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

[sylvain . bertrand]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 08:57:22PM +0700, Михаил Ивко wrote:
> > Look at rust, they are trying: they are writting a kernel. But face the
> > consequences: there are no syntax profiles... you get strings hardcoded in 
> > the
> > syntax, why not threading while they're at it... lol.
> 
> The only part of rust srings that's "hardcoded" is that str is
> different from [u8], so that indexing operations can be implemented
> differently (to respect unicode character boundaries).
> Things such as allocating memory for concatenated strings are not hardcoded.
> This begs the question of why str is a primitive type, not a simple
> wrapper type. I don't know enough rust to answer that.
> 
> > I wish you luck with
> > their SDK: they have a rust compiler written in rust, but the main SDK
> > (bootstrap), is just an insane bloat based on smelly c++ and... the infamous
> > and magnificiently "comfy" mozilla build system. Where is the suckless 
> > compiler
> > written in simple C with basic makefiles or idiotic but s ez to 
> > understand
> > simple sh scripts?
> >
> 
> So, to build rust without rust compiler you have to deal with suck. To
> build C without C compiler... Can you even do that in this day and
> age?

Never really got intereted in this. Maybe there is a C compiler written in one
of the ML dialects (the ML guys did re-write many apps, but forgot a
performant kernel with enough drivers).

Nowdays, you have clang which requires a good c++ compiler/runtime in order to
compile C. gcc is now similar: you must have a c++98 compiler/runtime to
compile gcc (that's why I did start slowly a kind of modular fork of gcc:
currently in libiberty breaking down). gcc steering commity is now evil and/or
strongly sick (gcc still uses that svn junk, it's kind of a proof that
something is not "right" over there). Its kind of opacity and kind of under the
hood activities do not help: since it's one of the corner stone of open
source software like linux is, fishy, damn fishy.

-- 
Sylvain

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

[Михаил Ивко]

> Look at rust, they are trying: they are writting a kernel. But face the
> consequences: there are no syntax profiles... you get strings hardcoded in the
> syntax, why not threading while they're at it... lol.

The only part of rust srings that's "hardcoded" is that str is
different from [u8], so that indexing operations can be implemented
differently (to respect unicode character boundaries).
Things such as allocating memory for concatenated strings are not hardcoded.
This begs the question of why str is a primitive type, not a simple
wrapper type. I don't know enough rust to answer that.

> I wish you luck with
> their SDK: they have a rust compiler written in rust, but the main SDK
> (bootstrap), is just an insane bloat based on smelly c++ and... the infamous
> and magnificiently "comfy" mozilla build system. Where is the suckless 
> compiler
> written in simple C with basic makefiles or idiotic but s ez to understand
> simple sh scripts?
>

So, to build rust without rust compiler you have to deal with suck. To
build C without C compiler... Can you even do that in this day and
age?

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

[sylvain . bertrand]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:24:15PM +0700, Михаил Ивко wrote:
> 2017-02-02 18:19 GMT+07:00  :
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:48:34PM +0100, Josuah Demangeon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com:
> >>
> >> > Useless to spend time on this, since guile is not suckless.
> >>
> >> I am curious about the languages that you  would consider suckless.
> >>
> >> I learned POSIX shell scripting and awk, I am also trying C and a few lua.
> >>
> >> Is there something else you would advise to learn or something to avoid in
> >> properly used sh / awk / C / lua?  Myrddin is on my to-do list.
> >
> > Write it in simple C, it's the best compromise. Compose C programs with 
> > simple
> > sh scripts.
> 
> Why exactly C and Shell? Other than obvious historical reasons, I mean.
> It's a depressive thought that we as an industry hasn't come up with a
> better way to
> design systems than by combining two haphazardly thrown together languages
> from the 70s, and there's no room for improvement

Because those are the best compromise, far from perfect, they just suck less.
This is why "suckless" exists.

Please yourself to design a new language (you have already bazillions of
"competitors"). But first thing first: do write a reasonably performant kernel
with its 'kernel profile" (minimal set of the syntax in order to generate
reasonably good kernel machine code). I wish you very good luck with GPU
drivers, hence you should narrow it down to servers only... at the beginning, a
bit like gnu hurd? Don't forget a syntax profile friendly with mathematical 
proof,
but the basic syntax profiles in order to get something interesting actually
running should be reasonably writable by a very small set of coders in a
reasonable amount of time: easy to write alternatives is way more important
than to have one fat and ultra-complex, corporation locked-in, mega comfy,
super duper language.

Look at rust, they are trying: they are writting a kernel. But face the
consequences: there are no syntax profiles... you get strings hardcoded in the
syntax, why not threading while they're at it... lol. I wish you luck with
their SDK: they have a rust compiler written in rust, but the main SDK
(bootstrap), is just an insane bloat based on smelly c++ and... the infamous
and magnificiently "comfy" mozilla build system. Where is the suckless compiler
written in simple C with basic makefiles or idiotic but s ez to understand
simple sh scripts?

Oh! Wait! But that's not our pb, it's properly packages and ez to access in
redhat,suse and ubuntu!
It's there why not use it!

-- 
Sylvain

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

[Михаил Ивко]

2017-02-02 18:19 GMT+07:00  :
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:48:34PM +0100, Josuah Demangeon wrote:
>>
>>
>> sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com:
>>
>> > Useless to spend time on this, since guile is not suckless.
>>
>> I am curious about the languages that you  would consider suckless.
>>
>> I learned POSIX shell scripting and awk, I am also trying C and a few lua.
>>
>> Is there something else you would advise to learn or something to avoid in
>> properly used sh / awk / C / lua?  Myrddin is on my to-do list.
>
> Write it in simple C, it's the best compromise. Compose C programs with simple
> sh scripts.

Why exactly C and Shell? Other than obvious historical reasons, I mean.
It's a depressive thought that we as an industry hasn't come up with a
better way to
design systems than by combining two haphazardly thrown together languages
from the 70s, and there's no room for improvement

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

[Josuah Demangeon]

sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com:
>
> Write it in simple C, it's the best compromise. Compose C programs with 
> simple sh scripts.

It is fine this way, I will take this route.

> If you are here, you are looking for a cure to those diseases.

Yes, and am glad of what I already found here.  Thank you all for those efforts.

> If you cannot "see" this and want to keep your way: try "swift" from our dear
> friend apple corporation, which is better than "lua", of course!  [...]

Definetely not suckless.

Thank you for this answer, I think I got the point.

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

[sylvain . bertrand]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:48:34PM +0100, Josuah Demangeon wrote:
> 
> 
> sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com:
> 
> > Useless to spend time on this, since guile is not suckless.
> 
> I am curious about the languages that you  would consider suckless.
> 
> I learned POSIX shell scripting and awk, I am also trying C and a few lua.
> 
> Is there something else you would advise to learn or something to avoid in
> properly used sh / awk / C / lua?  Myrddin is on my to-do list.

Write it in simple C, it's the best compromise. Compose C programs with simple
sh scripts.
On the long term, you do not end up with a count of languages which has been
multiplied by 7348974389247389473298 hence increasing in pathological way the
cost of a "lambda user" open source OS regarding its software integration and
maintenance. Only thinking about a technical comfort zone in a specific case is
the opposit of suckless: think "as a whole", from coding to distro integration
and maintenance in terms of human and technical cost. If you are here, you are
looking for a cure to those diseases. Tons of our peers are toxic to others,
the worst: they are networked, powerfull and many are perfectly aware of their
poison.

What's totally crazy, we have still people posting to the suckless mailing list
who are 100% missing the point.

 

If you cannot "see" this and want to keep your way: try "swift" from our dear
friend apple corporation, which is better than "lua", of course!  But you
should consider the trendy "javascript", but carefull! You must choose the
"most powerfull" javascript engine: I think the magnificient c++ object
oriented design of google v8 engine (free from any implicit code that will
force you to embrace the whole simple and straight forwarded design in order to
know what just one line of code actually do) will finish to convince you that's
the way to go... and I don't forget the amazing "repo" SDK much more able to
make you a good coffee than those GNU autotools.
In you quest of comfort zone, don't put aside, ruby (look at this marvel which
is puppet!!!), php, perl5 (perl6 is s much better), python2, python3 and
all the other (heard something about about haskell). 

Maybe you heard about others?

In the end, you could stick with guile, or dive in c++/java(jee)/d/ocaml/etc.

Of course, it's easy to use any of them:they are all packaged on 
redhat/suse/ubuntu...

-- 
Sylvain

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

[Josuah Demangeon]

sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com:

> Useless to spend time on this, since guile is not suckless.

I am curious about the languages that you  would consider suckless.

I learned POSIX shell scripting and awk, I am also trying C and a few lua.

Is there something else you would advise to learn or something to avoid in 
properly used sh / awk / C / lua?  Myrddin is on my to-do list.

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

[Jean Louis]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:23:53PM +, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:45:40PM +0300, Jean Louis wrote:
> > Your statement is inadequate and generalized. Review the history of
> > Guile and see why it came into the existence.
> 
> Useless to spend time on this, since guile is not suckless.  The only thing
> interesting related to guile is its removal from any "critical" software
> component, that counts for the runtime _and_ the SDK (like
> python/c++/ruby/javascript/perl/haskell/bash...).

It is not suckless. I like the s6 tools for simplicity. Computers
before 20 years were much more suckless than today.

Jean Louis

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

[sylvain . bertrand]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:45:40PM +0300, Jean Louis wrote:
> Your statement is inadequate and generalized. Review the history of
> Guile and see why it came into the existence.

Useless to spend time on this, since guile is not suckless.  The only thing
interesting related to guile is its removal from any "critical" software
component, that counts for the runtime _and_ the SDK (like
python/c++/ruby/javascript/perl/haskell/bash...).

-- 
Sylvain

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

[Jean Louis]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:05:04AM +, Cág wrote:
> Mark Weber wrote::
> >> Nix is C++, Perl and autotools.
> > * There are attempts to get rid of Perl
> > (don't know about status)
> > * for the nix lanugage there are two
> > alternative implementations
> > - guix (uses guile scheme)
> > - an experimental JS implementation
> 
> Guile only replaces Perl in Guix, but not C++.
> People in GNU must have thought:
> "Hmm, we already have one dialect of
> Lisp, that's not enough. We need another
> one for a package manager".
> Guix is actively developed though.
> As well as Hurd.

Your statement is inadequate and generalized. Review the history of
Guile and see why it came into the existence.

Jean Louis

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

[sylvain . bertrand]

c++/python/haskell/perl/bash/etc are not suckless, period.

-- 
Sylvain

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

[Cág]

Mark Weber wrote::
>> Nix is C++, Perl and autotools.
> * There are attempts to get rid of Perl
> (don't know about status)
> * for the nix lanugage there are two
> alternative implementations
> - guix (uses guile scheme)
> - an experimental JS implementation

Guile only replaces Perl in Guix, but not C++.
People in GNU must have thought:
"Hmm, we already have one dialect of
Lisp, that's not enough. We need another
one for a package manager".
Guix is actively developed though.
As well as Hurd.

> What about "Vim + plugin" + vim python
> support because plugin requires it?
> Is pkgsrc strong enough to handle such
> "real world situation" ?

You can set building params in globally
in mk.conf and locally in the makefile.
pkgsrc is basically a ports system
with options galore and highly portable
(claims to be, at least). For particular
cases you will have to do some digging
but default build options are pretty
sane most of the time.

> But it could be a nice source / project to
> collaborate with as well.

If interested, the site is here[0],
the PDF guide is here[1],
there are also some FAQs on netbsd.org.

> Thank you!


Cheers,
Cág


[0]: http://pkgsrc.org/
[1]:
https://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/pkgsrc.pdf

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

[Marc Weber]

  nixos.org -> you can have distributed builds without sacrifying the
running system (sandoxed)

  => also allows keeping multiple setups on disk so that you
 can switch or run them in a virtual machine for testing

  gentoo -> rebuilding X -> you cannot keep X running


Even though nixos C++ usage might suck, for me the benefits outweigh it.

Marc Weber

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

[S. Gilles]

On 2017-02-01T08:35:32+, Cág wrote:
> Marc Collin wrote:
> 
> > Gentoo's init system (OpenRC) could soon
> > move from Makefiles to Meson and add
> > python3 and ninja to dependencies because
> > of it.
> > https://github.com/OpenRC/openrc/issues/116
> 
> Isn't Portage written in Python? Gentoo uses
> glibc, coreutils, the package manager is in Python
> and now there will be Python in the init system.
> That's too much for a suckless distribution,
> in my humble opinion.

For what it's worth, 2/3 of my Gentoo machines use musl, and 2/3 use s6
as the init system. Parts of Portage do have a hard dependency on bash,
though, which really sucks.

-- 
S. Gilles

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

[Marc Weber]

> Nix is C++, Perl and autotools.
* There are attempts to get rid of Perl (don't know about status)
* for the nix lanugage there are two alternative implementations
 - guix (uses guile scheme)
 - an experimental JS implementation

There are two aspects which can suck
A) the language being used
B) the system which got implemented

A) may suck
B) sucks less IMHO.


> pkgsrc
What about "Vim + plugin" + vim python support because plugin requires it?
Is pkgsrc strong enough to handle such "real world situation" ?

But it could be a nice source / project to collaborate with as well.
Thank you!

Marc Weber

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

[Cág]

Mark Weber wrote:

> nixos.org sucks less AFAIK (its deterministic),
> but sometimes it sucks that some packages
> haven't been packaged yet - but many have..

Nix is C++, Perl and autotools.

> All packages for distros could be derived from
> such.

pkgsrc?


Cág

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

[Marc Weber]

> Isn't Portage written in Python? 
There is an Haskell implementation (or was), too.

nixos.org sucks less AFAIK (its deterministic), but sometimes it sucks
that some packages haven't been packaged yet - but many have..

Still there is one remaining problem: A suckless cross platform language
dependency tool. Does anybody know such (other than rpm which may not
understand github thus is not for devs?)

Is anybody interested in such?

All packages for distros could be derived from such.

Marc Weber

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

[Cág]

Marc Collin wrote:

> Gentoo's init system (OpenRC) could soon
> move from Makefiles to Meson and add
> python3 and ninja to dependencies because
> of it.
> https://github.com/OpenRC/openrc/issues/116

Isn't Portage written in Python? Gentoo uses
glibc, coreutils, the package manager is in Python
and now there will be Python in the init system.
That's too much for a suckless distribution,
in my humble opinion.


Cág

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

[Marc Collin]

Gentoo's init system (OpenRC) could soon move from Makefiles to Meson
and add python3 and ninja to dependencies because of it.
https://github.com/OpenRC/openrc/issues/116




On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:28 AM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the main complication is not to learn how to use a piece of software,
> but to find or create the right one to use.
>
> On 5/13/16, Rubén Llorente  wrote:
>> Ben Woolley  wrote:
>>> The word "properly" presumes a purpose/end/effect. Billions of people use
>>> computers for their own purposes. If you are going to be making an
>>> argument about how people should be using their computers, you need to
>>> explain what purpose you are using, and why it doesn't satisfy the
>>> purpose.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Obviously, the user must be able to figure the application he is going
>> to use out, whatever it might be. The arguments apply the same to both
>> users who want to browse some porn sites and users that want to simulate
>> structure integrity problems with the computer.
>>
>> --
>> OpenPGP Key Fingerprint:
>> BB5A C2A2 2CAD ACB7 D50D  C081 1DB9 6FC4 5AB7 92FA
>>
>>
>>
>

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

[hiro]

the main complication is not to learn how to use a piece of software,
but to find or create the right one to use.

On 5/13/16, Rubén Llorente  wrote:
> Ben Woolley  wrote:
>> The word "properly" presumes a purpose/end/effect. Billions of people use
>> computers for their own purposes. If you are going to be making an
>> argument about how people should be using their computers, you need to
>> explain what purpose you are using, and why it doesn't satisfy the
>> purpose.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Obviously, the user must be able to figure the application he is going
> to use out, whatever it might be. The arguments apply the same to both
> users who want to browse some porn sites and users that want to simulate
> structure integrity problems with the computer.
>
> --
> OpenPGP Key Fingerprint:
> BB5A C2A2 2CAD ACB7 D50D  C081 1DB9 6FC4 5AB7 92FA
>
>
>

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

[hiro]

you're making up words there. nobody cares about your aesthetic problem

if your code only adds complexity to people's lifes you shouldn't
code. my code makes other people's lifes easier.

finding the right abstractions is a process.

this does not apply only to code btw.

On 5/13/16, Ben Woolley  wrote:
>
>> On May 12, 2016, at 10:36 PM, Anselm R Garbe  wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 May 2016 at 01:31, Jason Young  wrote:
>>> suckless is about *simplicity*. Simplicity != easy to use. Simplicity
>>> means, basically, there's fewer parts to break, and there *being* fewer
>>> parts, it's easier to see *where* it breaks. Unfortunately, the more
>>> "easy to use" you make a piece of software, the bigger it gets and the
>>> more dependencies it accrues, and you're right back at suck software.
>>
>> This is a delusion. "easy to use" does not imply complexity.
>>
>> A rule of thumb for UI design is this: if a UI offers multiple ways to
>> achieve the same result, it sucks and becomes less "easy to use". It
>> confuses the user. And such an UI costs the extra price of additional
>> complexity.
>>
>> Instead "easy to use" interfaces should just reflect the solution
>> underneath and will only be simple if the solution underneath is
>> simple.
>>
>> Also note the quotes Louis replied, they explain it much more crisp.
>>
>> -Anselm
>
> I agree that simpler implementations can have greater "power of expression".
>  However, optimizing the base case can be an added complexity that makes the
> aesthetic complexity less.
>
> I make a distinction between structural complexity and aesthetic complexity.
> Aesthetic complexity is the complexity of the path through the structure,
> from end to end. Adding structural shortcuts can often simplify the path.
>
> I like to start with a good "power of expression", and then solve the
> aesthetic problems. This certainly leads to "multiple ways to achieve the
> same result", but is a valuable enhancement. For example, ports that build
> from source, and then binary packages that build from those ports. Surely,
> having both options is better, and having one based on the other is a smart
> enhancement.
>
> However, sometimes I like to create a simple optimized solution that is
> designed for a single case. That can seem like a less complex thing, but in
> practice this leads to multiple solutions for a variety of cases. For
> example, there are usually dozens of window managers available. If you look
> at it system-wide, each was developed to not suck in some way, but now it is
> a bit of a struggle to get all of the apps to play nice with all of the
> different management styles.
>
> Basically, if you are writing code, you are adding complexity. How useful
> that code is, is very important to the "problem of complexity".
>
> In the end, I say this: if you are going to build something, build it to
> slay something else. That way you actually reduce someone else's suck
> system-wide. Like the way nginx overtook Apache. There can be misses, but
> let those be shots across the bow.
>
> Ben
>

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

[Ben Woolley]

> On May 12, 2016, at 10:36 PM, Anselm R Garbe  wrote:
> 
>> On 13 May 2016 at 01:31, Jason Young  wrote:
>> suckless is about *simplicity*. Simplicity != easy to use. Simplicity
>> means, basically, there's fewer parts to break, and there *being* fewer
>> parts, it's easier to see *where* it breaks. Unfortunately, the more
>> "easy to use" you make a piece of software, the bigger it gets and the
>> more dependencies it accrues, and you're right back at suck software.
> 
> This is a delusion. "easy to use" does not imply complexity.
> 
> A rule of thumb for UI design is this: if a UI offers multiple ways to
> achieve the same result, it sucks and becomes less "easy to use". It
> confuses the user. And such an UI costs the extra price of additional
> complexity.
> 
> Instead "easy to use" interfaces should just reflect the solution
> underneath and will only be simple if the solution underneath is
> simple.
> 
> Also note the quotes Louis replied, they explain it much more crisp.
> 
> -Anselm

I agree that simpler implementations can have greater "power of expression".  
However, optimizing the base case can be an added complexity that makes the 
aesthetic complexity less. 

I make a distinction between structural complexity and aesthetic complexity. 
Aesthetic complexity is the complexity of the path through the structure, from 
end to end. Adding structural shortcuts can often simplify the path.

I like to start with a good "power of expression", and then solve the aesthetic 
problems. This certainly leads to "multiple ways to achieve the same result", 
but is a valuable enhancement. For example, ports that build from source, and 
then binary packages that build from those ports. Surely, having both options 
is better, and having one based on the other is a smart enhancement.

However, sometimes I like to create a simple optimized solution that is 
designed for a single case. That can seem like a less complex thing, but in 
practice this leads to multiple solutions for a variety of cases. For example, 
there are usually dozens of window managers available. If you look at it 
system-wide, each was developed to not suck in some way, but now it is a bit of 
a struggle to get all of the apps to play nice with all of the different 
management styles.

Basically, if you are writing code, you are adding complexity. How useful that 
code is, is very important to the "problem of complexity".

In the end, I say this: if you are going to build something, build it to slay 
something else. That way you actually reduce someone else's suck system-wide. 
Like the way nginx overtook Apache. There can be misses, but let those be shots 
across the bow. 

Ben

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

[Anselm R Garbe]

On 13 May 2016 at 01:31, Jason Young  wrote:
> suckless is about *simplicity*. Simplicity != easy to use. Simplicity
> means, basically, there's fewer parts to break, and there *being* fewer
> parts, it's easier to see *where* it breaks. Unfortunately, the more
> "easy to use" you make a piece of software, the bigger it gets and the
> more dependencies it accrues, and you're right back at suck software.

This is a delusion. "easy to use" does not imply complexity.

A rule of thumb for UI design is this: if a UI offers multiple ways to
achieve the same result, it sucks and becomes less "easy to use". It
confuses the user. And such an UI costs the extra price of additional
complexity.

Instead "easy to use" interfaces should just reflect the solution
underneath and will only be simple if the solution underneath is
simple.

Also note the quotes Louis replied, they explain it much more crisp.

-Anselm

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

[Ben Woolley]

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

> On May 12, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Rubén Llorente  
> wrote:
> 
> hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> of the easy to use software. The only way a computer-illiterate is going
>>> to be able to use a computer properly is by educating herself or by
>>> hiring somebody to do the administration.
>> 
>> I disagree about that part.
>> My "literate" computer usage is nothing i'm very proud of. I regret it even.
> 
> Let's break it down to logic.
> 
> If a user does not know how to use a complex tool, he is not able 
> to use it properly (1)
> 
> The only way to know how to use a complex tool is by learning how
> to use it (2)
> 
> Computers are complex tools. Therefore, if you don't know how to use
> it, you won't be able to use it properly and the only way to use it is
> by learing how to use it.
> 
> Any claims that somebody without prior knowledge of computers can use
> one properly without any education on the matter is only valid if you
> think (1) is invalid or that computers are not complex tools. Since
> negating any of those points is an absurd, then any claim that
> somebody without knownledge of the field can use the computer is an
> absurd too. 
> 
> The reason many people does not regard activities performed with
> computers as "complex" in the modern age is because they have been
> exposed to them long enough to learn how to use them up to some point.
> It is worth noticing that people with actually zero exposition to
> computers - like old people in rural isolated areas - is not able to
> create an email account or launch a preinstalled game without a great
> effort (which counts as learning experience).
> 
> -- 
> OpenPGP Key Fingerprint:
> BB5A C2A2 2CAD ACB7 D50D  C081 1DB9 6FC4 5AB7 92FA
> 
> 

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

[hiro]

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

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

[Louis Santillan]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Jason Young  wrote:
[SNIP]
> suckless is about *simplicity*. Simplicity != easy to use. Simplicity
> means, basically, there's fewer parts to break, and there *being* fewer
> parts, it's easier to see *where* it breaks. Unfortunately, the more
> "easy to use" you make a piece of software, the bigger it gets and the
> more dependencies it accrues, and you're right back at suck software.

I don't believe the second part of this paragraph is a necessary
result or consequence of suckless.  In fact, I'd argue that suckless
advocates for verified dependencies as opposed superfluous or presumed
dependencies.  I feel like the following two quotes are corollaries of
suckless.

“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but
when there is nothing left to take away.” - Antoine de Saint-Exupe

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” -
Albert Einstein

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

[Jason Young]

Congratulations. I couldn't have summed up better exactly what the
problem is with modern software communities.

You're willing to go into playground invective at a moment's notice, but
suddenly someone calls you on it, and you're all courtier's reply. That
you had trouble "interprete"-ing his "rhetorics" proves that, while you
might be up to date in IT and CS, you need some remedial classes in
reading comprehension.

You wanna get technical? Let's get technical:

What Rubén was trying to point out was this: computers are by their very
nature complex tools, and nobody knows how to use them without being
taught in one way or another. Some try to figure it out themselves, some
consult documentation, some attend classes.

However, people don't realize the complexity exists, partly because of
UI streamlining over the years, and partly because, as a society, we're
around these machines a lot more often.

suckless is about *simplicity*. Simplicity != easy to use. Simplicity
means, basically, there's fewer parts to break, and there *being* fewer
parts, it's easier to see *where* it breaks. Unfortunately, the more
"easy to use" you make a piece of software, the bigger it gets and the
more dependencies it accrues, and you're right back at suck software.

And if you think that the reasoning and philosophy behind all the
software and computer science stuff that you do isn't important, you're
part of the problem.

tl;dr Think about *why* you're doing this shit instead of doing it to
*be* doing it.

On 5/12/2016 5:54 PM, hiro wrote:
>> I was content to just watch this conversation play out in silence, as it
>> proved amusing and even insightful in parts. Even the stuff you've said
>> in other parts of this thing are actually good.
> 
> Stay technical.
> 
>> In this post, that falls apart. Instead of actually taking apart this
>> person's argument, which is fairly clearly stated, you resort to trash
>> talking like the tween you act like.
> 
> So you don't like my tone...
> 
>> If you had any problem with the ideas behind what Rubén said, you would
>> have used those arguments to shoot them down. Instead, it's straight to
>> "ur mom lol".
> 
> This is not the place to teach people basic skills of argument.
> I can only interprete his mail as trolling or at least a bad test of
> us. His rhetorics are so painful I couldn't get myself to read it
> again. If you require elaboration to understand why please consult a
> psychologist, cause you must have some serious problem.
> 
>> Maybe it was unrealistic of me to expect professionalism behind the
>> mailing list of a group of projects that are fairly major in the
>> software world.
> 
> 1st point is correct, second is irrelevant.
> 
>> But since you like trash talking so much, Hiro Protagonist wannabe,
>> here's a little more to wrap this all up: You are the biggest tool I've
>> ever directly had any contact with, and were somebody to make a
>> screwdriver the size of the observable universe, that would still be true.
> 
> I'm speechless. Next time please disagree with some technical points,
> else it's a waste of my nerves.
> 
>> And on the actual topic of this thread, Alpine Linux seems to be a
>> fairly suckless distro. I'm impressed with its speed and simplicity.
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[hiro]

> Thank you for introducing to me in person the suckless philosophy, now I
> appreciate it more.  Furthermore, that was interesting and I adopt this
> vision.

Nothing here is in person. It's all public humility.

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

[hiro]

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

Stay technical.

> In this post, that falls apart. Instead of actually taking apart this
> person's argument, which is fairly clearly stated, you resort to trash
> talking like the tween you act like.

So you don't like my tone...

> If you had any problem with the ideas behind what Rubén said, you would
> have used those arguments to shoot them down. Instead, it's straight to
> "ur mom lol".

This is not the place to teach people basic skills of argument.
I can only interprete his mail as trolling or at least a bad test of
us. His rhetorics are so painful I couldn't get myself to read it
again. If you require elaboration to understand why please consult a
psychologist, cause you must have some serious problem.

> Maybe it was unrealistic of me to expect professionalism behind the
> mailing list of a group of projects that are fairly major in the
> software world.

1st point is correct, second is irrelevant.

> But since you like trash talking so much, Hiro Protagonist wannabe,
> here's a little more to wrap this all up: You are the biggest tool I've
> ever directly had any contact with, and were somebody to make a
> screwdriver the size of the observable universe, that would still be true.

I'm speechless. Next time please disagree with some technical points,
else it's a waste of my nerves.

> And on the actual topic of this thread, Alpine Linux seems to be a
> fairly suckless distro. I'm impressed with its speed and simplicity.

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

[Josuah 'sshbio' Demangeon]

Thank you for introducing to me in person the suckless philosophy, now I
appreciate it more.  Furthermore, that was interesting and I adopt this
vision.

It is true that I am definetely not experienced enough to contribute, so
at the best, I can use and promote of the simplest tools that are useful.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:46:05PM +0200, hiro wrote:
> > So it could be simple by its implementation, by its design, and simple
> > to use even for persons rarely using computers if at all, even
> > indication on how to interact with the keyboard are provided.
> 
> I agree with your implications. Suckless is not about understanding
> every shitty software in great detail.
> I can divide into a careful selection of small useful, simple tools, a
> bigger selection of useful, but not very simple tools and an even
> bigger selection of useless and very complex tools.
>
> The biggest enemy is the last group. As it's also the biggest
> selecting (specifying) it is impossible (I can smell, but I can't
> teach you to smell). By selecting the first (base tools in my OS) and
> second group (stupid extensions like ssl and webkit) we have achieved
> the same much easier. We can distance ourselves from the third.
> 
> Computers are complex, but their purpose is to make our lifes easier.
> To put things on a scale, humans are anyway even more complex.
> With the correct collaboration we're able to make computers useful, we
> build good abstraction layers, interfaces that hide other people's
> responsibilities and contribute to net benefit by doing stuff in our
> limited domain. But we all effect everything together.
> 
> We at suckless believe in certain abstraction layers and detest many
> mainstream linux ones.
> Especially plan9 and unix has brought to us the idea of the files and
> folders abstraction, we are saddened by people reinventing less
> capable abstractions for the same purposes.
> 
> When you leave away most other shitty abstraction layers there are
> very few left that you would need to learn about. Clearly some other
> people on this list haven't done their job here yet, be humble,
> please, cause you are not our genius and savior.
> 
> The things that I value most are also the most simple. Finding
> simplicity though is only to be accomplished by the best. Most of us
> can't actually contribute much to it. So at least make sure that
> what's already there can be used and what is clearly evil is
> discouraged of by demonstration of real alternatives. If we were not
> able to show off that our way is better we would have to admit
> failure.
> 
> We technologists are not the only ones who learned from Unix and Plan9.
> Many normal people around me with very little computer training use
> files and folders more wisely than most nerds could even dream of.
> Some things are *not* a matter of experience, some are also a matter
> of intelligence or even more banal, discipline.
> 

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

[Charlie Kester]

On Thu 12 May 2016 at 14:09:50 PDT Jason Young wrote:


And on the actual topic of this thread, Alpine Linux seems to be a
fairly suckless distro. I'm impressed with its speed and simplicity.


Agreed.

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

[Jason Young]

I was content to just watch this conversation play out in silence, as it
proved amusing and even insightful in parts. Even the stuff you've said
in other parts of this thing are actually good.

In this post, that falls apart. Instead of actually taking apart this
person's argument, which is fairly clearly stated, you resort to trash
talking like the tween you act like.

If you had any problem with the ideas behind what Rubén said, you would
have used those arguments to shoot them down. Instead, it's straight to
"ur mom lol".

Maybe it was unrealistic of me to expect professionalism behind the
mailing list of a group of projects that are fairly major in the
software world.

But since you like trash talking so much, Hiro Protagonist wannabe,
here's a little more to wrap this all up: You are the biggest tool I've
ever directly had any contact with, and were somebody to make a
screwdriver the size of the observable universe, that would still be true.

And on the actual topic of this thread, Alpine Linux seems to be a
fairly suckless distro. I'm impressed with its speed and simplicity.

On 5/12/2016 3:07 PM, hiro wrote:
>> Let's break it down to logic.
> way too start... WTF
> 
>> If a user does not know how to use a complex tool, he is not able
>> to use it properly (1)
> 
> I think this is a marvel piece of symmetry, and it works BOTH WAYS, genius:
> if someone doesn't know how to use X properly he doesn't know how to
> use this complex X (*34.4a).
> 
> wow, logical.
> 
>> The only way to know how to use a complex tool is by learning how
>> to use it (2)
> 
> The only way to learn something about X is by using X. Hmm, if the
> opposite is true will it rain tomorrow?
> 
>> Computers are complex tools.
> 
> Like your mom?
> 
>> Therefore, if you don't know how to use
>> it, you won't be able to use it properly and the only way to use it is
>> by learing how to use it.
> 
> I heard this somewhere. But she learned faster, I wish you were more like her.
> 
>> Any claims that somebody without prior knowledge of computers can use
>> one properly without any education on the matter is only valid if you
>> think (1) is invalid or that computers are not complex tools. Since
>> negating any of those points is an absurd, then any claim that
>> somebody without knownledge of the field can use the computer is an
>> absurd too.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand such complex logic without medication.
> 
>> The reason many people does not regard activities performed with
>> computers as "complex" in the modern age is because they have been
>> exposed to them long enough to learn how to use them up to some point.
>> It is worth noticing that people with actually zero exposition to
>> computers - like old people in rural isolated areas - is not able to
>> create an email account or launch a preinstalled game without a great
>> effort (which counts as learning experience).
> 
> kid, i think you're imagining some place in the future where you
> actually figured out how to do something useful with a computer. i can
> assure you the time will never come, however much you're trying to
> learn. because you will get distracted by your bullshit logical
> insight.
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[hiro]

> So it could be simple by its implementation, by its design, and simple
> to use even for persons rarely using computers if at all, even
> indication on how to interact with the keyboard are provided.

I agree with your implications. Suckless is not about understanding
every shitty software in great detail.
I can divide into a careful selection of small useful, simple tools, a
bigger selection of useful, but not very simple tools and an even
bigger selection of useless and very complex tools.
The biggest enemy is the last group. As it's also the biggest
selecting (specifying) it is impossible (I can smell, but I can't
teach you to smell). By selecting the first (base tools in my OS) and
second group (stupid extensions like ssl and webkit) we have achieved
the same much easier. We can distance ourselves from the third.

Computers are complex, but their purpose is to make our lifes easier.
To put things on a scale, humans are anyway even more complex.
With the correct collaboration we're able to make computers useful, we
build good abstraction layers, interfaces that hide other people's
responsibilities and contribute to net benefit by doing stuff in our
limited domain. But we all effect everything together.

We at suckless believe in certain abstraction layers and detest many
mainstream linux ones.
Especially plan9 and unix has brought to us the idea of the files and
folders abstraction, we are saddened by people reinventing less
capable abstractions for the same purposes.

When you leave away most other shitty abstraction layers there are
very few left that you would need to learn about. Clearly some other
people on this list haven't done their job here yet, be humble,
please, cause you are not our genius and savior.

The things that I value most are also the most simple. Finding
simplicity though is only to be accomplished by the best. Most of us
can't actually contribute much to it. So at least make sure that
what's already there can be used and what is clearly evil is
discouraged of by demonstration of real alternatives. If we were not
able to show off that our way is better we would have to admit
failure.

We technologists are not the only ones who learned from Unix and Plan9.
Many normal people around me with very little computer training use
files and folders more wisely than most nerds could even dream of.
Some things are *not* a matter of experience, some are also a matter
of intelligence or even more banal, discipline.

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

[hiro]

> So it could be simple by its implementation, by its design, and simple
> to use even for persons rarely using computers if at all, even
> indication on how to interact with the keyboard are provided.

I agree with your implications. Suckless is not about understanding
every shitty software in great detail.
I can divide into a careful selection of small useful, simple tools, a
bigger selection of useful, but not very simple tools and an even
bigger selection of useless and very complex tools.
The biggest enemy is the last group. As it's also the biggest
selecting (specifying) it is impossible (I can smell, but I can't
teach you to smell). By selecting the first (base tools in my OS) and
second group (stupid extensions like ssl and webkit) we have achieved
the same much easier. We can distance ourselves from the third.

Computers are complex, but their purpose is to make our lifes easier.
To put things on a scale, humans are anyway even more complex.
With the correct collaboration we're able to make computers useful, we
build good abstraction layers, interfaces that hide other people's
responsibilities and contribute to net benefit by doing stuff in our
limited domain. But we all effect everything together.

We at suckless believe in certain abstraction layers and detest many
mainstream linux ones.
Especially plan9 and unix has brought to us the idea of the files and
folders abstraction, we are saddened by people reinventing less
capable abstractions for the same purposes.

When you leave away most other shitty abstraction layers there are
very few left that you would need to learn about. Clearly some other
people on this list haven't done their job here yet, be humble,
please, cause you are not our genius and savior.

The things that I value most are also the most simple. Finding
simplicity though is only to be accomplished by the best. Most of us
can't actually contribute much to it. So at least make sure that
what's already there can be used and what is clearly evil is
discouraged of by demonstration of real alternatives. If we were not
able to show off that our way is better we would have to admit
failure.

We technologists are not the only ones who learned from Unix and Plan9.
Many normal people around me with very little computer training use
files and folders more wisely than most nerds could even dream of.
Some things are *not* a matter of experience, some are also a matter
of intelligence or even more banal, discipline.

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

[hiro]

> Let's break it down to logic.
way too start... WTF

> If a user does not know how to use a complex tool, he is not able
> to use it properly (1)

I think this is a marvel piece of symmetry, and it works BOTH WAYS, genius:
if someone doesn't know how to use X properly he doesn't know how to
use this complex X (*34.4a).

wow, logical.

> The only way to know how to use a complex tool is by learning how
> to use it (2)

The only way to learn something about X is by using X. Hmm, if the
opposite is true will it rain tomorrow?

> Computers are complex tools.

Like your mom?

> Therefore, if you don't know how to use
> it, you won't be able to use it properly and the only way to use it is
> by learing how to use it.

I heard this somewhere. But she learned faster, I wish you were more like her.

> Any claims that somebody without prior knowledge of computers can use
> one properly without any education on the matter is only valid if you
> think (1) is invalid or that computers are not complex tools. Since
> negating any of those points is an absurd, then any claim that
> somebody without knownledge of the field can use the computer is an
> absurd too.

Sorry, I don't understand such complex logic without medication.

> The reason many people does not regard activities performed with
> computers as "complex" in the modern age is because they have been
> exposed to them long enough to learn how to use them up to some point.
> It is worth noticing that people with actually zero exposition to
> computers - like old people in rural isolated areas - is not able to
> create an email account or launch a preinstalled game without a great
> effort (which counts as learning experience).

kid, i think you're imagining some place in the future where you
actually figured out how to do something useful with a computer. i can
assure you the time will never come, however much you're trying to
learn. because you will get distracted by your bullshit logical
insight.

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

[hiro]

> suckless strives for perfection in an environment where most people
> are illiterate.

which one? window management? terminal emulation?

> heading in
> the right direction.

that's exactly my point. i don't want anyone heading inwards. there
are more valid problems to solve than the dwm color scheme, so to say.

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

[Josuah Demangeon]

> The reason many people does not regard activities performed with
> computers as "complex" in the modern age is because they have been
> exposed to them long enough to learn how to use them up to some point.
> It is worth noticing that people with actually zero exposition to
> computers - like old people in rural isolated areas - is not able to
> create an email account or launch a preinstalled game without a great
> effort (which counts as learning experience).

An anecdote on this point:  In a mildly rural isolated area, there were
some kind of swap shop [1], so custommers can both sell and buy.


To check how their purchases were going, and how much they earned, they
have to use one very old computer: CRT screen, text mode, monospace
bitmap font, light gray background and dark blue foreground, blinking
cursor...

Although, people did not seem to have difficulty to use it:

Enter your custommer number with the keyboard then press the ENTER key:
 |_

*screen wipes out*

Your current balance is: $320
Do you want to use it for the next payment?
Press 'y' key to answer yes or 'n' key to answer no: |_

I have seen someone using maybe faster than what I would do, used to it,
, reading the onscreen indications and doing what was asked.  The whole
interface could be reproduced in a shell script only with printf and
read (not an ncurse one).

So it could be simple by its implementation, by its design, and simple
to use even for persons rarely using computers if at all, even
indication on how to interact with the keyboard are provided.

It does not give the impression of being the latest modern software and
it may not look attractive to the majority of nowadays computer users.
This may shift a large amount of user from simple, rather trivial
systems, to much more complex ones, sacrificing sanity.

[1]: http://www.brocantiq.fr/images/midi/31/troc7101.jpg

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

[Christoph Lohmann]

Greetings.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:59:18 +0200 Rubén Llorente  
wrote:
> hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> of the easy to use software. The only way a computer-illiterate is going
> >> to be able to use a computer properly is by educating herself or by
> >> hiring somebody to do the administration.
> > 
> > I disagree about that part.
> > My "literate" computer usage is nothing i'm very proud of. I regret it even.
> > 
> 
> Let's break it down to logic.
> 
> If a user does not know how to use a complex tool, he is not able 
> to use it properly (1)
> 
> The only way to know how to use a complex tool is by learning how
> to use it (2)
> 
> Computers are complex tools. Therefore, if you don't know how to use
> it, you won't be able to use it properly and the only way to use it is
> by learing how to use it.
> 
> Any claims that somebody without prior knowledge of computers can use
> one properly without any education on the matter is only valid if you
> think (1) is invalid or that computers are not complex tools. Since
> negating any of those points is an absurd, then any claim that
> somebody without knownledge of the field can use the computer is an
> absurd too. 
> 
> The reason many people does not regard activities performed with
> computers as "complex" in the modern age is because they have been
> exposed to them long enough to learn how to use them up to some point.
> It is worth noticing that people with actually zero exposition to
> computers - like old people in rural isolated areas - is not able to
> create an email account or launch a preinstalled game without a great
> effort (which counts as learning experience).

There  are  different  kind of users, which everyone has to pick his/her
role.  First there’s the inexperienced users, which can form into  stub‐
born  isolationists or open‐minded learners. Second you have profession‐
als, which have stubborn and open‐minded learners and third there’s  the
stubborn  and open‐minded wizards. In all of the categories can be revo‐
lutioners.

How  can  the  software world be changed to the better? Depending on the
level you are at, think of how you get people to be  open‐minded  learn‐
ers. This is best done by being pragmatic and practical: A button labeld
»shutdown« should shutdown a computer, some  office  application  should
not  offer stupid cloud storage, it should save my documents in a simple
folder, as I know it from the furniture around the computer and  when  I
install  new  hardware in a computer it shouldn’t brag me about some li‐
cense key.

When  your environment feels »nicer«, is friendly and simply works, peo‐
ple will ask how you did this and join. Of course, don’t forget the  art
of propaganda.

Conclusion:   If  you  can’t  make your own life suck less, don’t try to
make the world suck less.

Have fun.


Sincerely,

Christoph Lohmann

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

[FRIGN]

On Thu, 12 May 2016 17:59:40 +0200
hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> you guys are arrogant but still sheep. you can create as much elitist
> software as you want, you have no chance to be interoperable with
> every real-world system that we need access to.
> 
> as much as i hate the cheesy term (i find it ridiculous to hint
> towards something so obvious, but you "noobs" manage to prove me
> wrong), you also don't even get "suckless". it doesn't mean running
> pure code exclusively like RMS does.
> 
> we demand a certain amount of pragmatism, cause the way towards
> perfection can by definition not be the goal. elegant workarounds,
> practical alternatives, sane preselection of ressources, interfaces,
> apis are needed. and the things we interface are not only dwm window
> managers or shitty terminal emulators made to run ncurses
> applications.

suckless strives for perfection in an environment where most people
are illiterate.
We are like a book club in india, but just because we literate while
the majority is illiterate it doesn't mean that we are doing something
wrong. We may not be a big force, but at least we're heading in
the right direction.

-- 
FRIGN 

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

[hiro]

> This.  The road to suck begins with the desire to please everyone.
> Better, I think, to be unabashed elitists and aim to create or use
> software designed for the most discriminating tastes.
>
> If the noobs don't like it, tough.

you guys are arrogant but still sheep. you can create as much elitist
software as you want, you have no chance to be interoperable with
every real-world system that we need access to.

as much as i hate the cheesy term (i find it ridiculous to hint
towards something so obvious, but you "noobs" manage to prove me
wrong), you also don't even get "suckless". it doesn't mean running
pure code exclusively like RMS does.

we demand a certain amount of pragmatism, cause the way towards
perfection can by definition not be the goal. elegant workarounds,
practical alternatives, sane preselection of ressources, interfaces,
apis are needed. and the things we interface are not only dwm window
managers or shitty terminal emulators made to run ncurses
applications.

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

[hiro]

> of the easy to use software. The only way a computer-illiterate is going
> to be able to use a computer properly is by educating herself or by
> hiring somebody to do the administration.

I disagree about that part.
My "literate" computer usage is nothing i'm very proud of. I regret it even.

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

[Charlie Kester]

On Thu 12 May 2016 at 02:54:00 PDT Rubén Llorente wrote:


I stopped caring too much about user-friendlyness long ago, because
no matter what you do, lambs will always find a way to make a mess out
of the easy to use software. The only way a computer-illiterate is going
to be able to use a computer properly is by educating herself or by
hiring somebody to do the administration.


This.  The road to suck begins with the desire to please everyone.
Better, I think, to be unabashed elitists and aim to create or use
software designed for the most discriminating tastes.

If the noobs don't like it, tough.

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

[Adrian Grigore]

I jumped from Ubuntu, to Arch and currently am very happy with
OpenBSD. I think only 9front can supersede it. Note tho, that it's
very bare bones so you'll spend some time understanding it but it's
definitely worth it.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Rubén Llorente
 wrote:
> hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So that's why I want an alternative that is fit
>> to be used by anyone.
>
> I doubt you can make a suckless anything that fits that criteria.
>
> Modern user expectations often require the use of code or technologies
> that are just a conceptual mess. Web applications are a great example.
> In order to fullfill user expectations, you need to instal a piece of
> software that executes every single piece of client-side script it runs
> into and then prays for it not to be malware. It also has to deal with
> ill-formated pages, which requires some sort of quirk mode on the
> parser, which is sucky because it could be rendering anything but what
> the web developer intended. Users expect one of these to work, and an
> alternative that is not js-happy - for example, requires a confirmation
> before executing each script - or does not tolerate malformed pages
> therefore does not fit your criteria.
>
> Many people has been trained to expect crappy behaviours from their
> software in many fields, and thus any software which is to be used by
> anyone in that field must behave in the crappy way the user is
> expecting. Some of these fields are expected to be of interest for most
> users, like web browsing.
>
> Therefore I submit the theory that software that does not suck but is
> usable by everybody is not possible in certain fields, and since at
> least some of those fields must be covered by any user-friendly
> distribution, then such a distribution must include these bad tools. If
> it didn't, it would not be computer-illiterate-friendly.
>
> Which means that a distribution that tries to fit every shoe cannot
> possibly be suckless by any means.
>
> I stopped caring too much about user-friendlyness long ago, because
> no matter what you do, lambs will always find a way to make a mess out
> of the easy to use software. The only way a computer-illiterate is going
> to be able to use a computer properly is by educating herself or by
> hiring somebody to do the administration.
>
> --
> OpenPGP Key Fingerprint:
> BB5A C2A2 2CAD ACB7 D50D  C081 1DB9 6FC4 5AB7 92FA
>
>



-- 
Thanks,
Adi

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

[parazyd]

On Wed, 11 May 2016, Nick wrote:

> Devuan I had not heard of. Sounds nice, and the dyne people seem to be
> very good people, but I wonder whether it suffers the problems above of
> being scarily small. Maybe not, if they mostly just use Debian's repos,
> I don't know. parazyd, any comment on that?

In Devuan, we have our own software called "Amprolla" that basically
acts as an overlay to the Debian repositories. Systemd-dependent
packages like php-fpm or anything else that's been compiled with systemd
support we recompile without, and put it in our own repos. Right now
we're at about 300 packages that have been compiled specifically for
Devuan (without the need for systemd), and anything else, Amprolla
resolves and gets from the Debian repos, so you still have all 40k+
packages that are already in Debian.

Also, while we still mark it as beta, I can assure you it's perfectly
stable and production ready if that's of any worry for you.

-- 
~ parazyd
0333 7671 FDE7 5BB6 A85E  C91F B876 CB44 FA1B 0274



pgphM7g_cIKNC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Nick]

Thanks for the replies folks.

I would love to give OpenBSD a try, but the laptop I'm getting is rather
new and fancy, and I suspect not all of it would be supported. Plus it's
a new ecosystem and I don't have the time to learn it all at the moment
(this is my work machine, too). I'll have to learn my way around it in
qemu sometime soon. Same for 9front, now I think of it.

I'm glad to hear Gentoo is more solid these days.

Kamil, your point about security updates is a good one, though at the
moment running Debian stable doesn't feel particularly secure to me
(using surf on the system-supplied webkit, which has many known
vulnerabilities, because I haven't yet had the heart to build it for
myself, and in general running various oldish software from Debian which
almost certainly has known holes that haven't been marked as
security-sensitive and fixed in Debian). But yes, that, plus the desire
to not have to switch distributions because one or two peoples'
priorities have changed, makes me wary of going for a small distro.

Devuan I had not heard of. Sounds nice, and the dyne people seem to be
very good people, but I wonder whether it suffers the problems above of
being scarily small. Maybe not, if they mostly just use Debian's repos,
I don't know. parazyd, any comment on that?

Anyway, thanks for all the thoughts, I'm currently leaning towards
Gentoo or Debian/Devuan (I am secretly conservative and boring at
times), but who knows where I'll end up.

Love to you all.

Nick

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

[Josuah 'sshbio' Demangeon]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:21:44AM -0300, Alba Pompeo wrote:
> Alpine Linux.

I was about to ask about Alpine Linux.  I am very glad to see it in this
list, and had _a few_ issues with it, and only 1 that I could not
overcome, even if I do not have a large knowledge.

> - musl libc
> - busybox utils (they said they will migrate to sbase/ubase when ready)
What a great news.
> - openrc (they will migrate to s6 next year)
> - "Small. Simple. Secure." slogan
> - Philosophy similar to suckless http://www.alpinelinux.org/about/
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Rubén Llorente
>  wrote:
> [...]

J. D.

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

[Alba Pompeo]

Alpine Linux.

- musl libc
- busybox utils (they said they will migrate to sbase/ubase when ready)
- openrc (they will migrate to s6 next year)
- "Small. Simple. Secure." slogan
- Philosophy similar to suckless http://www.alpinelinux.org/about/



On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Rubén Llorente
 wrote:
> I find OpenBSD and NetBSD to be less insane operating systems than any
> Linux distribution I have ever tried.
>
> Slackware is ok. The base install is very bloated because it has lots of
> packages installed by default, but if you don't run the extra packages
> or don't install them, you won't ever notice. The Slackware team is very
> conservative with the inclussion of new software, so experimental toy
> projects like Systemd will take longer to fully penetrate the
> distribution - if they ever do.
>
> There is no automated dependency tracking in the package manager unless
> you hack it in or use third party tools. Many people who is tired of
> having poor distributions break their package managers becaouse of bad
> dependency tracking see this as a feature, including myself.
>
> --
> OpenPGP Key Fingerprint:
> BB5A C2A2 2CAD ACB7 D50D  C081 1DB9 6FC4 5AB7 92FA
>
>