Best software i have ever seen

Suckless is for posers. They believe in stupid shit such as arbitrary code limits and pretend to be """minimal""" while running Xorg. If you really had the autism to be minimal, you would follow the cat-v philosophy.

Linux is where its at, no one cares about unix anymore, it's dead.

>WM full of bugs
>terminal where you can't even scroll up without having a multiplexer
>web browser that's just an alternative front-end for Chromium
>reinventing PBM but worse
>"we are pro haxx0rz"
>shill Go without even using it (gee I wonder why)
>"RAII complicates everything!!!"
Mega meme. If I could rewrite all software in Rust just to keep this kind of arrogant Cniles away, I'd do it.

>A WM that you have to compile yourself
apt-get install dwm

dos only being used on desktops

>Compiling a WM
You can configure shit like herbsluft while it's running. Don't be a turbonigger autist.
Are you actually retarded?

>If I could rewrite all software in Rust
But you can't :^)

It's already packaged no need to compile it yourself.

>reading a configuration file is so hard
oh wait that would require them to violate their autistic LOC mandate

>WM full of bugs
like what?

You do if you want to configure it. This also makes upgrading to new releases a pain.

But what if you don't want to configure it
???
See your retarded m8.

no, reading config.h is easy

Linux is bloat.

Why tf would you want a stock WM?
>WHAT IS THIS? CUSTOMIZATION DONE WELL? PFHHHH! WE CAN SAVE 130 LINES.

Unix is dead.

there is no reason to use st when there is urxvt
don't know about dwm, because I've started using wm-only setup with i3 and never had a reason to switch
as for surf it's pure retardation, there is no reason to use nonfunctional browser

Nope. Using OpenBSD right now.

Who cares?

I just made your argument invalid.

>dwm
dwm is third-rate garbage. Use xmonad or exwm or stumpwm.

>DOS is dead, he said
>*Installs FreeDOS*
>look, I use DOS so it's not dead

xmonad was forked from dwm dumbfuck

ever played vidya on console m8

DOS is pretty cool though.
I'm already writing small assembly programs for it.
I'm planning on buying an IBM Thinkpad T41, install FreeDOS on it, also buy an LX-350 and do some printer music, also print my programs.
In the long run I hope to learn how to make my own operating system.

no
also
>heavily modified proprietary """Free"""BSD is unix

>forked
You don't seem to understand what this actually means, retard. It's obvious you're just spouting stuff you read on . xmonad was initially inspired by dwm, with dwm later adding in actual features which first appeared in xmonad. It's also more minimalist and manages to somehow follow the "suckless" philosophy better than dwm itself while also being infinitely more extensible.

you might not like it, but 9front is not dead either

Attached: 9frontsystem07.png (500x530, 1.25M)

No, I'm not a subhuman. Also, I'm not your "m8".

>9front
>relevant
what a bad joke

>dead
>relevant
Stop backpedalling.

This shit right here.
Using xmonad+emacs here. Computing really skyrockets once you use software made with actually good languages.

stop breathing

no u

Attached: 9frontfell02.png (500x384, 837K)

>no operating systems ever existed except unix and dos

cat-v are arguably even more braindead and completely ignorant of computing history.
On irc, they unironically claimed C was the first high-level language ever created after assembly.

Not him, but I've had dwm crash on multiple machines when changing resolution with xrandr.
I've also used awesome, i3 and xmonad on said machines, and none of them had the same problem.

>source: my ass

OpenBSD is not Unix.

Who are you quoting?

name one that relevant

>t. AT&T

OS X.

Multics, which introduced 90% of the shit Unix did, and which many people believe invented.

the guy whom I >>'d

>making this post just to shill rust

>Haskell is better than C
Haskell does not have any real world application.

Are you going to argue the opposite?
The only system that can be called "Unix" is the one originally produced by AT&T and Bell Labs.
The rest are not Unix. They are Unix-like operating systems, but not Unix. I still don't understand why BSD fags desperately claim it is all the time.

>literally freebsd
braindead: the post

>terminal where you can't even scroll up without having a multiplexer
That's not true.

But it does: code.fb.com/security/fighting-spam-with-haskell/
C on the other hand never did. It was a shittier version of PL/I and Pascal.

>The only system that can be called "Unix" is the one originally produced by AT&T and Bell Labs.
According to whom?

>real world application
Is there a ``fake world'' application? Does xmonad not exist in this ``real world''?

mac is bsd silly

because of AT&T's lawsuit they literally can't be called "Unix" and need to be tagged "Unix-like"

According to fucking common sense. Unix is Unix, BSD is BSD.
Why are you so desperate to call a system which isn't Unix, Unix? Why?

Yes, and?

>code.fb.
user.I....

>which isn't Unix
Your notion of sameness (i.e. being literally the exact same thing) is too retardedly strict for this context. Non-autists can easily see how calling OpenBSD UNIX makes perfect sense.

>this much autism
I bet you also interject gahnoo/loonix and screech reeee irl

Xmonad is featureless bloat and Haskell used for anything but theory is ridiculous.

nothing just saying

>Xmonad is featureless bloat
yes
>Haskell used for anything but theory is ridiculous.
no
using it for graphical tasks in particular is ridiculous because muh side effects

The "real world" according to Eunichs weenies and cat-v faggots is a world where people were in the computing dark ages and had to do everything in machine code until the Prophets dmr, ken and fucking Rob Pike created C and Unix, which introduced everything computers can do.
No, don't you dare mention Fortran, Lisp, Pascal, PL/I, Multics or Symbolics Lisp machines, sweep them under the rug and LARP as a mega hacker while blaming more modern interpreted languages as a scapegoat to wank on C and Unix.

Attached: 1545671764858.jpg (2500x3372, 3.96M)

You will understand once you get a life.

>Xmonad is featureless
It has more features than dwm. With an actual module system too, instead of shitty C patches.
>bloat
It doesn't bloat up the codebase with a statusbar, unlike dwm. It's also comparable in terms of LoC.
>used for anything but theory is ridiculous
It's pretty clear that you don't know much about theory or Haskell. Otherwise you'd understand how Haskell is too "practical" for a lot of new interesting theory.

>featureless bloat
It has literally less lines of code overall than dwm, while also being more readable.
If you actually take a look at dwm's source code, you'll soon realize it's full of nifty little hard-to-read tricks to lower LOC count, making it badly structured. It would unironically be better if it were written in C++, which they hate. It's only "non-bloated" because it's small, but it's by no means a well-designed program. This is exactly why I hate Suckless so much.
The proper alternative to bloated software is well-designed, modular and featureful software, not merely small size. That's just treating the symptoms.
Garbe unironically said
>when you add a feature, try to remove 2 features
How can anyone take this seriously is beyond me.

>muh haskell/whatever other language dependencies
You have a full blown C and C++ toolchain installed on your system (likely also some third-party libraries0 to compile and run programs written in said languages, yet no one complains.

>Starting with the 8th Edition, versions of Research Unix had a close relationship to BSD. This began by using 4.1cBSD as the basis for the 8th Edition. In a Usenet post from 2000, Dennis Ritchie described these later versions of Research Unix as being closer to BSD than they were to UNIX System V,[2] which also included some BSD code:[1]

>while also being more readable.
It's unreadable unless you're one of the 2 or 3 people on this planet who actually know Haskell.
>You have a full blown C and C++ toolchain installed on your system (likely also some third-party libraries0 to compile and run programs written in said languages, yet no one complains.
The difference is that a C tool chain is useful whereas haskell shit is not.

>c good haskell bad
This post in a nutshell.

>hating on C
The elder god known as Stallman likes both Lisp and C.

i've been shilling suckless for the past two years.
fuck bloat hahaa

but then again, advanced aliens are so advanced that humans are primitive fucks....sigh

Attached: Osho-with-black-hat.jpg (565x466, 73K)

I've never touched the language but I use shellcheck every damn day.

>you'll soon realize it's full of nifty little hard-to-read tricks to lower LOC count
fuck every C and C++ coder that does this, including K&R when they do it in their book.