Try eyeos. It's not new, not suckless.. Not the way
On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:56 AM, Will Light wrote:
But the reason it's successful (where "successful" means "popular")
is
because it's offloaded the responsibility to get things working
from the
end receiver to the developer, isn't it? -POLM
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:28:30 +0200
Anders Andersson wrote:
> What saddened me the most in that article is that a KDE developer
> actually had no idea that you could run applications remotely,
> something I do on a daily basis without giving it much thought and one
> of the really cool and powerfu
On 14 June 2010 12:13, pancake wrote:
> http://julien.danjou.info/blog/2010.html#Thoughts%20and%20rambling%20on%20the%20X%20protocol
This post proves once again that a new window system is what everyone
is waiting for and that it's our opportunity to do that.
--Anselm
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:13 PM, pancake wrote:
> http://julien.danjou.info/blog/2010.html#Thoughts%20and%20rambling%20on%20the%20X%20protocol
>
>
What saddened me the most in that article is that a KDE developer
actually had no idea that you could run applications remotely,
something I do on a d
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Will Light wrote:
> i only take issue with the notion
> that web-based applications will somehow "replace" desktop apps
> entirely.
>
> for some use cases, sure...i mean, if somebody only uses facebook and
> gmail on their netbook, then yeah, why the hell do they
> yeah, the web has completely changed the way that applications are
> distributed to the users. for applications that fit the mold, it's
> quite wonderful how companies like 37signals (the people behind rails)
> have ushered in a new class of turnkey web services like lighthouse or
> basecamp or
> But the reason it's successful (where "successful" means "popular") is
> because it's offloaded the responsibility to get things working from the
> end receiver to the developer, isn't it? -POLM
yeah, the web has completely changed the way that applications are
distributed to the users. for app
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Noah Birnel wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:35:22AM +0400, Ilya Ilembitov wrote:
>>...Facebook...
>
> You are using an incompatible web browser.
>
> Sorry, we're not cool enough to support your browser. Please keep it real
> with one of the following brow
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:35:22AM +0400, Ilya Ilembitov wrote:
>...Facebook...
You are using an incompatible web browser.
Sorry, we're not cool enough to support your browser. Please keep it real
with one of the following browsers:
* Mozilla Firefox
* Safari
* Microsoft
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 05:48:07PM -0700, Will Light wrote:
> man, it's no better in the web world! there's no "standard library",
> everybody's got a toolkit they prefer (that they built from scratch
> *on top of* JS/HTML/CSS). just off the top of my head, I can name
> jquery ui, sproutcore, ext
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> Personally I would love to see a minimalistic replacement, and I have
> followed the Wayland development for some time. Since the computer is
> almost never used without a web browser, I’d like to see the web
> browser engine run in fullsc
On 15 Jun 2010, at 00:28, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
Bjartur Thorlacius dixit (2010-06-14, 23:24):
On 6/14/10, Matthew Bauer wrote:
I wish modern filesystems would allow some way of identifying a
file type
besides in the filename. It seems like that would make things more
straight
forward.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Matthew Bauer wrote:
> I wish modern filesystems would allow some way of identifying a file type
> besides in the filename. It seems like that would make things more straight
> forward.
The other issue is an providing a very-easy-to-type equivalent of
globbing on
Bjartur Thorlacius dixit (2010-06-14, 23:24):
> On 6/14/10, Matthew Bauer wrote:
> > I wish modern filesystems would allow some way of identifying a file type
> > besides in the filename. It seems like that would make things more straight
> > forward.
> Surely many modern filesystem support xatt
On 6/14/10, Matthew Bauer wrote:
> I wish modern filesystems would allow some way of identifying a file type
> besides in the filename. It seems like that would make things more straight
> forward.
Surely many modern filesystem support xattrs (extended file attributes)?
One should be able to use t
I wish modern filesystems would allow some way of identifying a file type
besides in the filename. It seems like that would make things more straight
forward.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> On 6/14/10, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> >
> > On 14 Jun 2010, at 22:35, Ily
On 6/14/10, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
>
> On 14 Jun 2010, at 22:35, Ilya Ilembitov wrote:
>>
>> So, here is my question. If we take only modern and active projects,
>> how standard are they? Suppose, we have a browser engine that
>> implements only the current standards (OK, may be some legacy
>>
On 14 Jun 2010, at 22:20, Alexander Teinum wrote:
I’d like to see the web
browser engine run in fullscreen and have all applications – including
the system that organizes the applications and the terminal
implemented by using web technologies.
This has been done, look up Sun JavaStations. They
On 14 Jun 2010, at 22:35, Ilya Ilembitov wrote:
So, here is my question. If we take only modern and active projects,
how standard are they? Suppose, we have a browser engine that
implements only the current standards (OK, may be some legacy
standards, but no IE or other tweaks), will we s
Developing a suckless web browser engine is impossible, because one will have
to implement all the non-standards thing in the current Web, right? OK, a
theoretical question then. In 2010 we live in the times when even Microsoft
tries hard to dump IE6, so only IE7 may still force web-masters to w
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:07:35 +0200
Jakub Lach wrote:
> 2010 17:26 Moritz Wilhelmy napisał(a):
>
> > would you mind sharing the sourcecode? we are working on another
> > "suckless" distro, and we don't want dbus, hal, gconf, fdi, xml,
> > policykit and ponys in there, so we're always looking for
I find this interesting as well. The lower level stuff is understood
by a few guys, and it seems old – but they might just have an image
problem; I think I have read in a few recent interviews with the
developers that X.Org is in good shape.
Personally I would love to see a minimalistic replacemen
2010 17:26 Moritz Wilhelmy napisał(a):
> would you mind sharing the sourcecode? we are working on another "suckless"
> distro, and we don't want dbus, hal, gconf, fdi, xml, policykit and ponys in
> there, so we're always looking for unixy software to extend it.
Maybe this shows how Linux is dif
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +0200, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote:
> > > * udev (+/- 5sec) was replaced by our (small) fdev (now takes some 0.1
> > > sec).
> >
> > there is also mdev in busybox, in case you are interested. I like busybox
> > very much, but I think it lacks documentation.
> Indeed,
On 14 Jun 2010, at 13:22, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote:
* udev (+/- 5sec) was replaced by our (small) fdev (now takes some
0.1 sec).
there is also mdev in busybox, in case you are interested. I like
busybox very
much, but I think it lacks documentation.
busybox is a bit incomplete in places t
On 14 Jun 2010, at 00:16, David Tweed wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Martin Kopta
wrote:
Some philosophical questions..
What does it mean for an operating system to be suckless?
What features should (or should not) an OS have in order to be
suckless?
Are there suckless or close-
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +0200, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote:
> > * udev (+/- 5sec) was replaced by our (small) fdev (now takes some 0.1 sec).
>
> there is also mdev in busybox, in case you are interested. I like busybox very
> much, but I think it lacks documentation.
Indeed, it's similar.
I f
> * udev (+/- 5sec) was replaced by our (small) fdev (now takes some 0.1 sec).
there is also mdev in busybox, in case you are interested. I like busybox very
much, but I think it lacks documentation.
May I just draw your attention to www.nixos.org?
I don't want to say it sucks less. But it definitely does for developers
because you can install multiple versions of a package at the same time.
You can always rollback.
It does'nt fit all needs at the moment because its hard to separate
headers f
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:29:58AM +0200, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Anselm R Garbe writes:
>
> > Regarding the boot speed I disagree. I think short boot cycles can be
> > achieved with rather more simple init systems than the insanity people
> > got used to like the SysV style Debian insanity. A
http://julien.danjou.info/blog/2010.html#Thoughts%20and%20rambling%20on%20the%20X%20protocol
Anselm R Garbe writes:
> Regarding the boot speed I disagree. I think short boot cycles can be
> achieved with rather more simple init systems than the insanity people
> got used to like the SysV style Debian insanity. A simple BSD init
> based or even more simple system always outperforms any "s
On 14 June 2010 07:31, pmarin wrote:
>> Problem is the vast complexity they both contain is hidden inside
>> libwebkit. That thing is huge. I get the feeling surf and uzbl only
>> make the tip of the iceberg suck less.
>
> We would can say the same about dwm, X11 and xinerama.
Touché.
Being pragm
On 14 June 2010 01:59, David Tweed wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>> On 14 June 2010 00:16, David Tweed wrote:
>>> One of the issues to consider is that what computers are used for
>>> changes with time, and decisions that one may classify as "the
>>> suckles
On 13 June 2010 23:09, Martin Kopta wrote:
> Some philosophical questions..
>
> What does it mean for an operating system to be suckless?
I think the Unix philosophy makes an OS "suckless". Each tool does
just one task and solves this task in the best way; and a universal
interface between each o
35 matches
Mail list logo
