You know what's great? freedom of choice. You know what sucks? People telling you what you're allowed to do with the software you use. Is this suckmore or suckless?
While I have no love for transparency given that the majority of transparency features in desktop environments are superfluous and counteract functionality, I also respect and support the right to freedom of choice. Being told how I should use the software I use is the exact opposite of the reason I turn to solutions such as suckless software. You may hate transparency, and that is your opinion and choice, but berating other people for wanting to experiment isn't a constructive pastime. If people aren't free to experiment for themselves, how will they ever truly learn what works well and what doesn't? If people were obnoxiously stating that suckless software should have fancy fluff feature X implemented in vanilla then I could somewhat understand the vitriol, but I really don't see the point of foaming at the mouth and making yourselves look like complete jackasses every time the word transparency is merely mentioned. On 5 May 2011 19:26, Kurt H Maier <karmaf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Connor Lane Smith <c...@lubutu.com> wrote: >> This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The comparison makes total >> sense, of course, because transparency clearly kills people. How >> fucking fallacious. > > *Reality* kills people. Therefore it's clearly not a bell or whistle > and should be supported natively. > >> If someone wants to patch their own software to do something they >> consider beneficial, that's fine. There seem to be people on this >> mailing list who basically want the world to remain as it was in the >> 70s, progress be damned! You're ridiculous. > > You're begging the question of whether a transparent terminal is > 'progress.' I submit that it isn't, and it's just stupid shit. > > > > -- > # Kurt H Maier > >
