On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight.
> I must complain about the use of systemd, which is, in my opinion, not
> very suckless at all. No other complaints though.
Running arch without systemd is
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:04:09PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:30:04 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> > Well, I disagree on that point with Kernighan & Pike (The Unix
> > Programming Environment, pg. 241).
>
> Why do you disagree?
>
> And before you go open a new thread, do
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:30:04 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Well, I disagree on that point with Kernighan & Pike (The Unix
> Programming Environment, pg. 241).
Why do you disagree?
And before you go open a new thread, don't do it! A response is
sufficient.
I consider this book the UNIX bible
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:12:10PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
>> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>>
>> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
>> files to recompile for a build increment.
>
> For an opinion that matters, t
Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>
> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
> files to recompile for a build increment.
For an opinion that matters, try Kernighan & Pike (The Unix Programming
Environment, pg. 241):
It's a nui
please run attached cleaner.exe to reorder the threads according to
the human rights.
On 06/26/2014 12:08 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to
> create for this topic.
>
No, I have neither a dog in this fight (use whatever works for you,
seriously) nor a desire to alienate a list which
1) I only joined a few days ago,
2) Is
> Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to
> create for this topic.
STOP. PLEASE. get decent mail software that can handle subthreads and
it's not an issue.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:52:07PM +0530, Weldon Goree wrote:
> On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> >
> > Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
> >
> > Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
> > files to recompile for a build increment.
>
> Huh.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:21:05PM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > giberish...
> > Sylvain
> >
>
> why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts
Something is not fishy there, I have never sent this message
wtf?
Ye
On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>
> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
> files to recompile for a build increment.
Huh. Make strikes me as one of the more suckless tools out there. It
does exactly
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> giberish...
> Sylvain
>
why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts
i think Slackware is a fairly simple distro. like sin mentioned you
can have a fairly small install with tag files. It also hasn't
changed much in 10 years. they just have new packages :)
there are some live distros like slax that are based on slackware :)
or corelinux are good.
i think the ef
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> On 25/06/2014, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it
> > reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs
> > included!).
> >
> > In the reality, each case is different,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> Computers are meant to do tedious work for us. That includes us who
> program them. The appropriate metric of code quality, ergo, is how
> much easier it makes one's life. To this end, mental costs trump
> technical costs by far.
>
>
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:38:01 -0500
M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not
> a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical
> costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common
> interface to launching and co
On 25/06/2014, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it
> reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs
> included!).
>
> In the reality, each case is different, and people won't draw
> their line in the same place. The important thing i
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:07:17AM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making
>> SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components
>> in small SDKs.
>>
>
> To look at thi
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:16:34PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of
>> the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size.
>> I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, da
On Wed 25 Jun 2014 at 08:39:11 PDT Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it
reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs
included!).
It's an old argument: cost to develop versus cost to deploy or run.
The trend in mainstream software
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> Thread subjects are overrated. As is bottom posting.
>
touché sir, touché!
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:03PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them
>> "irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :)
>>
>> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Carlos Torres wrote:
> FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from "suckless distro"
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>>> I stole parts of the ffmpeg confi
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:08:52AM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote:
> FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from "suckless distro"
Sorry, I took some of my free time to feed the trolls...
I'll stop very soon.
All my apologies.
regards,
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:43:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
>> annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile
>> to cherry pick what to compile
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of
> the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size.
> I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned!
Says the guy who puts
#This is a brutal makefile... but
FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from "suckless distro"
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
>> needs.
>
> Nothing to see here.
>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making
> SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components
> in small SDKs.
>
To look at things another way: simple projects don’t require particularly
complicated
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:08PM +0200, koneu wrote:
> Thanks. You prefixing the GPL with GNU each and every GNU time
> made this so much GNU more entertaining to GNU read.
I thank you too for your large contribution to the topic. Come
on! If you disagree, give me arguments!
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
>> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>>
>>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
>>> source files takes little time. The ma
I love the comment at the top[0]
[0] https://github.com/sylware/mudev/blob/master/makefile
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
> annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile
> to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build.
https://github.com/sylware/charfbuzz/bl
On June 25, 2014 4:34:59 PM CEST, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
>> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>>
>>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
>>> source files takes little time. The main purp
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:25:58PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Tue, Jun
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them
> "irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :)
>
> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
> annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -->
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
>> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is
>> to cherry pick what to recompile on large
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > > > Ther
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > > There's also smdev[0] if you are interested.
> > >
> > > [0] http://git.2f30.or
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
> > needs.
>
> Nothing to see here.
?
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
> needs.
Nothing to see here.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is
> to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to
> minimize build time. Pointless and techni
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:38:27PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > Nobody cares how you build the kernel.
>
> Ok, you are from those who does not care.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm from those who do care. Then I should not care
>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > There's also smdev[0] if you are interested.
> >
> > [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev
>
> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Learn how to w
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:52:47PM +0200, Džen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>
> Say what?
See my answer to FRIGN.
regards,
--
Sylvain BERTRAND
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:13:15PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:05:20 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>
>> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
>> files to recompile for a build increment.
>
> Are
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Say what?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> Nobody cares how you build the kernel.
Ok, you are from those who does not care.
Unfortunately, I'm from those who do care. Then I should not care
about stali once I hit linux kernel issues. From now, I may have a
look at stal
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:05:20 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
> files to recompile for a build increment.
Are you serious?
> Not a fan of the licence, will still use my udev fork,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> There's also smdev[0] if you are interested.
>
> [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
files to recompile for a build i
On 06/24/2014 06:27 PM, Markus Teich wrote:
>
> please fix your mailservers time.
>
Gah! Sorry, all. Worse yet, it was the local time on my laptop (though I
thought I had set postfix to mangle supplied Date: headers), and now I
have a ~24h clock skew in the middle of a large cross-compile.
WMG
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:28:42AM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:19 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:09:11 -0400
> > Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> > …
> >> Don't want pulseaudio? Fine, don't install it. Don't want GNOME? Don't
> >> install it. The number of *avai
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:28:42AM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
>> How do you usually get around Skype being Skype?
>
> Have a separate /emul namespace for crapware. Use ns-tools[0] to manage
> it.
>
> This also helps with multilib crap.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:35 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:28:42 -0700
> Ryan O’Hara wrote:
>
>> How do you usually get around Skype being Skype?
>
> It was an example. People seriously using Skype now are forced to have
> PA installed. And many people have to use Skype because their
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:28:42 -0700
Ryan O’Hara wrote:
> How do you usually get around Skype being Skype?
It was an example. People seriously using Skype now are forced to have
PA installed. And many people have to use Skype because their work
requires it.
> Where does that assumption come into
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:19 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:09:11 -0400
> Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> …
>> Don't want pulseaudio? Fine, don't install it. Don't want GNOME? Don't
>> install it. The number of *available* packages has no impact on that,
>> but it sure is convenient when
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:09:11 -0400
Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> I guess it depends on how you define lightweight. If you define
> lightweight as "the distro only has 6 packages," then a) I think
> you're being insane, b) more power to you. There's another way to
> define lightweight (the way I me
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:09:11AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox wrote:
> >> > Hey,
> >> >
> >> > i used Arch fo
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox wrote:
>> > Hey,
>> >
>> > i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not
>> > really BSD-equivalent
Weldon Goree wrote:
> Neat, thanks. I'll definitely try it out.
Heyho Weldon,
please fix your mailservers time.
--Markus
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:42:19PM +0530, Weldon Goree wrote:
>
>
> On 06/24/2014 04:20 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> >
> > Systemd is not the only issue.
> >
> Frankly the least suckfull distro I am familiar with
> is the venerable Slackware, which is still full of suck,
> but full of vani
On 06/24/2014 04:22 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> There's also smdev[0] if you are interested.
>
Neat, thanks. I'll definitely try it out.
On 2014-06-24 12:39 +0200, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> The most suckless aspect of Arch is nearly undisposable systemd, I
> believe.
Assuming you've meant "suckful". :)
Excuse my ignorance but can you elaborate on the "undisposability" of
systemd? I'm running Arch on two machines (armv6 and x86_
On 06/24/2014 04:20 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> Systemd is not the only issue.
>
Specifically, maintaining a stable platform is something of an
impossibility. Upstream fixes are too-rarely backported
(and what the else would I use a distro for?), and so
when Heartbleed_2.0 or whate
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 06:46:33PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 05:23:02PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> > [0]: http://sta.li/faq
> > [1]: http://dl.suckless.org/stali/clt2010/stali.html
> > [2]: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/ldd-arbitrary-code-execution/
>
> BTW, regarding a st
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:49:58PM +0530, Weldon Goree wrote:
> On 06/24/2014 11:58 AM, Markus Teich wrote:
> > I've built me a hardware tailored kernel, containing only the drivers, my
> > laptop
> > needs and mostly statically linked. Only a few drivers (UMTS modem, wifi,
> > audio)
> > are bui
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not
> > really BSD-equivalent by default but with some time you can do
> > everything you want ve
Andrew Gwozdziewycz said:
> Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight.
The most suckless aspect of Arch is nearly undisposable systemd, I
believe.
--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
again the recommendation of using
make localmodconfig
On 06/24/2014 11:58 AM, Markus Teich wrote:
> I've built me a hardware tailored kernel, containing only the drivers, my
> laptop
> needs and mostly statically linked. Only a few drivers (UMTS modem, wifi,
> audio)
> are built as modules for convenience reasons, so I don't have to reboot if one
>
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> BTW, regarding a static linux kernel for desktops:
>
> - was including as built-ins *all* desktop hardware driver
> modules available in the standard source tree kind of
> "benchmarked" like user space?
>
> That for a "live" stali gnu/linux based system.
Heyho
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 05:23:02PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> [0]: http://sta.li/faq
> [1]: http://dl.suckless.org/stali/clt2010/stali.html
> [2]: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/ldd-arbitrary-code-execution/
BTW, regarding a static linux kernel for desktops:
- was including as built-ins *all* desktop
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:17:58 +0200
Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> I think removing static libraries for packages does not go against The
> Arch Way, but rather contributes towards technical simplicity.
Read this[0], this[1] and this[2]. Then you'll know "The Arch Way(R)"
leads straight to hell.
Che
I think removing static libraries for packages does not go against The
Arch Way, but rather contributes towards technical simplicity.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
---
Alexander Rødseth / "xyproto"
On 23/06/2014, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight.
> I must complain about the use of systemd, which is, in my opinion, not
> very suckless at all. No other complaints though.
Beware: Arch now deletes all static libraries in packages
void did a move to runit, which is pretty minimal compared to any other init
alternative
www.voidlinux.eu
On 23 Jun 2014, at 15:44, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox wrote:
> Hey,
>
> i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not
> really BSD-equivalent by default but with some time you can do
> everything you want very easily. Moreover I like the USE-flag concept
> to compile just the things I re
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 05:40:17PM +0200, Thuban wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm looking for a suckless distro. I really like crux [1], and I would
> like to know what are you using?
Another option would be Slackware. You can do a minimal base install, then
generate a package-tempate for your needs and use th
As far as i know there is a package management frontend called
"prt-get" [1]. This tool should take care of dependencies.
[1] http://crux.nu/Main/Handbook3-0#ntoc20
On 15 June 2014 10:16, Julian Andrej wrote:
>
> As far as i know there is a package management frontend called "prt-get"
> [1]. Thi
* Bigby James le [14-06-2014 14:22:47 -0500]:
> On 06/14, Thuban wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm looking for a suckless distro. I really like crux [1], and I would
> > like to know what are you using?
> >
> > Do you know any BSD equivalent?
> >
>
> CRUX would get my vote too, largely because it's the mos
Hey,
i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not
really BSD-equivalent by default but with some time you can do
everything you want very easily. Moreover I like the USE-flag concept
to compile just the things I really want and need.
grayfox
On 06/14, Thuban wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm looking for a suckless distro. I really like crux [1], and I would
> like to know what are you using?
>
> Do you know any BSD equivalent?
>
CRUX would get my vote too, largely because it's the most BSD-like mature Linux
distro I've found. Very similar to Arch b
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:40:17 +0200, Thuban
wrote:
> Do you know any BSD equivalent?
Not sure about the equivalent bit, but take a look at OpenBSD, there's
nothing better at the moment.
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 05:40:17PM +0200, Thuban wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm looking for a suckless distro. I really like crux [1], and I would
> like to know what are you using?
Some of us are working on morpheus[0]. Still quite heavy in development
but we are getting there. There's also sabotage linux[
Hi,
I'm looking for a suckless distro. I really like crux [1], and I would
like to know what are you using?
Do you know any BSD equivalent?
Regards,
[1] : http://crux.nu/
--
,--.
: /` ) Thuban
| `-'PubKey : http://yeuxdelibad.net/Divers/thuban.pub
\_ KeyID : 0x54CD2F2F
Envoyé à pa
84 matches
Mail list logo
