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

From: Uriel <>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:24:32 +0100

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, frederic <> wrote:
>>>> Example:
> So sugar is evil, because if one eats too much of it, one may die.

And make the world a better place as a result.

>>>> So, I agree with uriel: transparency is for idiots.
> Often, drunk people seem to believe that other people are drunk.

And often idiots are just idiots.

> Do yourself a favour: stop calling others idiots.

Do yourself and the world a favour and go use Gnome, or even better OS X.

>>> 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.

And now we have conclusive evidence that using translucent terminals
for extended periods of time damages the brain!

Thanks for sacrificing yourself as guinea pig for this essential and
fascinating scientific research project.

> 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.

What have you got as wallpaper? A picture of your but?

>>> 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.

I know that many enjoy so much the mental-masturbatory process of
configuring and "tuning" their desktops to death, but some of us
managed to outgrow our pre-adolescent vices and actually use computers
to get work done, hell, or even to have *actual* fun like watching
films or perhaps playing games, instead of spending a lifetime
pretending that the look of our work area is some kind of third rate
kitsch 'art work'.


Received on Fri Oct 30 2009 - 02:24:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Oct 30 2009 - 02:36:02 UTC