These sets largely overlap and LRS is often just a slightly different angle of looking at the same things. I have invented LRS as my own take on suckless software -- as I cannot speak on behalf of the whole suckless community, I have created my own "fork" and simply set my own definitions without worrying about misinterpreting and misquoting someone else. However, LRS does have its specific ideas and areas of focus such as its stress on public domain and legal safety, altruism, anti-capitalism, accepting software such as games, NOT subscribing to the [productivity cult](productivity_cult.md), seeing [privacy](privacy.md) as ultimately undesirable etc.
### Why this obsession with extreme simplicity? Is it because you're too stupid to understand complex stuff?
{ answer by ~drummyfish }
I used to be the mainstream, complexity embracing programmer. I am in no way saying I'm a genius but I've put a lot of energy into studying computer science full time for many years so I believe I can say I have some understanding of the "complex" stuff. I speak from own experience and also on behalf of others who shared their experience with me that the appreciation of simplicity and realization of its necessity comes after many years of dealing with the complex and deep insight into the field and into the complex connections of that field to society.
It's not that we can't understand the complex. It is that the simpler things we deal with, the more powerful things we can create out of them as the overhead of the accumulated complexity isn't burdening us so much.
Simplicity is crucial not only for the quality of technology, i.e. for example its safety and efficiency, but also for its freedom. The more complex technology becomes, the fewer people can control it. If technology is to serve all people, it has to be simple enough so that as many people as possible can understand it, maintain it, fix it, customize it, improve it. It's not just about being able to understand a complex program, it's also about how much time and energy it takes because time is a price not everyone can afford, even if they have the knowledge of programming. Even if you yourself cannot program, if you are using a simple program and it breaks, you can easily find someone with a basic knowledge of programming who can fix it, unlike with a very complex program whose fix will require a corporation.
Going for the simple technology doesn't necessarily have to mean we have to give up the "nice things" such as computer games or 3D graphics. Many things, such as responsiveness and customizability of programs, would improve. Even if the results won't be so shiny, we can recreate much of what we are used to in a much simpler way. You may now ask: why don't companies do things simply if they can? Because complexity benefits them in creating de facto monopolies, as mentioned above, by reducing the number of people who can tinker with their creations. And also because capitalism pushes towards making things quickly rather than well -- and yes, even non commercial "FOSS" programs are pushed towards this, they still compete and imitate the commercial programs. Already now you can see how technology and society are intertwined in complex ways that all need to be understood before one comes to realize the necessity of simplicity.
### Why not keep politics out of this Wiki and make it purely about technology?
Examining any subject in depth requires also understanding its context. Politics and technology nowadays are very much intertwined and the politics of a society ultimately significantly affects what its technology looks like ([capitalist SW](capitalist_software.md), [censorship](censorship.md), [bloat](bloat.md), [spyware](spyware.md), [DRM](drm.md), ...), what goals it serves (consumerism, [productivity](productivity_cult.md), control, war, peace, ...) and how it is developed ([COCs](cos.md), [free software](free_software.md), ...), so studying technology ultimately requires understanding politics around it. I hate arguing about politics, but it is inevitable, we have to specify real-life goals clearly if we're to create good technology. Political goals guide us in making important design decisions about features, [tradeoffs](tradeoff.md) and other attributes.
@ -12,10 +24,10 @@ Examining any subject in depth requires also understanding its context. Politics
{ answer by ~drummyfish }
We're not fascists, we're in fact the exact opposite: our aim is to create technology that benefits everyone equally without any discrimination. I (drummyfish) am personally a pacifist anarchist, I love all living being and believe in absolute social equality of all life forms. We invite and welcome everyone here, be it gays, communists, rightists, trannies, pedophiles or murderers, we love everyone equally, even you and Hitler.
We're not fascists, we're in fact the exact opposite: our aim is to create technology that benefits everyone equally without any discrimination. I (drummyfish) am personally a pacifist anarchist, I love all living beings and believe in absolute social equality of all life forms. We invite and welcome everyone here, be it gays, communists, rightists, trannies, pedophiles or murderers, we love everyone equally, even you and Hitler.
What we do NOT engage in is political correctness, censorship, offended culture, identity politics and pseudoleftism. We do NOT support fascist groups such as feminists and LGBT and we will NOT practice bullying and [codes of conducts](coc.md). We do not pretend there aren't any differences between people and we will make jokes that make you feel offended.
### Are you retarded?
:(
:( Maybe, but even a stupid person can sometimes have smart ideas.
Miloslav Ciz
2 years ago