Re: [dev] picture

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote: > Hi list, > > Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> >> On 21 June 2010 17:27, Uriel  wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous  wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander "Surma" Surma wr

Re: [dev] picture

Hi list, Anselm R Garbe wrote: On 21 June 2010 17:27, Uriel wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander "Surma" Surma wrote: I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? Already discussed on this list, but for softwar

Re: [dev] libixp 131 build error

Am 21.06.2010 17:13, schrieb Kris Maglione: Run 'make uninstall' first. That did help. Sorry for the alarm. -- Thomas Dahms

Re: [dev] picture

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 05:53:30PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: On 21 June 2010 17:27, Uriel wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander "Surma" Surma wrote: I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? Already discuss

[dev] Some additional observations about surf

1. In gmail, I frequently get "Experiencing technical difficulties ", "Error #500 retrying in n secs", etc. It doesn't recover from this by itself. Sometimes refreshing the gmail page helps to restore things to proper order. If, when this happens, I start another browser (chromium or firef

Re: [dev] picture

On 21 June 2010 17:27, Uriel wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander "Surma" Surma wrote: >>> I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? >> >> Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. >> Unl

Re: [dev] Surf download target directory?

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > Hey, > > On 21 June 2010 16:28, Donald Allen wrote: > > It appears to me that there is no way in surf to control the target > > directory into which downloaded files are stored. If I'm correct, I'd > like > > to suggest that such a cap

Re: [dev] Surf download target directory?

Hey, On 21 June 2010 16:28, Donald Allen wrote: > It appears to me that there is no way in surf to control the target > directory into which downloaded files are stored. If I'm correct, I'd like > to suggest that such a capability be added. If I'm incorrect, please tell me > how this is one. If

Re: [dev] picture

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous wrote: > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander "Surma" Surma wrote: >> I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? > > Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. > Unlicense[1] for software, While in principle

[dev] Re: Surf 0.4 issues

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Donald Allen wrote: > > 4. Gmail sessions periodically crash. I will try running compiled -g and > under gdb to try to get more info on this. I've seen this problem > repeatedly. It's independent of whether I run with tabbed. > I did this, as promised, and just ob

Re: [dev] Surf 0.4 issues

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > > On 21 Jun 2010, at 14:13, Donald Allen wrote: > > 2. When I change config.def.h and redo the make, config.h does *not* get > replaced with the new config.def.h. I think the config.h target in the > makefile is missing a dependency on

[dev] Surf download target directory?

It appears to me that there is no way in surf to control the target directory into which downloaded files are stored. If I'm correct, I'd like to suggest that such a capability be added. If I'm incorrect, please tell me how this is one. /Don

Re: [dev] libixp 131 build error

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:35:20PM +0200, Thomas Dahms wrote: Hi, "make PREFIX=/home/dahms/local install" throws an error, see below. Fortunately only the manpages are affected. ... MAKE install man/ Install directories: Man: /home/dahms/local/share/man INSTALL man/ixpc.1 INSTALL man/IXP

[dev] libixp 131 build error

Hi, "make PREFIX=/home/dahms/local install" throws an error, see below. Fortunately only the manpages are affected. ... MAKE install man/ Install directories: Man: /home/dahms/local/share/man INSTALL man/ixpc.1 INSTALL man/IXP_API.3 INSTALL man/IxpFcall.3 INSTALL man/IxpFid.3 INSTALL man/

Re: [dev] Surf 0.4 issues

On 21 Jun 2010, at 14:13, Donald Allen wrote: 2. When I change config.def.h and redo the make, config.h does *not* get replaced with the new config.def.h. I think the config.h target in the makefile is missing a dependency on config.def.h. Looks like it's the same as dwm, which I made this

Re: [dev] Surf 0.4 issues

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Nicolai Waniek wrote: > I guess you should make your configuration changes to config.h instead > of config.def.h. the latter one is there to have some 'reference > configuration' if you have f***ed up your config.h. > Ah. Before making changes to something like t

Re: [dev] Surf 0.4 issues

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 09:13:44AM -0400, Donald Allen wrote: > 1. Gmail complains that "your browser has cookies disabled" unless the > sessiontime variable in config.def.h is set to something non-zero. Perhaps > something non-zero should be the default (said without understanding the > implicatio

Re: [dev] Surf 0.4 issues

I guess you should make your configuration changes to config.h instead of config.def.h. the latter one is there to have some 'reference configuration' if you have f***ed up your config.h. regards

[dev] Surf 0.4 issues

I've just begun using surf and it looks very nice. dwm is my desktop environment on a Slackware 13.1 system, and surf integrates nicely with it. Having said that, I have seen some problems that I'd like to report. Issues (version 0.4): 1. Gmail complains that "your browser has cookies disabled"

Re: [dev] Interesting post about X11

On 21 June 2010 06:09, Robert Ransom wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:00:44 +0200 > Alexander Teinum wrote: > >> > Use Scheme.  See Scheme 48 for a nice, simple >> > implementation to start hacking on. > >> This thread is about a replacement for X, but we’re also discussing >> de

Re: [dev] Interesting post about X11

*should be used* and *can be used* have different meaning in my poor English. Can you rationalize why Scheme *should be used *? On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Robert Ransom wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:00:44 +0200 > Alexander Teinum wrote: > >> > Use Scheme.  See Scheme 48

Re: [dev] Interesting post about X11

On 21 June 2010 06:09, Robert Ransom wrote: > Scheme *should* be used for almost everything -- bootloaders, OS > kernels, hardware drivers, tiny user utilities (like (Plan 9) ls and > mc; Unix ls no longer qualifies as a tiny utility, and should not be > written at all), long-running servers, etc

Re: [dev] picture

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander "Surma" Surma wrote: > I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. Unlicense[1] for software, CC0[2] for art if you want to place your work into "public domain" and allow any