[dev] video player and torrent client that don't suck
Are there any? mpv and rtorrent are the best I know of and mpv requires libtool+autoconf. rtorrent has the stupidest keybindings and is made in c++.
Re: [dev] video player and torrent client that don't suck
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:52:32AM +0800, Chris Down wrote: > On 28 June 2013 10:28, oneofthem wrote: > btpd seemed ok in terms of actual use when I last looked. I didn't > look in great detail at the code, but I believe it does use openssl > and autoconf, which kinda sucks. Whats wrong with openssl, what do you use if not openssl?
Re: [dev] video player and torrent client that don't suck
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 08:50:33PM +0800, Chris Down wrote: > On 28 June 2013 20:11, oneofthem wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:52:32AM +0800, Chris Down wrote: > If you look at the attitude of the developers and the quality of the > source code, it should become apparent why OpenSSL is a force for evil > :-) > > As for what I suggest instead: http://libtom.org That hasn't been updated for 6 years, hardly an option for a modern design.
Re: [dev] video player and torrent client that don't suck
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:57:12AM -0400, Andrew Hills wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 23:27:19 +1000 oneofthem > wrote: > > That hasn't been updated for 6 years, hardly an option for a modern > > design. > > Your argument is completely invalid, and not just because the > information is wrong. A good design remains a good design regardless of > age. Has SSL changed so much since the last commit (2012-10-08)? If you > want, I can fork the project and commit new version numbers and make a > new release every few weeks; maybe it will satisfy your need for > something shiny. You're really saying that cryptography hasn't changed since 2007? SSL is a bad example because it was superseded by TLS 1.0 over a decade ago, TLS 1.0 was superseded TLS 1.1 7 years ago and that was superseded by TLS 1.2 5 years ago.
Re: [dev] video player and torrent client that don't suck
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Andrew Hills wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 00:17:14 +1000 oneofthem > wrote: > But that's not relevant to your comment. I was saying that your > assertion that "modern design" precludes code written six years ago is > not correct. Ok.
[dev] lisp
is there any reason why lisp isn't mentioned much in the suckless community? considered irrelevant, harmful or what?
[dev] client-server model
Why doesn't any of the suckless software use a client-server model?
Re: [dev] Wayland st!!??
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:43:00PM -0700, Michael Forney wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:17:42 -0400, Carlos Torres > wrote: > > I didn't know about this > > > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQyMTQ > > > > I'm both excited or looking to troll > > I'm the author of the port. I'm not sure how the suckless community > feels about Wayland, but it seems like the core protocol is fairly > lightweight, depends only on libffi, and is refreshing to work with > compared to X. Weston's goals are perhaps more orthogonal to suckless, > but I think there is potential for a suckless compositor. I'd rather use dwm + wayland than dwm + xorg.
