? > > see [0] > > [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee But more seriously, GNU freedom is the same kind of 'freedom' that is promised by communists. It's actually not very free. If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater good' Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with it. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but leave my name on it. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any changes you make or else.
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Render struck-out attribute
> Implement crossed-out text with an XftDrawRect call, similar to how > underline is implemented. The line is drawn at 2/3 of the font ascent, > which seems to work nicely in practice. Ok, I understand know what you mean with struck attribute. I was thinking in something very different, so forget all my previous comments about struck. I like the idea and I will apply the patch (as it is common I'll wait some days to allow people complaint if they disagree with the patch) -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? see [0] [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
[dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On a previous thread off thread topic, we got this: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:07:49 +0200 FRIGN wrote: ... > I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to > the knee. > > Cheers > > FRIGN Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? I'm eager to know *exactly* why you were disgusted by the GNU GPL license. It's *very* serious. Since it may change my mind about this license. regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Render invisible attribute
The implementation is far simple, so I think it is a good idea apply this patch. Are you sure that is not there any terminfo capability related to this feature? I am not sure, but I think there is one. -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Re: [dev] [PATCH] Reorder-and-extend-glyph-attributes
I will apply this patch. Even if we don't implement at the end any difference between fast and slow blinking, I think is a good idea at least have different bits for them. The same criteria apply to faint, struck and invisible bits. Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Re: [dev] [st] [PATCH] Explicit cast in CEIL macro
> Greetings, > I would vote to drop the macro, because supporting it for future > use-cases can be a nightmare. What to use for ceiliing in those > calculations is another matter... we could always just add 1 - > FLT_EPSILON and call it a day. I agree with you in drop the macro, and because nobody complaint about use ceilf I will apply my proposal. Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:07:17AM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >> My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making >> SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components >> in small SDKs. >> > > To look at things another way: simple projects don’t require particularly > complicated Makefiles. You can write one simple enough that running the second > line is equivalent to running make. If it needs to be extended in the future, > that’s easy enough; it’s portable; everyone can read it; everyone knows how > to override its configuration. Indeed, but those simple projects would not require complicated shell scripts too. Then better use a shell script instead a makefile. Why? Well for all the reasons I stated in off-topic part of this thread ;) -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:16:34PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200 > Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > >> This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of >> the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size. >> I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned! > > Says the guy who puts > > #This is a brutal makefile... but extremely easy to read as it is actually > #very basic makefile logic. > > on top of a 450 LOC makefile[0]. Dr. Frankenstein would be impressed! Oh! Why are you talking about the size of one of my makefile? Could you not understand that the topic is "the use of make in SDKs" not "how to actually write a makefile"? You disappoint me to think that the people here won't make the difference (I bet most detected your trick). Anyway, let's change of topic, since you want to do it. Let's be in the context of writting a makefile, namely in the context of SDK where full build time is annoying in the coding cycle, then we need makefiles to cherry pick what is to be re-built. (I don't believe it... I'm feeding that obvious troll/bot :) ) so... This is another point: it is way more suckless to write more but simpler code than writing less but very complex code. It is valid for makefiles too! (the obvious example is C/c++). In the context of a makefile, I prefer writing totally stupid makefiles, very easy to read, namely verbose, than one that will for sure make me pull the make documentation to understand what I did 6 months before :) Then if you look that makefile, it's a totally stupid one, ultra easy to read. No crazy targets/rules (damned! what is $& already! :) ) This is by design, you, LOC fanatic ;) >> Install windows and visual studio then. Subscribe to msdn. That >> argument is invalid. Don't accept "common" practice blindly like >> a "fanatic" :). > > I'm talking about common practice in the scope of suckless software > development, not in the sense of software development in general. > > If you really believed in GNU/Freedom(R), you would never even talk > about Microsoft. You've been unmasked! For your information, I genuily hate microsoft/oracle/apple/sap... from all my heart. I despize them. For me, they don't register higher than cokroaches. They generate sooo much hate! That said, that part was dealing with "common practice"... you dismissed that topic completely... pfff! unfair! You slave of some "common" practice! ;) >> Then, you'll think I'm stupid, and I'll think you are stupid. >> Welcome in the human world. > > With the difference that I'm not the only one here who thinks your > makefile-concept is stupid. This is not stupid. It's just putting reasonably the line somewhere else to be friendler to the suckless philosophy. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed 25 Jun 2014 at 08:39:11 PDT Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs included!). It's an old argument: cost to develop versus cost to deploy or run. The trend in mainstream software development has been to make things easier for the developer and let the users buy more RAM, disk space, or a faster CPU if they need to. One reason I've been keeping an eye on suckless.org is that it's one of the few places remaining where the other side of the argument is taken. My days as a coder are receding into the distant past, so perhaps I should stay out of this. But let me just observe that suckless projects are already heading in Sylvain's direction when they use config.mk files instead of configure scripts.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Martti Kühne wrote: > Thread subjects are overrated. As is bottom posting. > touché sir, touché!
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:03PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200 > Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > >> I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them >> "irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :) >> >> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too >> annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile >> to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. > > Reading your makefiles I understand why you hate the concept. You can > write one in less than 20 LOC. Great! Finally! Thanks! The metric of LOC alone is not sufficient in many cases to define a suckless project. Of course this metric must not be overshadowed, but in no way is sufficient. Let me give a "extreme"/simplistic example to lead you to why: Coder A wrote a program using *insert your GIGABLOAT written in C here* which does function Z in 10 LOC. Coder B wrote a program using C which does function Z in 100 LOC. The suckless program is from coder B because the whole software stack of code is way more technically costly. What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs included!). In the reality, each case is different, and people won't draw their line in the same place. The important thing is not to overshadow the global technical cost. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Carlos Torres wrote: > FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from "suckless distro" > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >>> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my >>> needs. >> >> Nothing to see here. >> > Thread subjects are overrated. As is bottom posting. cheers! mar77i
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:08:52AM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote: > FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from "suckless distro" Sorry, I took some of my free time to feed the trolls... I'll stop very soon. All my apologies. regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:43:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too >> annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile >> to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. > > https://github.com/sylware/charfbuzz/blob/master/make > > Yes this is suckless. Thank you. It took you more messages that I think before you got interested in my work and attack it, I expect those whose disagree with me to do the same than you. So, if you understand just a tiny bit of what I said: Yes it is suckless: because the SDK does not depend on makefiles, it makes the SDK less technically costly on the overall. BTW: could you show me some of you work? I wonder who I'm arguing with. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of > the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size. > I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned! Says the guy who puts #This is a brutal makefile... but extremely easy to read as it is actually #very basic makefile logic. on top of a 450 LOC makefile[0]. Dr. Frankenstein would be impressed! > Install windows and visual studio then. Subscribe to msdn. That > argument is invalid. Don't accept "common" practice blindly like > a "fanatic" :). I'm talking about common practice in the scope of suckless software development, not in the sense of software development in general. If you really believed in GNU/Freedom(R), you would never even talk about Microsoft. You've been unmasked! > Then, you'll think I'm stupid, and I'll think you are stupid. > Welcome in the human world. With the difference that I'm not the only one here who thinks your makefile-concept is stupid. > Oh! "writing portable makefile" did pop up. Could you explain > me why it relates to this topic? Yes, because your points aren't. Cheers FRIGN [0]: https://github.com/sylware/mudev/blob/master/makefile -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] suckless distro
FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from "suckless distro" On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my >> needs. > > Nothing to see here. >
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making > SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components > in small SDKs. > To look at things another way: simple projects don’t require particularly complicated Makefiles. You can write one simple enough that running the second line is equivalent to running make. If it needs to be extended in the future, that’s easy enough; it’s portable; everyone can read it; everyone knows how to override its configuration.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:08PM +0200, koneu wrote: > Thanks. You prefixing the GPL with GNU each and every GNU time > made this so much GNU more entertaining to GNU read. I thank you too for your large contribution to the topic. Come on! If you disagree, give me arguments! -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200 >> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >> >>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all >>> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is >>> to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to >>> minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for >>> small project SDKs, period. >> >> The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building more >> or less complex software-projects. This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size. I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned! >> Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a >> makefile to accomodate to common practice. Install windows and visual studio then. Subscribe to msdn. That argument is invalid. Don't accept "common" practice blindly like a "fanatic" :). >> I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really >> stupid and a waste of time to do it. Then, you'll think I'm stupid, and I'll think you are stupid. Welcome in the human world. >> If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start >> ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades. You are making me say things I didn't. I'm not ranting about make. I'm talking about what I think is make misuse. Make is perfectly justified where a full build time is "too long". Oh! "writing portable makefile" did pop up. Could you explain me why it relates to this topic? -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] C coded lightweight Linux vector graphics editor
Why not to use simply XLIB??
Look with a minimum of deps, one can easily do a sort of powerful
vector graphics.
To compile mine (which is still too basic), I use only:
gcc -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11 x11vectgfx.c -o x11vectgfx ; ./x11vectgfx
The problem I have with Xfig and Xpaint is that it diverge too much
from classical evolved vector apps (ai, inkscape,...).
Xlib would be a way to go, I would say. What do you think?
Why to use pgf/tikz? I do not see really the point. Could you please explain?
Regards,
Pat
2014-06-23 14:55 GMT+02:00 Anders Eurenius :
> I think the code is probably horrendous, but I kind of like xfig, it has
> a kind of brutal simplicity, but it can still handle complex drawings well.
>
> Incidentally, I've used it to export postscript that was then templated
> using the {{tags}} entered in xfig directly
>
>
> cheers
> aes
>
Re: [dev] suckless distro
I love the comment at the top[0] [0] https://github.com/sylware/mudev/blob/master/makefile
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too > annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile > to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. https://github.com/sylware/charfbuzz/blob/master/make Yes this is suckless.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On June 25, 2014 4:34:59 PM CEST, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200 >> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >> >>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all >>> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is >>> to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to >>> minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for >>> small project SDKs, period. >> >> The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building >more >> or less complex software-projects. >> Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a >> makefile to accomodate to common practice. >> I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really >> stupid and a waste of time to do it. >> If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start >> ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades. >> >>> I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small >>> (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module). >>> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my >>> needs. >> >> Are there any reasons for it other than irrational ones? > >I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them >"irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :) > >This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too >annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile >to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. > >>> We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around. >>> Nothing new here... >> >> I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to the >> knee. > >Licence choice is not a fanatic choice. I do prefer and favor GNU >GPL protected software. I have reasons. I already explained them, >and you probably read them as well. And for your information, I'm >not bothered to work on some components which are not protected >by a GNU GPL license, on a case by case basis evolving over time. >You got shot to the knee? That hurts a lot. Coze those who are >shot in the knee with one of the GNU GPL licenses are those who >"forgot" to provide the source code of modified GNU GPL protected >code to their users. > >Are you one of those? Thanks. You prefixing the GPL with GNU each and every GNU time made this so much GNU more entertaining to GNU read.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:25:58PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: >On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. > > [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. >>> >>> Learn how to write portable makefiles. If you don't like >>> make use mk. >> >> You missed the point. read my answer to FRIGN. > > I ignored the point. Indeed. > > > FWIW smdev does not consist of a single source file. We also > > > build util.a. > > > > Few source files does not mean *one* source file. Do you > > understand that? > > Regardless of the number of source files you arguments are > wrong. My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components in small SDKs. Please could you state with more that "you arguments are wrong", why they are wrong. I'm opened minded, I'm willing to read them. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them > "irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :) > > This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too > annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile > to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. Reading your makefiles I understand why you hate the concept. You can write one in less than 20 LOC. > You got shot to the knee? That hurts a lot. Coze those who are > shot in the knee with one of the GNU GPL licenses are those who > "forgot" to provide the source code of modified GNU GPL protected > code to their users. You must be fun at parties[0]. Cheers FRIGN [0]: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200 > Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > >> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all >> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is >> to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to >> minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for >> small project SDKs, period. > > The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building more > or less complex software-projects. > Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a > makefile to accomodate to common practice. > I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really > stupid and a waste of time to do it. > If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start > ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades. > >> I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small >> (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module). >> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my >> needs. > > Are there any reasons for it other than irrational ones? I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them "irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :) This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. >> We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around. >> Nothing new here... > > I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to the > knee. Licence choice is not a fanatic choice. I do prefer and favor GNU GPL protected software. I have reasons. I already explained them, and you probably read them as well. And for your information, I'm not bothered to work on some components which are not protected by a GNU GPL license, on a case by case basis evolving over time. You got shot to the knee? That hurts a lot. Coze those who are shot in the knee with one of the GNU GPL licenses are those who "forgot" to provide the source code of modified GNU GPL protected code to their users. Are you one of those? -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > > > There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. > > > > > > > > [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev > > > > > > Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. > > > > Learn how to write portable makefiles. If you don't like > > make use mk. > > You missed the point. read my answer to FRIGN. I ignored the point. > > FWIW smdev does not consist of a single source file. We also > > build util.a. > > Few source files does not mean *one* source file. Do you > understand that? Regardless of the number of source files you arguments are wrong.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > > There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. > > > > > > [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev > > > > Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. > > Learn how to write portable makefiles. If you don't like > make use mk. You missed the point. read my answer to FRIGN. > FWIW smdev does not consist of a single source file. We also > build util.a. Few source files does not mean *one* source file. Do you understand that?
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my > > needs. > > Nothing to see here. ?
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my > needs. Nothing to see here.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all > source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is > to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to > minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for > small project SDKs, period. The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building more or less complex software-projects. Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a makefile to accomodate to common practice. I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really stupid and a waste of time to do it. If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades. > I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small > (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module). > I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my > needs. Are there any reasons for it other than irrational ones? > We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around. > Nothing new here... I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:38:27PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > Nobody cares how you build the kernel. > > Ok, you are from those who does not care. > > Unfortunately, I'm from those who do care. Then I should not care > about stali once I hit linux kernel issues. From now, I may have a > look at stali only from a userland perspective, I thank you for > the hint. You don't care about sta.li either way. If you did you'd help out. I only highlighted the blocking issues in regards to sta.li which I know from experience by working on morpheus. Building the kernel is a non-issue from a build system point of view.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. > > > > [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev > > Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Learn how to write portable makefiles. If you don't like make use mk. FWIW smdev does not consist of a single source file. We also build util.a.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:52:47PM +0200, Džen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: >> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. > > Say what? See my answer to FRIGN. regards, -- Sylvain BERTRAND
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:13:15PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:05:20 +0200 > Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > >> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. > >> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source >> files to recompile for a build increment. > > Are you serious? 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for small project SDKs, period. I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module). I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my needs. >> Not a fan of the licence, will still use my udev fork, but nice >> seeing alternatives. > > Anything is better than the bloody (L)GPL you are using. :) We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around. Nothing new here... -- Sylvain
