[inamiyar]

Simplicity of implementation vs simplicity of use (as well as simplicity for a beginner vs simplicity for an advanced user). A suckless tool (lets say st) is a simpler implementation. Easier to port, less likely to have bugs, less likely to have security issues, etc. Features are added under patches, as it's easier to add a feature then take one out.

If it helps think of it as how much of programming is dedicated to reducing complexity, breaking things down, abstracting to core components, etc.

I do use a lot of suckless utilities but from personally experience running Alpine as a daily driver for ~3 months I can't in good conscience recommend a MUSL distribution, despite the fact that in my opinion Alpine does everything else right.

[ziml77]

If it actually is common to customize with patches as GP suggests then it seems like you're MORE likely to run into security issues.

[inamiyar]

Hmm, why would that be? The patches are all vetted by the suckless people, but there might be something I'm not thinking of.

[ziml77]

I was thinking of the possibility of bad interactions between multiple patches. But maybe in practice that's not actually a problem. It was just what came to mind when I read that bit.