cd ~
git clone <dotfiles repo>
cd <dotfiles repo>
stow <profile|vim|ansible|bin|...>
It seems wrong to say a program is broken when it's using the OS-provided API in the documented way.
How would that work on, e.g., the iOS client? Or a Windows client, even?
And did the previous behavior preserve symlinks that are located inside a folder in Dropbox and link to somewhere else inside the same folder? Because a symlink-blind program would screw that up royally.
Do you really care if the developer of a packages morals line up with yours? I care if they are going to compromise my computer. I can if it works. I don't give a damn if they are a nice person.
Apt/gem/npm/pacman/pip installing a package doesn't materially support the developer. Nobody pays them a nickle for every install and I'm not going to start vetting the ethics of the authors of the 2400 packages installed on this machine anytime real soon.
This had me confused for a moment, but then I realized that you probably thought st was referring to https://st.suckless.org/
Don’t worry, it’s not.
st on my systems is an alias for git status.
https://github.com/ctsrc/shell-command-aliases/blob/master/b...
Even so, I think that twitter thread is somewhat confusing because they draw parallels between walking with torches and nazism (?)
In my country, torches are often used in peaceful protests against racism.
I dunno.
But the email thread that was linked to seemed to be nazi apologetic for sure. So I guess if one was to consider using their software one should perhaps look more into what kind of things the people involved in that project stand for exactly.
> In my country, torches are often used in peaceful protests against racism.
They were doing torch marches in the same places where the nazis (like, literally Hitler's party in the 1930s) were doing their famous torch marches.
That's hard to justify as anti-racism protest while also using hostnames based on Hitler's residences.
> st on my systems is an alias for git status.
Ah, that's an interesting shortcut.
In that case I agree with you, that is a rather clear expression of nazi sympathies on the part of the people that would do that.
>> st on my systems is an alias for git status.
> Ah, that's an interesting shortcut.
You might be interested in my other git shortcuts also. This README has all the details you need about them:
https://github.com/ctsrc/shell-command-aliases/blob/master/R...
What, because some involved people did things that might be objectionable in a way that doesn't affect their code? Why should I care?
In this case, submitting code changes to a project like suckless might be not such a good idea, as you might not be welcome.
And as a result, you might want to avoid such projects.
(Also, referring to literal nazi symbolics as "not in vogue" is quite concerning)
Are you really suggesting that one should audit their use of open source tools regarding the political correctness of the free time activities of its developers?
On the social media site screenshotted, users can choose whether to post personally, or enable for a certain post an official title. The user posting the "cultural marxism" post manually, explicitly, and intentionally enabled the "suckless.org developer" title for that post, making it an official statement of the project.
That’s not free time activities, and naming systems after hitler’s residences and making torchhikes in historic locations isn’t about "political correctness" anymore.
I’m also not suggesting one should audit all their software, but it’s good to know about what kind of software one is running.
I'm normally very much against enforced political correctness but this seems to be way beyond that.
I hate nazism. I'm not particularly happy with people calling other nazis that aren't either[0], but unless there is some serious amounts of missing context this seems to be glorification of nazism.
[0]: for a starter the obvious implications of crying wolf when there is no wolf.
It is. It is open source. Just because it's public doesn't make it non free time.
> I’m also not suggesting one should audit all their software, but it’s good to know about what kind of software one is running.
How does all this impact the software? Did this "kind of software" get "infected" by the views of its authors? How?
I used to think that the good thing about open source software is that the result is neutral and open for anyone to inspect, improve and use.
How is an official conference organized by the project itself "free time" and not related to the project?
> How does all this impact the software? Did this "kind of software" get "infected" by the views of its authors? How?
Open source is also about open community. With a project like suckless, I know I wouldn’t feel comfortable contributing to it, opening issues, or trying to submit pull requests, because I wouldn’t feel welcome in their community.
In an open source community, where many of us would end up trying to give back, that’s a major factor in whether to use such a project.
I'm not saying that it is not related to the project. I'm saying that they are conducting the project in their free time.
> Open source is also about open community.
If you see how different people talk about their "tech stacks" (i.e. talk to a node module maintainer and a kernel hacker and you'll see the differences), it is a misconception that there is "one" open source community. Luckily, there are many.
> I know I wouldn’t feel comfortable contributing to it
Then don't. It would even understand if you'd advise people to avoid such conferences. But advising people, i.e. non involved end users, not to use the software is a bit far.
Yeah, that's the point. That the community around this particular software has a rotten core.
If improving that software is not possible in the same way as with other projects, which it is with suckless for some kind of people, then using the software is impacted by that.
It is surprising to me that one suggests to choose software on the political views of the authors and not on technical considerations.
This has nothing to do with me being German nor did I support or endorse those (admittedly strange) views. All I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with their software.
Actively contributing or joining a group would be an indication that you share views with them.
But having installed a piece of software maybe through a package manager? Simply using it?