Re: [dev] Re: I wrote a pager
Fun is not suckless. :P
[dev] Just discovered dwm
Hi all, I stumbled on dwm over the weekend after reading several threads abount the systemd crap - what a great bit of kit dwm is. Running Dillo (latest mercurial version) and claws-mail (latest git version) on Slackware 14.1, my little notebook flies - to boot up (with a BIOS password) and on the Internet with Dillo in 38 seconds is, as youngsters say today "wicked!". Many thanks for something brilliant. Nick -- "Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's the trouble with time travel, you never can tell." -- Doctor Who "Androids of Tara"
[dev] several questions
Hi, its my first post so i hope I'm not on the wrong group here or being rude. On your site i see you have tested compiling your system with PCC and i also see a SCC in dev. What was the reason you chose to write SCC? Is it due to PCC's reliance on lex, yacc and m4? Bash and Make, I'm looking for compatible replacements for these. As i currently understand it bash at the least is expected to compile the linux kernel. Is there any suitable projects that you may have seen around the net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend mksh and dash but neither have bashisms that some projects seem to expect. I found libre linux where they clean out the "globs" and tiny linux but i was wondering if there was a new linux kernel cleanup project somewhere? I love the site and the list of tools you have found to "suck less" looking great! Thanks, Stephen
Re: [dev] several questions
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:32:18 -0400 stephen Turner wrote: Hey Stephen, > On your site i see you have tested compiling your system with PCC > and i also see a SCC in dev. What was the reason you chose to write > SCC? Is it due to PCC's reliance on lex, yacc and m4? The last PCC release (1.1.0) was in 2014. Of course, this does not mean much, but it does not receive any major attention as of late. Additionally, and I can't speak for Roberto here, the goals of scc go in a different direction. Stay tuned for Roberto's talk at slcon3. > Bash and Make, I'm looking for compatible replacements for these. As > i currently understand it bash at the least is expected to compile > the linux kernel. Is there any suitable projects that you may have > seen around the net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend > mksh and dash but neither have bashisms that some projects seem to > expect. Just don't use bash, but the Posix shell. Use the "#!/bin/sh"shebang and test your scripts with shellcheck[0], which is also pretty reliable in detecting bashisms. Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not portable and most unixoid OSes offer it. For make: Some people recommend mk, I'd recommend just being aware of GNUisms for make and try to make it portable (it's not difficult). > I found libre linux where they clean out the "globs" and tiny linux > but i was wondering if there was a new linux kernel cleanup project > somewhere? I'm sure you mean "BLOBs", which are binary chunks of proprietary machine code. To be honest, I don't mind that running in my system, however, in the long run one should try to select hardware that is not requiring BLOBs in the first place (Broadcom is a sinner in this regard). All this "Libre" bullshit with projects to "clean up" the Linux kernel don't achieve anything beyond ideological satisfaction. Stop singing the false song of "Libre Software" and rather make smart decisions in life. If you end up configuring your Kernel yourself and remove everything you don't need in the first place (including all drivers with BLOBs), your compilate won't contain BLOBs as well. With best regards FRIGN [0]: https://www.shellcheck.net/ -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] several questions
> Hi, its my first post so i hope I'm not on the wrong group here or being > rude. Nope, dev is exactly right for that. > Bash and Make, I'm looking for compatible replacements for these. As i > currently understand it bash at the least is expected to compile the linux > kernel. Is there any suitable projects that you may have seen around the > net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend mksh and dash but > neither have bashisms that some projects seem to expect. I think the bashisms are part of what is considered sucky. mksh and dash are both posix shells, I personally tend to recommend rc, which has fixed most of the issues I have with "normal" shells (like quoting issues, lists, a portable and clean implementation etc.). I think make is considered the most practical suckless option for build systems. If you want make with nice goodies I can recommmend the plan9 equivalent, mk (https://github.com/dcjones/mk is a more recent implementation in go). > I found libre linux where they clean out the "globs" and tiny linux but i > was wondering if there was a new linux kernel cleanup project somewhere? No idea, sorry. pranomostro
Re: [dev] several questions
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, at 04:44 PM, FRIGN wrote: > Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not > portable Would you mind explaining specifically what you mean by "not portable"? It is my understanding that it works on a lot of Unix-like operating systems and that it is highly portable.
Re: [dev] several questions
On 21 September 2016 at 04:04, Greg Reagle wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, at 04:44 PM, FRIGN wrote: >> Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not >> portable > > Would you mind explaining specifically what you mean by "not portable"? > It is my understanding that it works on a lot of Unix-like operating > systems and that it is highly portable. I was thinking exactly the same. Portability is not about being able to compile 9base on Windows, it is that rc scripts behave in a 9base environment exactly the same, regardless if FreeBSE, Linux, OSX or whatever is underneath. -Anselm
Re: [dev] several questions
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:04:05 -0400 Greg Reagle wrote: Hey Greg, > Would you mind explaining specifically what you mean by "not > portable"? It is my understanding that it works on a lot of Unix-like > operating systems and that it is highly portable. the thing is that 99.9% of people on Linux or the *BSDs don't even have rc available. I don't think one should force users to install 9base just so they are able to run packaging scripts or other scripts of some sort. Of course, given there is only one implementation, it is highly portable per-se, given the interpretation is equal everywhere and 9base is quite easily portable. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN
