Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

St – A simple terminal implementation for X

st.suckless.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 223 posts

Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X

#71

Post by kitchi »

laumars wrote: post #68
satai wrote: post #62

I can't help myself: suckless sucks. Lots of arbitrary limitations for the code, need to recompile instead of configuration, optimizing for a wrong usage scenario.

You're clearly not their target audience if those are your takeaways. But there are lots of people out there who do prefer to recompile instead of configure and find suckless feature sets to be inline with their own requirements. To say that a product "sucks" because they don't cater specifically to your arbitrary desires is grossly unfair.

Well, I mean that's what they're doing as well. They call features other people use and require "bloat" and pretty much say they all suck.

I think it's fair to say suckless code is clean and minimalist. But it definitely isn't suckless.

Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X

#72

Post by Pawka »

michaelmrose wrote: post #38

Recompiling software to change options is utterly and totally ridiculous

Does not apply to all software. It is just a terminal (and pretty fast terminal). I don't need change options for ST often. Changed probably few times just after upgrade to new version.

More often options are changed on the shell (ZSH in my case) Then even more often on tmux.

Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X

#73

Post by ratstew »

chrissnell wrote: post #25

Interesting. I've been wanting a better terminal for some time. rxvt is super buggy, especially with clickable URLs. xfce4-terminal is better but select-to-copy is flaky and doesn't always copy the text I select. I really wanted st to work for me but something is wrong with the character sizing when using Source Code Pro (17pt) as the font. I installed this on my Arch laptop (a hidpi ThinkPad T460s) and something is…

Try looking for the actual font name with "fc-list | grep -i source", maybe it is not what you're expecting.

A few months ago I was having trouble with getting some TTF BIOS fonts recognized by urxvt and fc-list made me realize that I should've escaped a couple dashes in the font name.

Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X

#75

Post by jacobush »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #27
aidenn0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I want to paste it into a non-terminal application running locally while the tmux is on a remote host?

You can always use ssh and something like xclip or pbcopy. Also, I always use mosh for ssh (when possible) so that I can recover my connection if I run into network issues. Since mosh works by synchronizing a virtual screen, I don't get scrollback at all without tmux or the like.

This. I like terminal scrollback but it's gone for me.

Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X

#77

Post by Gonzih »

jjawssd wrote: post #11
charlesetc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been many times when vim starts glitching out or something because of the terminal emulator I'm using. Even well tested ones like X-term and gnome-terminal. I never had that problem using st. We hack so much into a text interface it's really easy to accumulate bugs.

Have you considered using neovim?

Currently neovim is not even close in stability to vim.

Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X

#78

Post by aidenn0 »

jdormit wrote: post #46
aidenn0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I want to paste it into a non-terminal application running locally while the tmux is on a remote host?

'xclip -selection clipboard' works fine for this use case. [Edit] Assuming you have SSH configured to forward to your local X server [0]. [0] http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/16697

Unfortunately many ssh servers gratuitously disallow X11 forwarding; tcp forwarding can accomplish the same, but then setting up DISPLAY &ct. need to be done manually.

Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X

#79

Post by Jaruzel »

laumars wrote: post #70
michaelmrose wrote: post #38

Recompiling software to change options is utterly and totally ridiculous

Not that ridiculous from a developers perspective. All of the software I write use hardcoded constants as config. Then once the app is stable and usable by myself on production environments - and only at that point - do I consider building in a config system or at least a few command line flags. What's more, many developers (myself included) aren't afraid of jumping into someone elses code and modifying it to behave…

> Not that ridiculous from a developers perspective. All of the software I write use hardcoded constants as config. Then once the app is stable and usable by myself on production environments - and only at that point - do I consider building in a config system or at least a few command line flags.

Cool... Now I know that it's not just me that does this then. :)

Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X

#80

Post by self_awareness »

mikejmoffitt wrote: post #5

I like the principles behind its design, but not supporting scrollback and saying "that functionality should be provided by tmux or something similar" is baffling when it's done in the name of removing bloat and complexity. Not everybody wishes to use a terminal multiplexer in all cases, either.

Alacritty uses the same argument against scrollback and tabs -- that these features should be handled by something like 'tmux': https://github.com/jwilm/alacritty
Post reply on HN