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

Why I Use Suckless Tools

christine.website

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 215 posts

Re: Why I Use Suckless Tools

#131

Post by __s »

ilitirit wrote: post #72
tarruda wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the implementation POV, suckless software is very simple, and this makes it easier not only to tweak configuration (which is usually done C headers through defines), but also any kind of customization you might need. Take their window manager dwm as an example. The codebase is only 2000 lines long, so any bug you find will have to be hidden in those 2000 lines. If you take a Sunday afternoon to study the code, y…

> If you take a Sunday afternoon to study the code, you will very likely understand how every piece of the software works, at which point you will be in a position to fix anything you might find. You might even end up forking it and implementing your own window manager (AwesomeWM was originally forked from Dwm). I don't think I have ever needed to do this "fix" any piece of configuration in any software. While I unde…

Have you ever used software with bugs?

Re: Why I Use Suckless Tools

#132

Post by dmitriid »

tomcooks wrote: post #110
geerlingguy wrote: post #66

This post highlights many of the reasons why I’ve chosen to just stick with a standard, widely-used desktop OS (macOS in my case, but could easily be Windows or some other OS like Fedora), and use almost all the default settings, adapting to the defaults over the years. Would the tiny incremental gain from tweaking one or two specific settings to my perfect liking save me anywhere near the amount of time, happiness,…

Usually you tune things to your liking and compile them once, not everyday. From my own experience and talking with other suckless users this seems to be the common behaviour.

How do you "tune something to your liking" if every change makes you recompile the whole thing?

Re: Why I Use Suckless Tools

#133

Post by ilitirit »

noobermin wrote: post #83
ilitirit wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you take a Sunday afternoon to study the code, you will very likely understand how every piece of the software works, at which point you will be in a position to fix anything you might find. You might even end up forking it and implementing your own window manager (AwesomeWM was originally forked from Dwm). I don't think I have ever needed to do this "fix" any piece of configuration in any software. While I unde…

Be a little charitable to OP and this reply. The configuration is indeed in code but it's macro defines. It's essentially as simple as changing a text configuration file, it's not like you have to actually edit code (as in new functions, adding actual logic). Things like fonts and sizes and colors is changing defines, it's actually simple. Now when it comes to more complex stuff, like hotkeys, well you're essentially…

I actually am quite familiar with suckless tools and I do consider myself an advanced user, so I'm probably part of their target market as well. But to be honest, from a pragmatic point of view I just don't see how configuration through code is better/worse than configuration through dot/json/ini files in the average "suckless" use-case. Why must this even be something that I care about?

If it's a case of their software being simpler to understand so which makes it easier to fix bugs, then sure, I get that. But in my experience, software that has been around forever just tends to have fewer bugs in general so it's also just something else that I simply don't need to care about. And how often does the average user of suckless tools actually have to fix bugs in the programs? If it's more than once, then does the label "suck less" even qualify?

Is it just because the software is extremely minimal and therefore less "bloated"? I get that too, but personally, why would I care if a piece of software is 70kb or 500kb in this age? YMMV.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to bash suckless or any other community here. I'm just very pragmatic about the tools that I use and my workflow. If you're the type of person that likes to tinker and customize every aspect from the ground up, sure then maybe suckless tools are for you. Tinker and mod away, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Re: Why I Use Suckless Tools

#134

Post by snarfy »

jdub wrote: post #22

As much as possible, I try to use software created by kind communities. The behaviours and attitudes in the "suckless" world come across as combative, exclusive, and unpleasant.

Sadly, I'd have to agree. If you don't think so, try submitting a patch. They are a very exclusive group. Outsiders need not apply.

Re: Why I Use Suckless Tools

#135

Post by p_l »

ken wrote: post #128

> Their window manager dwm is just a window manager. It doesn’t handle things like transparency, compositing or volume control. That is a strange division of labor. I thought transparency and composition were aspects of window management. What else would they be?

Composition should be domain of display server, IMO (like with Xsgi). Windows DWM.EXE also, AFAIK, keeps to drawing not policy.

Transparency support falls under composition - the decision on applying the effect can be left to WM/app.

That's how world used to work, but it seems its going the way of dodo :-(

Re: Why I Use Suckless Tools

#136

Post by __s »

dannykwells wrote: post #56

I found this section ironic, since the whole point is the lack of features: " As dwm is configured in C, there’s also a community of people creating patches for dwm that add extra features like additional tiling methods, the ability to automatically start things with dwm, transparency for the statusbar and so much more. I use the following patches..." Eventually, enough users will want a particular patch, and it will…

Yes

Re: Why I Use Suckless Tools

#138

Post by wander_homer »

dmitriid wrote: post #132
tomcooks wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually you tune things to your liking and compile them once, not everyday. From my own experience and talking with other suckless users this seems to be the common behaviour.

How do you "tune something to your liking" if every change makes you recompile the whole thing?

You change config.h to your liking and call `make` and you're done.

Re: Why I Use Suckless Tools

#139

Post by shawnz »

profsnuggles wrote: post #125
geerlingguy wrote: post #66

This post highlights many of the reasons why I’ve chosen to just stick with a standard, widely-used desktop OS (macOS in my case, but could easily be Windows or some other OS like Fedora), and use almost all the default settings, adapting to the defaults over the years. Would the tiny incremental gain from tweaking one or two specific settings to my perfect liking save me anywhere near the amount of time, happiness,…

Yesterday I posted something about an emacs keybinding and someone pointed out that the command actually doesn't have a default keybinding. I set up that keybinding sometime in the mid 2000's and it hasn't changed since then. Since 2005 home many times have the defaults change in Windows/OSX/Gnome/KDE? (A lot! Gnome3, Plasma, Windows 8) It's something you do once and then leave alone. If someone is tweaking their con…

When new developments are made in computer graphics technology or UX research, I want to be able to take advantage of them. I don't want to limit myself to a design based on the state of the art in 2006 just to avoid having to learn anything new.

Re: Why I Use Suckless Tools

#140

Post by jcelerier »

geerlingguy wrote: post #66

This post highlights many of the reasons why I’ve chosen to just stick with a standard, widely-used desktop OS (macOS in my case, but could easily be Windows or some other OS like Fedora), and use almost all the default settings, adapting to the defaults over the years. Would the tiny incremental gain from tweaking one or two specific settings to my perfect liking save me anywhere near the amount of time, happiness,…

> This post highlights many of the reasons why I’ve chosen to just stick with a standard, widely-used desktop OS (macOS in my case, but could easily be Windows or some other OS like Fedora), and use almost all the default settings, adapting to the defaults over the years.

to give my data point, whenever I was using windows I could never stop trying to change its workflow because of, well, how unefficient it seemed to me ? After years of trying various distros & DEs, building my own config based on i3, rofi, zsh and a couple other tools which took for the most part a couple afternoons, I could never see myself change for anything else again - especially not that wretched mac thing (I have one on my desk, it feels like every single interaction with that computer takes 10x the time it takes me on my main linux box which makes my blood pressure go way too high :-) )

Post reply on HN