On 21/06/20 08:25, opal hart wrote:
> Suckless software isn't a void separate from the rest of the world,
Suckless software is following a specific set of principles, and the software
that sucks is not following those principles. The two are separate.
> the "suckless philosophy" is constantly inconsistent with its own
I will join Hiltjo in asking for examples.
> Of all the issues I have with kitty, GPU acceleration is not one of
It doesn't matter what issues you might have. It is an unnecessary feature. A
terminal emulator is not a graphically intensive program like a game. It is
meant to enable terminal I/O.
> And display it.
"O" in "I/O" stands for "output".
> There are plenty of other terminal emulators for systems where it would
> be impractical to install kitty.
Why would they need to support kitty's protocol? If we are speaking about st, it
is a finished program, fulfilling its purpose while not adding unnecessary bloat.
> You're on a mailing list for opinionated software to ... complain about
> other opinionated software?
Not complain, just stating that while most suckless programs tend to respect
standards like POSIX, introducing a protocol which is nonstandard to a standards
body, for example ISO, by someone unwilling to potentially modify that protocol
due to the discussion in the said body would be pointless.
> And if anyone
> does want to support this protocol, it would be better done in an
> optional feature patch or a fork.
I agree. However, that was not what Tobias (the OP) called for. It was rather
the inclusion of the support for kitty protocol in base st.
Received on Mon Jun 21 2021 - 07:18:29 CEST