@finlaydag33k Qt is nice

@TheClonerx I tried QT but it was no better to me than WPF...

@sasha_sorokin @TheClonerx Reminds me of this classic.

@abloo @TheClonerx

Couldn't agree more with this image.

@jae @abloo @TheClonerx I agree with them both.

@abloo@fedi.absturztau.be @TheClonerx@antabaka.me suya.. recompiling every time i wanna change config does suck..

@abloo @TheClonerx >:( suckless is okay (when they don't force their idealogy on you)

Frankly I love some of their software, and the non config thing is kinda useful if you're dumbass wants something to just work cleanly (not the best for everyting ofc)

@meeper @abloo @TheClonerx The hard-coded configs and crap make the software bad. Config files tend to just werk more than fighting a C compiler's errors when you want to change your keybindings.

@welt @TheClonerx @abloo yeah, for stuff like that it's dumb but for some things that don't change much (like st) it's pretty good

@meeper @TheClonerx @abloo When you do it becomes an even bigger pain in the ass, since you need to retrofit the new config options. There is other software that does more or less the same things as st without this problem (i.e. xst). By this metric it's more or less useless, which makes it the ultimate not-okay.

Many software has build-time configuration, it is not invented by suckless.
People complained about it because they usually use *bloated* binary that was compiled with *every* option enabled.

Runtime configuration is hard to maintain and often introduces security or compatibility issues.

For example, quite some sudo vulnerabilities are /etc/sudoers related.

Gentoo users often use customized tiny kernel images, while binary-based distros use *bloated* kernel.
@welt @TheClonerx @abloo @meeper

@wzqtparor @TheClonerx @abloo @meeper

> Many software has build-time configuration, it is not invented by suckless.
People complained about it because they usually use *bloated* binary that was compiled with *every* option enabled.

The functionality is still compiled in. We're talking about user configuration. I.e. changing your terminal font or colourscheme.


>Runtime configuration is hard to maintain and often introduces security or compatibility issues.

The kinds of things you configure in Suckless software is quite simple and slow to change. I doubt this is a problem (look at all the forks out there that have a perfectly easy time doing this). And regardless it's not a difficult problem to solve.

>For example, quite some sudo vulnerabilities are /etc/sudoers related.

There is no threat model I can think of where config security is relevant for things like dwm and st.

>Gentoo users often use customized tiny kernel images, while binary-based distros use *bloated* kernel.

Unrelated to what we're talking about as I mentioned before.

@wzqtparor there is no /etc/sudoers related vulnerabilities. Only C-related

Change my mind

@welt @TheClonerx @abloo @meeper

@termonoid @wzqtparor @TheClonerx @abloo @meeper Programmers doing stupid and unsafe things isn't a vulnerability of the language. It's necessary in many contexts.

@termonoid @TheClonerx @abloo @meeper @wzqtparor I could make the same argument about Unsafe Rust.

@abloo @TheClonerx boooo i am sure people who use suckless are fine with it.

The rest of us can use other things.

Added benefit: suckless actually provides good starting points to code stuff from.

@jasper @TheClonerx
I use suckless, I'm fine with it, but I still recognize that hard-coding configs isnt great.


Also you need to patch the hell out of a sucklers program to make it useful (st is the worst offender imo)

@abloo @TheClonerx
It's some of the only good software out there