Re: [dev] Re: stali and OpenBSD userland etc.

2010-04-18 Thread Uriel
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Dmitry Maluka wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 08:16:37PM +0200, finkler wrote: >> While I agree with usability over standard fetishism, it isn't really >> the case that many Linux desktops are POSIX compliant. > > A little off-topic, but I wish to remind that, gen

Re: [dev] Re: stali and OpenBSD userland etc.

2010-04-18 Thread Bjartur Thorlacius
On 4/18/10, pmarin wrote: > Static linking + Linux + BSD userland == Mastodon Linux? > > http://www.mastodon.biz/ > > It is a lot outdated. Is there any reason to use Linux 2.0 over 2.4 or 2.6?

Re: [dev] Re: stali and OpenBSD userland etc.

2010-04-18 Thread Dmitry Maluka
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 08:16:37PM +0200, finkler wrote: > While I agree with usability over standard fetishism, it isn't really > the case that many Linux desktops are POSIX compliant. A little off-topic, but I wish to remind that, generally, standards compatibility pursuing is not necessarily fe

Re: [dev] Re: stali and OpenBSD userland etc.

2010-04-18 Thread pmarin
Static linking + Linux + BSD userland == Mastodon Linux? http://www.mastodon.biz/ It is a lot outdated. On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:16 PM, finkler wrote: > On 04/15/10 08:39, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > > android isn't POSIX compliant and is probably more wide spread now > > then Linux desktops... ;

[dev] Re: stali and OpenBSD userland etc.

2010-04-18 Thread finkler
On 04/15/10 08:39, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > android isn't POSIX compliant and is probably more wide spread now > then Linux desktops... ;) > While I agree with usability over standard fetishism, it isn't really the case that many Linux desktops are POSIX compliant. Thomas

Re: [dev] dwm does something bad to X.org 1.7.6

2010-04-18 Thread Andrew Antle
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > Hi, > > On 18 April 2010 03:59, Andrew Antle wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Andrew Antle wrote: >>> Hello Anselm - >>> >>> Attached is my log from dwm hg tip, and my xorg-server info. Please >>> let me know if you need any more

Re: [dev] Anyone have the traditional vi working on the xterm?

2010-04-18 Thread pmarin
Could you please explain what exactly the problem was. Because I have ex-vi ``Version 4.0 (gritter) 3/25/05'' here and it resizes without problem in xterm. Now I wonder what the differences to your installation are. Currently I am using "Version 4.0 (gritter) 12/25/06" (CVS) but I had the sa

Re: [dev] [surf] toggle_images_plugins_scripts patch for tip

2010-04-18 Thread pancake
Thanks! This fixes my visual problem too :) I thougth that black came from the gtk theme...but no idea where it comes from... We can add this option in config.h? - Original message - > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:47:18PM +0100, pancake wrote: > > Is there any possibility to chan

Re: [dev] dwm does something bad to X.org 1.7.6

2010-04-18 Thread Anselm R Garbe
Hi, On 18 April 2010 03:59, Andrew Antle wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Andrew Antle wrote: >> Hello Anselm - >> >> Attached is my log from dwm hg tip, and my xorg-server info. Please >> let me know if you need any more information. > > I'm a moron. Why, your log contained debug outp

Re: [dev] Anyone have the traditional vi working on the xterm?

2010-04-18 Thread markus schnalke
[2010-04-17 14:34] pmarin > I fixed the problem. The preprocesor definitions in the setsize > function (ex_tty.c) are hilarious. > > I wrote a setsize function that works only with TIOCGWINSZ. > > void > setsize(void) > { > ... > } > > "#ifdef" stuff is harmful. Could you please explain w