The conversation

Lessons learnedExperience excerpt · English

I tried their window manager out once and the only way to add some functionality through plugins is …

… I tried their window manager out once and the only way to add some functionality through plugins is to apply source code patches, but there's no guarantee that the order doesn't mess things up, so you basically end up manually stitching pieces of code together for functionality that is virtually unrelated. It's actual madness from a complexity standpoint.

Original discussionSuckless.org: software that sucks less235 source comments · at import
3

What was this responding to?

Parent context · original excerpt

IM

The drama around this community is silly. I use these tools because I absolutely love their philosophy on software, and software alone. I couldn't care less what the authors personal beliefs and political leanings are, or who they offended on IRC or social media. I recently spent a few hours evaluating different terminals. I went back to urxvt, tried Alacritty again, gave Ghostty a try, and spent quite some time configuring Kitty. After all this I found that they all suck in different ways. Most annoying of all is that I can't do anything about it. I'm not going to spend days of my life digging into their source code to make the changes I want, nor spend time pestering the maintainers to make the changes for me. So I ended back at my st fork I've been using for years, which sucks... less. :) It consists of... 4,765 SLOC, of which I only understand a few hundred, but that's enough for my …

Full original

Community replies 0

No community replies yet. Add your perspective.

Replies from the source 3

Direct replies available in this import. Original-language excerpts.

IM

> This is an odd thing to bring up though because that's quite literally the only way to make any changes to suckless software, editing source code in C. You're ignoring the part where the tools are often a fraction of the size and complexity of similar tools. I can go through a 5K SLOC program and understand it relatively quickly, even if I'm unfamiliar with the programming language or APIs. I can't do the same for programs 10 or 100x that size. The code is also well structured and documented IME, so changing it is not that difficult. In practice, once you configure the program to your liking, you rarely have to recompile it again. Like I said, I'm using a 5 year old st binary that still works exactly how I want it to. Maintaining a set of patches is usually not a major problem either. The patches are often small, and conflicts are rare, but easily fixable. Again, in my experience, whic…

Full original
ZZ

Sometimes, I have had to change software (although not from suckless, since I do not use any of their software) by modifying and recompiling it, to do what I wanted. > There's nothing simple or "unbloated" about having to recompile a piece of software every time you want to make what should really be a runtime user configuration, and it makes an entire compiler toolchain effectively a dependency for even the most trivial config change. It is true, but depending on the software, sometimes this is acceptable. (Some of the internet server software that I wrote (such as scorpiond) are configured in this way, in order to take advantage of compiler optimizations.) For some other programs, some things will have to be configured at compile time (mostly things that probably don't need to be changed after making a package of this program in some package manager), although most things can be config…

Full original
MA

Not when you want to write your own patches, it isn't. I think the design of DWM could be improved to make patching easier, but it was a revelation to me when I discovered it: for the first time in my life, I was using open source software that was actually designed to be extended.

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

Sign in to post, reply, repost, and quote.