Suckless, cat-v and other pseudominimalists are controlled opposition to steer people towards proprietary shitware.
They vehemently insist on gatekeeping amd making actual free software unusable, unintegrated and barely functional, encouraging reinventing the wheel for the millionth time.
They don't care whether proprietary software exists or not. They just put on a facade of wanting to lie in their ivory tower of dubious "productivity" where they can LARP as super haxxors and cobble up laughable crippled alternatives to tried and proven working software, without ever actually accomplishing everything. But behind closed doors, they work against your freedom. Hell, the Suckless founder himself writes proprietary shitware for a living.
And notice how they all push for the BSD/MIT license and against the GPL, further proof that they aren't your allies.
Reject (pseudo)minimalism and fight for true freedom.
Suckless, cat-v and other pseudominimalists are controlled opposition to steer people towards proprietary shitware
t. probably uses systemd (gross)
based garbe
I think in order for this to be true, they would have to have a lot more influence and reach. Nobody even knows about suckless/Uriel outside of insular technology communities.
However, you are right to demonize them as psuedominimalist. There is absolutely nothing minimal about surf, for instance.
>writes proprietary software for a living
99% of software engineers do that. majority of software in the world is closed source and proprietary. who's in ivory tower now.
>against the GPL
This is understandable for mentioned group. using GPL software in shipped proprietary product is not acceptable, and such things like reusing a small part of larger GPL codebase is still forbidden.
GPL license has nothing to do with freedom. It's designed to be competitive on market and protect the product.
>claims of productivity
never seen such claims, you are full of shit.
the practice of aiming for small and readable codebases is very common in groups of developers who use their own code. it's good for maintainability, it helps new developers, there is literally zero drawback.
understandably, someone external who obtains the program and want's to use it - not study it, understand it or modify it; doesn't care such those qualities.
FREE AND OPEN SOURCE ALTERNATIVES BAD
>99% of software engineers do that. majority of software in the world is closed source
Not really. Private software (which is what most software being developed actually is) is not necessarily proprietary software. In many cases, it actually qualifies as free software.
>never seen such claims, you are full of shit.
dwm.suckless.org
>This is understandable for mentioned group.
Producing proprietary software if any kind is inexcusable. And yes, the GPL's end goal is user freedom.
>there is literally zero drawback.
Except shit not working.
>understandably, someone external who obtains the program and want's to use it - not study it, understand it or modify it; doesn't care such those qualities.
A smaller codebase doesn't necessarily mean a more understandable, maintainable and modular codebase, neither does a larger one imply the opposite.
Take a look at dwm's source code. It's a mess despite its small size.
Well designed software can grow arbitrarily large while still being maintainabile: you don't have to understand it all if it's properly modular.
>In many cases, it actually qualifies as free software.
citation needed.
>dwm.suckless.org
I see description of window management paradigm.
>Producing proprietary software if any kind is inexcusable.
no
>And yes, the GPL's end goal is user freedom.
so does copyright. releasing software without license already ensures it. GPL's goal is being competitive on market.
>Except shit not working.
thanks god it's a small and readable codebase and it reduces time required to adding features. overhead of getting into gnome codebase is massive. see, this is precisely the quality when you work in group of developers who develop for themselves.
>smaller codebase doesn't necessarily mean a more understandable, maintainable and modular codebase. Well designed software can grow arbitrarily large while still being maintainable: you don't have to understand it all if it's properly modular.
I agree that this is not an a guaranteed implication. But as you said, factoring is a key. And factoring creates small codebases with fewer dependencies.
>Take a look at dwm's source code. It's a mess despite its small size.
Large thing of it is X protocol and Xlib. X is giant rotten mess and deserves to be burned to the ground.
If you strip the Xlib's API, its really not that bad. I was able to understand it in a day.
create the real future, install Nix/Guix
>no
Yes. Leave this board, shill.
>Large thing of it is X protocol and Xlib. X is giant rotten mess and deserves to be burned to the ground.
Nobody mentioned X and Xlib, just dwm itself. Stop strawmanning.
This. Rob Pike can go fuck himself. ambrevar.xyz
>And notice how they all push for the BSD/MIT license and against the GPL, further proof that they aren't your allies.
How does that prove they're not based? The GPL is pure commie shit license. A thread died for this.
>The GPL is pure commie shit license
Notice how EVERY FUCKING TIME this shit comes from someone who is pushing MIT/BSD or some other cucked license. EVERY FUCKING TIME it's some asshole like you who makes no effort to hide that you're working on proprietary nonfree software. Remove yourself.
managing the X objects and API is literally half of the codebase
why don't you? this board contains spyware and runs on proprietary software
Doesn't affect me because I have JS disabled.
then why do you mind other proprietary software when it doesn't affect?
You think I don't criticize hiro for being a nonfree shill?
While surf itself (as is, its source code) is minimalist, its dependencies are not. But it's already customizable enough for someone who needs custom CSS, custom keybinds, periodic refreshes and a kiosk mode.
>GPL's goal is being competitive on market.
this made me think..
if it's not explicitly anti-market, then it will never achieve its goal of eliminating non-free software. Because any market depends on capital that it concentrates in someone's hands and then re-distributes when it stops being viable, unless it's maintained by extra-market entities like state. Do they wish to abolish software market through, um, software market? It will always maintain itself as long as big money will be in proprietary companies' hands, and they'll always have it because they're short-term profit oriented. Does this mean the free software movement don't want to get rid of non-free software in the end, it wants to "co-exist"? I don't know. Free software guys' approach to and understanding of markets is one big confusion, it seems to me.
huh
suckless is great except for this one thing in their coding style:
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
Licenses are good
90% of my code is MIT
9% is the Unlicensed license (aka open domain)
1% GPL
don't look at openbsd codebase :^)
They also shill for shitty outdated concepts like "UNIX-way" and "RC > Systemd", despite being non-programmers
I would never put systemd in a commercial product, ahah. Despite being antiquated, at least the behavior of init scripts is deterministic.
My own suspicions were telling me as much.
Viral licenses are cancer. Fuck off.
this is heretic, here the sane version:
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
}
GPL is not a viral license. Proprietary licenses are, and have a reminder that you support those by using your cucked licenses.
Putting the return type on its own line can look a lot better when you're dealing with long type and function names.
struct my_long_type_name *
my_long_function_name(int this, int is, int a, int really,
int long, int argument, int list)
{
It does look a bit silly with short functions like main(), though.
I also helps you easily search for function definitions with grep like ^function_im_interested_in.
> Is not a viral license
It can only link with GPL, and linking against it forces you to use GPL too. This is a cancerous license
> Oh noooo, they are going to make proprietary code
Free software is in a so sad state that it can't win this by simply being better
I like everything in its own line, i would say that i even prefer the K&R declaration style, but this just doesn't work well in C (fucks with "type safety")
int
main(argc, argv)
int argc
char **argv
{
}
The solution is not to link with it. It's not cancerous just because you don't understand how it works.
>Free software is in a so sad state that it can't win this by simply being better
This logic falls apart because proprietary trash can't win by "simply being better" either. By the admission of proprietary developers, they apparently need to put restrictive EULAs and spyware bullshit in their programs.
> The solution is not to link with it
Yep, the solution is simply don't using it. I for example am building an OS (static linked) as the third-party libc that i'm using is MIT i can't distribute any GPL program in the main repository
> This logic falls apart because proprietary trash can't win by "simply being better" either.
Yep, they suck, because of that we should only build better software and win as a consequence. Boycott is another tool in the hands of who likes free software, now fighting against people in the same side is completely non-sensical
Except you can distribute that. The caveat is that the resulting BINARIES of those programs are licensed under the GPL. Not the source code of your libc.
>now fighting against people in the same side is completely non-sensical
You aren't on the same side if you build software for those proprietary companies.
> Except you can distribute that.
Most lawyers agree with this (that you can't), and even is the official FSF's position.
> You aren't on the same side if you build software for those proprietary companies.
I'm not, they just happen to maybe be able to use as it's in public domain, but ironically most wouldn't risk using as public domain is not officialy recognized in many countries
No they don't and no it isn't? The MIT license is GPL compatible. You can static link it into a GPL binary all you want.
If you have some other reason for using a BSD/MIT license that's fine, but anyone complaining about the GPL being "viral" or "not being free enough" is sucking up to proprietary companies who wish to use the code in nonfree products, which I have no sympathy for.
Why do you prefer this one with two asterisk instead of the vector one with only one asterisk?
> You can static link it into a GPL binary all you want.
Yes, but you can't redistribute the binary. Even some GNU projects have an "linking exception" clause.
> but anyone complaining about the GPL being "viral"
my problem to call it "viral" is not being able to distribute binaries with oss licenses (in my case public domain)
> or "not being free enough"
In this part i agree, being forced to open the code isn't a restriction of freedom, you could choose not using it
because it makes more sense, for me the second way only makes sense when you want to put an defined size in stack
char **objs; /* receive its memory later in heap */
char name[512]; /* receive its memory now in stack */
And for argv you only get its value in run-time
You can absolutely distribute the binary. Where are you getting this information that you can't? Please be specific, someone is lying to you.
Also see this gnu.org
> Where are you getting this information that you can't? Please be specific, someone is lying to you.
Then everyone is lying. All lawyers that i had contact in this topic said it, and lot of projects assume the same (see links above)
freebsd.org
fefe.de
Also why would gnu projects have a "linking exception" clause?
Does the "libc" counts as a "system library"?