Re: [dev] [dwm] devilspie doesn't work

From: errno <>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:48:41 -0700

On Thursday, May 05, 2011 06:46:00 PM Kurt H Maier wrote:
> Transparent terminals unnecessarily increase computational power
> required to render simple text. They make a fundamental application
> harder for a computer to run. This makes the core program less
> portable by raising the hardware requirements. The only gain is
> (arguably) aesthetic.

Quoted for its value in bringing well-intended exchange of ideas back
to the table.

Let's try to make not only our own personal software suckless, but
also our communication amongst fellow list-members and explorers.

Maybe that sounds like limp nonsense to you, but I think it's a fairly
decent human protocol to standardize on.

> This, in short, is a completely braindead idea
> of no practical value, unless you tend to use a computer in the manner
> of someone who has been hit very hard in the head and has forgotten
> entirely what computers do and what terminals are

Why are people still emulating physical video terminal hardware devices
from the 70's, and why is that a good thing? Personal aesthetic opinions
wrt transparency seem like small shit in contrast to the bigger issue
surrounding the continued and woefully antiquated baggage of emulating
a freaking DEC VT102 on our personal computers.

I could of course make some really opinionated and abrasive statements
about people like you who choose to continue to use hardware terminal
emulators in lieu of, say, 9term - but that'd be uncool. Everyone has their
reasons for using and/or preferring whatever it is they're using. And it
certainly doesn't hurt to try things out to form one's own opinions about
any given software interface versus being insulted or ridiculed for exploring
-- in fact such behavior ought to be encouraged rather than ridiculed.

For whatever it's worth to you, no hard feelings.

Received on Fri May 06 2011 - 04:48:41 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri May 06 2011 - 05:00:05 CEST