Hi all,
thank you for all the great software!
Attached is a patch to turn off cookies in surf.
Thank you,
Tomas
>From 3de76376da8ba7533a9af0559d7594060f2eb606 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tomas Hlavaty
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:15:28 +0100
Subject: [dev][surf] -c command-line option to turn
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:33:50PM +0100, hiro wrote:
>> minicom & ckermit are still very useful in today's society.
>
>No, minicom is not useful. I never managed to remember any of their
>stupid keybindings.
>Of course screen is bloated in other ways, but what do you have against
>picocom?
Not
> minicom & ckermit are still very useful in today's society.
No, minicom is not useful. I never managed to remember any of their
stupid keybindings.
Of course screen is bloated in other ways, but what do you have against picocom?
The gtk3 resize issue with dwm was already reported. Hopefully it will be fixed
soon.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "gtk+" (bugzilla.gnome.org)
> Date: 28 de novembre de 2011 20:22:11 GMT+01:00
> To: panc...@youterm.com
> Subject: [Bug 662862] gtk3 window resize using the corner widget caus
Heh,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:59:59AM -0900, rogerx@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks for the tip! Been awhile since I looked at man locate. ;-)
It is always amazing ;-)
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 04:19:10PM +0100, u...@netbeisser.de wrote:
> >Heh,
>On 27 November 2011 23:13, Roger wrote:
loc
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 02:20:22PM +0100, hiro wrote:
>remove minicom
>
minicom & ckermit are still very useful in today's society. Although not as
useful for Internet connectivity, they're still used for debugging the kernel
and other low-level activities. The most recent from what I hear i
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 07:52:17AM -0500, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>> If you can avoid conflicts, that's better than expecting packagers (of each
>> distro) to fix it.
>
>I disagree. lsx-lrzsz is clearly less useful or important than
>lsx-dm
On 28 November 2011 17:08, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> Scripts have to be able to depend on command names; command line
> interfaces are interfaces too. In theory, bin directories should
> contain directories containing the actual commands.
Plan 9 does this to some extent. It's always seemed obvi
That's not a machine, it's a moka.
2011/11/28 Kurt H Maier :
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
> wrote:
>> Scripts have to be able to depend on command names; command line
>> interfaces are interfaces too. In theory, bin directories should
>> contain directories containing th
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
wrote:
> Scripts have to be able to depend on command names; command line
> interfaces are interfaces too. In theory, bin directories should
> contain directories containing the actual commands. Yes, I would
> suggest namespaces if compatibility
On 11/28/11, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
>> to reuse the same name.
>
> "Clearly" "there" "is" "no" "general" "case". "Things" "like" "this"
> "should" "be" "dealt" "with" "on" "a" "case-by-case" "basis".
>
Scripts have to be able to depend on command
Troels Henriksen writes:
> Christian Neukirchen writes:
>
>> Connor Lane Smith writes:
>>
>>> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
>>> wrote:
Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>>>
>>> POSIX compatibility.
>>
>> All s
Hadrian Węgrzynowski writes:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:43:55 +0100
> Christian Neukirchen wrote:
>
>>Connor Lane Smith writes:
>>
>>> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
>>> wrote:
Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>>
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:43:55 +0100
Christian Neukirchen wrote:
>Connor Lane Smith writes:
>
>> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
>> wrote:
>>> Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
>>>
>>> find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>>
>> POSIX compatibility.
>
>All supported e
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> I was talking in general.
> The case where an "idiot" "stole" a 3-letter string is a very specific case
> where it can be justified
> to reuse the same name.
"Clearly" "there" "is" "no" "general" "case". "Things" "like" "this"
"should"
On 28 November 2011 14:43, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> All supported except for -maxdepth, but you can use:
>
> find -L . -type d \! -name . -prune -o -type f -perm -111 -print
I've seen things like this before. All it does is prove how much find
needs replacing. I'm considering using stest (ls
Christian Neukirchen writes:
> Connor Lane Smith writes:
>
>> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
>> wrote:
>>> Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
>>>
>>> find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>>
>> POSIX compatibility.
>
> All supported except for -maxdepth, but you ca
Connor Lane Smith writes:
> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
> wrote:
>> Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
>>
>> find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>
> POSIX compatibility.
All supported except for -maxdepth, but you can use:
find -L . -type d \! -name . -prune
On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
>
> find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
POSIX compatibility.
cls
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 07:52:17 -0500
Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
> wrote:
> > If you can avoid conflicts, that's better than expecting packagers
> > (of each distro) to fix it.
>
> I disagree. lsx-lrzsz is clearly less useful or important than
> lsx-dm
Connor Lane Smith writes:
> On 27 November 2011 23:13, Roger wrote:
>> Very well. I'm considering renaming lsx to dmenu_lsx and it looks like lsx's
>> only occurance is within /usr/bin/dmenu_run? Or is the name change going to
>> break anything else?
>
> Correct, it only appears in dmenu_run.
remove minicom
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> If you can avoid conflicts, that's better than expecting packagers (of each
> distro) to fix it.
I disagree. lsx-lrzsz is clearly less useful or important than
lsx-dmenu. Just because some idiot camped out on a three-letter
string does
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:51:03 -0500
Kurt H Maier wrote:
> Just call it 'stest'. If there's a collision, that's what packagers
> are for.
If you can avoid conflicts, that's better than expecting packagers (of each
distro) to fix it.
24 matches
Mail list logo
