News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by nightcracker on Thursday February 02, 2017 @04:04AM (#13549141)
It is still bizarre because not every user wants to and/or doesn't have the skills to do that.
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by icebraining on Thursday February 02, 2017 @04:24AM (#13549216)
What lisaberlin wrote applies - suckless is like Unix: user friendly, just very selective about who it decides to make friends with.

But in this case, I would disagree. The file is quite readable (way more than most text config files I've seen), and the single command to compile is even included in the README. If you're the kind of person that purposefully downloads a new terminal, rather than using the built-in one, you can probably configure st just fine.

Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by woah on Thursday February 02, 2017 @07:18AM (#13549999)
Seems like kind of a pretentious choice... they've structured their program so the config file is a .h file just so you can feel cool when you compile it to change font size?
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by wtetzner on Thursday February 02, 2017 @07:35AM (#13550070)
I suspect it's not so you feel cool, but because it means the program doesn't need a parser for config files, and because it's more flexible.
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by contras1970 on Thursday February 02, 2017 @09:35AM (#13550741)
parserless configuration is easily achieved with stuff like envdir: https://cr.yp.to/daemontools/envdir.html
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by juliangoldsmith on Thursday February 02, 2017 @09:40AM (#13550779)
That just parses environment variables, instead of files.
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by wtetzner on Monday February 13, 2017 @12:36PM (#13637082)
Not to mention that it's yet another dependency, which is another thing that's avoided by doing configuration through a header file.
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by dubberx on Sunday February 05, 2017 @06:10AM (#13571848)
> suckless is like Unix: user friendly, just very selective about who it decides to make friends with

I like to use the term "super-user friendly", as a compliment.

Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by lisaberlin on Thursday February 02, 2017 @04:12AM (#13549167)
Yes, and that's perfectly ok. These people simply aren't the target audience, just like you wouldn't recommend Arch to a Linux beginner.
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by boomboomsubban on Thursday February 02, 2017 @05:00AM (#13549390)
Not having the skills isn't the thing that should stop someone in either scenario, it's not wanting the skills. Arch is great for a beginner that wants to know how to set up their own bootloader and similar things, you can use Ubuntu for years without gaining that knowledge. Or how much C editing and compiling does the average Unix user happen to run into?

There's very little natural progression in computer use, people do things the way they know how until they decide to learn more. Think of how many time's you've seen some family member slowly select file-save without ever figuring out ctrl-s.

Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by Ziomislaw on Thursday February 02, 2017 @06:05AM (#13549656)
if you don't like it than fork it
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by boomboomsubban on Thursday February 02, 2017 @06:42AM (#13549814)
I find in hard to fork human behavior and have anything one might consider a good adoption rate.
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by sametmax on Thursday February 02, 2017 @04:25AM (#13549221)
Exactly. I would never use it, but I'm perfectly alright having something targeting a niche perfectly. It's better than trying to please everybody and ending up being "meh".
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by eru on Thursday February 02, 2017 @05:31AM (#13549508)
Agreed in general. (As a small counterpoint: I helped a beginner get familiar with Linux. We tried Ubuntu first, and she hated it. She switched to Arch and has been happy ever since.)
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by loup-vaillant on Thursday February 02, 2017 @06:03AM (#13549648)
The Xmonad window manager is configured by editing its source code as well, and believe me, you don't have to know Haskell to do it. They pushed the DSL approach to a point where the main function reads like a configuration file, whose format can be learned just by looking at it.
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by dedsm on Thursday February 02, 2017 @07:37AM (#13550082)
this is not entirely true, xmonad's config file happens to be a haskell file, but I don't need to recompile the whole xmonad project if I want to change it, I just start xmonad again.

It does some tricks to do this (mainly the _main_ xmonad executable compiles a custom binary for you taking the xmonad.hs as input), but it's a different case.

http://xmonad.org/xmonad-docs/xmonad-contrib/XMonad-Doc-Conf...

Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by sevensor on Thursday February 02, 2017 @10:08AM (#13550980)
If this experience has been improved, I might try xmonad again. I used it for 2.5 years but switched to i3 in 2013 after finding myself in cabal hell for the umpteenth time. Recompiling GHC to make my window manager work was not my idea of a good time.
Re:St – A simple terminal implementation for X by pmoriarty on Thursday February 02, 2017 @11:08AM (#13551531)
I switched from xmonad to another window manager and eventually to i3 many years ago, and there's no way I'm going back.

Yes, you can do simple stuff in xmonad without knowing Haskell. But for more complicated stuff, you have to either copy and paste code that you don't understand, or ask someone who knows Haskell to write it for you. And there's no way you're going to be able to do troubleshoot non-obvious problems without either knowing Haskell or once again asking someone who knows Haskell to do it for you. That's way too much of a pain in the ass.

Configuring and troubleshooting i3 doesn't require knowing Haskell, is really simple, flexible enough for what I need, and any advanced functionality I want it to perform I can program in my own language of choice.