Re: [dwm] musca wm

From: Benjamin Conner <>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 19:23:35 -0400

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

On 5/15/09, pmarin <> wrote:
> From Bash and readline man page (bugs section):
> "It's too big and too slow.
> I think this bug is the perfect definition of GNU/FSF style.
> Have you seen a piece of software that is small, efficient and easy to
> read and in each new version it become clumsy, slow and bloated?
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Preben Randhol <> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:29:11 +0200
>> Mate Nagy <> wrote:
>>> > I cannot understand GNU software. ls or cat source in GNU is scary,
>>> > glibc is even worse. The old UNIX utilities or Plan9 ones have a
>>> > simplicity which GNU lacks. I don't have anything against the GPL
>>> > license, but I prefer less restrictive licenses. And, of course, I
>>> > don't like rms.
>>>  i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU
>>> software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and
>>> usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have
>>> >features< (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic
>>> >hackjobs.
>>>  Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but
>>> obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as
>>> annoyed with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even
>>> Firefox as anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI
>>> userland that make it comfortable is mad. Would you use dash instead
>>> of zsh as an everyday shell?
>>>  At a risk of being boring, I'll say that the same argument can be
>>> made about text editors: VIM is quite bloated and big, but it's
>>> better than any small text editor; because text editing is one of
>>> those typical tasks that cannot be comfortable without a million
>>> features that are in no way related to each other. Even if someone
>>> writes a really small, elegant, suckless editor core, it will be
>>> unusable until:
>>>  - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal)
>>>  - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...)
>>>  - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp...
>>>  - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...)
>>>  - autocompletion, ctags integration
>>> These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement
>>> these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application.
>>> Sucklessness goes through the window.
>>> (Yes, there are people who make do with mcedit, but.. come on.)
>>>  I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's
>>> suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not
>>> all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only
>>> marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper
>>> handling of this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates
>>> so much.
>>> Best regards,
>>>  Mate
>>> PS. am not trolling :)
>> I couldn't agree with you more!
>> --
>> Preben Randhol
Received on Fri May 15 2009 - 23:23:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri May 15 2009 - 23:36:02 UTC