> My recollection is that most CP/M programs were configured via patching.
I honestly would have liked that better for a lot of programs than the dotfiles they litter all over my home directory.
I honestly would have liked that better for a lot of programs than the dotfiles they litter all over my home directory.
And now in my late twenties, suckless terminal is the only one that would work reliably on a shitty old enterprise linux system at work. Yeah, we got xterm and konsole (the older one). I am seeing them in a whole different light now. I did not read the source code now and it is effectively a foreign language to me, but just being able to have modern features in it without too many dependencies is a different level of bliss. This time, I am glad I have the flexi patch to the rescue since, i passed on suckless terminal as a real alternative since I don’t want to patch it manually or solve merge conflicts!
Even though I don’t like the elitist attitude of the project, can’t deny they got a point. Why does a terminal emulator need to be so complicated!
I wonder, is this really such a big problem? How often do people add patches or change their config?
I've configured my st once and haven't touched that build for years. I use only few patches like scrollback, custom colortheme and a "plumb" for few scripts.
I've also had an opportunity recently, to try a "modern" and trendy terminal and I can't see myself switching to something slower (in terms of lag) and using 10x more memory and cpu even when idle for literally zero gain.
Additionally, it helps lower the barrier to entry for a lot of people, who would have shied away from the manual patching flow. You’d be surprised how often i have seen people squint with default xterm on our servers, not knowing how to configure it and messing around with xrdb. (Which takes a while to propagate across LSF clusters). With flexipatch it feels easier to introduce it to them since I just say run make after any config changes to apply the setting and restart the terminal emulator.
Ohh i tried wezterm and ghostty. Couldn’t get them working using just software rendering. And once st worked, I realized I don’t need it tbh.
I almost want to set up a VM that sets up XDG_CONFIG_HOME as ~/.foobar and see how many apps actually respect it, and how many still write to ~/.config.
And if you install more than one version of go, they get placed in $HOME/sdk [0]. Last I checked, this path is hard-coded with no override, despite this being a known issue for 8 years.
/tmp must be world-writable and for multi-user or multi-tenant systems it becomes a security hole. Storing temporary files in the current user's home directory (or a subdirectory thereof) makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is this blog post about TMP and TEMP, and ending with "I don't know why" (in different words).
The reason is simple: different programmers thought the other name was bad. They were under no obligation to come to a consensus.
Don't forget about TEMPDIR and TMPDIR! Also Windows has its own environment variables for this. But generally, Linux software ported to Windows still use TMP or TEMP.
It makes sense when it's a user option. If /tmp isn't an option due to security concerns, then use $CWD by default. I can always alter the config to some other location if I do not like it. With the amount of programs that litter $HOME, especially with caches, you have to whitelist directories when backing it up. With a naive rsync, you'll find half your transfer is junk.
I don't disagree that it would be cleaner if things were more organized, but I definitely prefer something more like that the person you replied to said, ie "~/.xdg/foo/{config,share,state,cache}"
The only XDG folders that seem reasonable to me are .local/share/fonts and .local/share/applications, and I think both of those are still just conventions, not actually described in any spec.
Interfacing with people is never easy.
export CONFIG_DIR="${XDG_CONFIG_HOME:-$HOME/.config}"
export CACHE_DIR="${XDG_CACHE_HOME:-$HOME/.cache}"
...
The remaining holdouts tend to be very old applications. (The XDG standards are less than 25 years old, then you have to give time for them to be adopted.) For some of those applications, it would create support issues even if it would be trivial to implement. For others, it would create issues since other software would have to be modified to reflect the changes. For others, the software did not have a distinct configuration directory so untangling it would be a major effort.
In the case of the latter, just look at Firefox. Yes, it recently moved the .mozilla directory to .config. It is in no way reflective of the XDG standards. Among other things, there are log files, cache files, and add-ons in there. In my mind, that is worse than having ~/.mozilla. Instead of having a directory that can be cleanly backed up, with the exceptions being elsewhere, I am left having to sort through everything. I don't blame Firefox for taking that approach though: users were demanding a clean home directory and the developers had legacy code to deal with. They simply took the path of least resistance. (That said, Firefox isn't the only culprit here.)
I do like dotfiles for portable apps where everything the program needs is in one folder. Personally, my need for portable apps has gone down year on year.