Re: [dev] [st] goals / non-goals for st?

From: frederic <>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:01:54 +0100

>>> Example:

So sugar is evil, because if one eats too much of it, one may die.

>>> So, I agree with uriel: transparency is for idiots.

Often, drunk people seem to believe that other people are drunk.

Do yourself a favour: stop calling others idiots.

>> When I was young I thought hey that looks cool (compared to the usual
>> terminals on Windows by that time). But when actually using it for a
>> while it hurts more and the coolness factor becomes obsolete sooner
>> than later. Perhaps the younger generation has better eyes and can
>> cope with it for a couple of years, but I haven't seen any serious
>> programmer that worked with translucent terminals very long...

I think I'm not younger than you, and I have been working with translucent
terminals for about ten years on a daily basis.
I think the reason why I've been using them for so long is because I use
them more for the aesthetics than for the coolness factor.
Of course, my wallpaper doesn't show some lame anime character, insipid
landscape or kickass-y car.

>> Apart from that, all the other reasons (unnecessary complexity,
>> unnecessary cpu cycles, etc) are true and I agree.

I won't argue against that. Suckless software is nice, because it spares
some resources on my machine, so I can use translucent terminals :)

> If you need the transparency, there are compositing window managers
> that will do perfect transparency for any application you would like
> to.

Not exactly. Last time I tried, a compositing manager makes transparent
everything including writings, and performs true transparency. It is
significantly less comfortable than pseudo-transparency done by terminals
themselves. A comfortable translucent set up requires a accurate settings
in order to balance correctly eye-candy and easy reading.
Received on Thu Oct 29 2009 - 22:01:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Oct 29 2009 - 21:12:01 UTC