On Sat, 22 May 2021 15:10:02 +0200 Страхиња Радић <cont...@strahinja.org> wrote:
> Speaking as (thus far) just a user of suckless programs and someone who > supports > suckless philosophy, it comes down to: why should this protocol be supported? > There isn't a significant number of existing suckless programs that need > supporting this protocol Suckless software isn't a void separate from the rest of the world, and the "suckless philosophy" is constantly inconsistent with its own beliefs. Your underlying point that little (if any) software supports this protocol may be correct though. > As for the terminal emulator kitty which is using it, it does include a number > of unnecessary features. Why would a terminal emulator need OpenGL? Of all the issues I have with kitty, GPU acceleration is not one of them. > Its job is to just allow terminal I/O. And display it. > It should work on older hardware, and on systems where OpenGL isn't > or cannot be installed. There are plenty of other terminal emulators for systems where it would be impractical to install kitty. > As far as the attitude of the developer behind it, I have seen examples of him > locking proposals or bug reports on kitty's Github page when they don't match > his vision, disregarding arguments. It might be irrelevant, but in the > hypothetical case of presenting that protocol to a standards body, maybe not. You're on a mailing list for opinionated software to ... complain about other opinionated software? I really hope you understand how poorly you have been arguing. While I believe it is pointless to support "yet another" set of terminal control sequences, it's barely for the reasons you gave. And if anyone does want to support this protocol, it would be better done in an optional feature patch or a fork. -- wowaname <https://wowana.me/pgp.xht>
pgpvt8DP7HHQA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
