Sorry for the delay.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 03:27:38PM -0700, Amit Uttamchandani wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 01:51:21PM +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > I fully agree. after looking to minit & stuff, I decided to write our own
> > init daemon to incorporate some safety st
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 01:51:21PM +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
[snip]
>
> I fully agree. after looking to minit & stuff, I decided to write our own
> init daemon to incorporate some safety stuff.
> * booting is done in parallel.
> * udev (+/- 5sec) was replaced by our (small) fdev (now takes so
I was the author of Bee GNU/Hurd. Few years ago I did my own GNU/Hurd
distro based on pkgsrc package system and with my own build system,
because the Debian and GNU ones were completely unusable and inpracticable.
The sitaution didnt changed too much. Debian maintains many patches that
fixes thing
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Kris Maglione wrote:
>> hmm. i'm not too familiar with hurd, but afaik it's supposed to be
>> simpler and more elegant then Linux
>
> It's neither.
And it won't be, even if by some miracle someone gets it working one day.
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:49:04PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:18:20 -0400
Kris Maglione wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:05:24PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:43:31 -0400
>Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> This is what makes the suckless list better.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:18:20 -0400
Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:05:24PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:43:31 -0400
> >Kurt H Maier wrote:
> >> This is what makes the suckless list better. Otherwise you wind up
> >> with shit like http://www.archhur
On 6/14/10, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
>
> 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.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:05:24PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>>
>> What's wrong with arch hurd?
>
> The HURD part, obviously.
s/H/T/
uriel
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 07:12:54PM +0400, anonymous wrote:
> Lynx and Mozilla Firefox support Gopher.
firefox's gopher support has some catches (e.g. only port 70 is
supported, given port after : is ignored).
There is an extension for firefox called overbite:
http://gopher.floodgap.com/overbite/
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:48:34PM +0100, Nick wrote:
> Incidentally, can anyone recommend a good gopher client? I missed it
> the first time 'round, and I'd be curious to see a different
> paradigm of web type thing.
Lynx and Mozilla Firefox support Gopher.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:05:24PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:43:31 -0400
Kurt H Maier wrote:
This is what makes the suckless list better. Otherwise you wind up
with shit like http://www.archhurd.org/
What's wrong with arch hurd?
The HURD part, obviously.
--
Kr
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:43:31 -0400
Kurt H Maier wrote:
> This is what makes the suckless list better. Otherwise you wind up
> with shit like http://www.archhurd.org/
>
What's wrong with arch hurd?
Dieter
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:21:12PM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> On w3.org by contrast the page on the cgi standard has nothing but
> dead links and references to an obsolete web server. I was searching
> for the CGI standard the other day, and couldn't find it _anywhere_.
It's here, btw: ht
On 15 Jun 2010, at 12:48, Nick wrote:
Quoth Ethan Grammatikidis:
On 15 Jun 2010, at 11:24, Nick wrote:
Because that way you can do content negotiation. Granted, that isn't
much used today,
Why not? With more international businesses than ever on the web and
the internet spread further over
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> Does anyone ever notice that every time we have this thread, it grows
> without bound,
This happens with this topic on all general-dev mailing lists.
>and yet never manages to get anywhere?
This is what makes the suckless list better. Oth
Does anyone ever notice that every time we have this thread, it
grows without bound, and yet never manages to get anywhere?
--
Kris Maglione
You're bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything.
--Donald Knuth
Quoth Ethan Grammatikidis:
> On 15 Jun 2010, at 11:24, Nick wrote:
> > Because that way you can do content negotiation. Granted, that isn't
> > much used today,
>
> Why not? With more international businesses than ever on the web and
> the internet spread further over the globe than ever before,
On 15 Jun 2010, at 11:24, Nick wrote:
Quoth Ethan Grammatikidis:
I think it's pointless because most file types can be identified
from their first few bytes. This loops back around to my
content-type argument, why should the server go looking for file
type when the client gets it handed to
Quoth Ethan Grammatikidis:
> I think it's pointless because most file types can be identified
> from their first few bytes. This loops back around to my
> content-type argument, why should the server go looking for file
> type when the client gets it handed to it anyway?
Because that way you
On 06-14 20:18, Stanley Lieber wrote:
I've had to stop using surf to monitor a page at my job because they
now insist upon a Netscape or IE user agent string.
config.h: static char *useragent
or http://surf.suckless.org/patches/useragent
'Monitoring' a page sounds like I'd script it thou
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 05:26:59PM +0200, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote:
>
> > 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 intereste
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 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 22:35, 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
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
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
> 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.
pmarin.
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
>> suckless way of doing things" at one point in time may m
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
> suckless way of doing things" at one point in time may mean that it's
> not effectively useable in some future situations
On 13 June 2010 23:28, Matthew Bauer wrote:
> I think surf and uzbl are good steps forward in making a kiss web browser.
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.
cl
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-to-be-suckless operating systems out there?
I think surf and uzbl are good steps forward in making a kiss web browser.
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:
> > Is it possible to have an OS for desktop/laptop everyday use (multimedia,
> web,
> > programming, research, ..) which is actualy usable, not rotten inside and
>
> Is it possible to have an OS for desktop/laptop everyday use (multimedia, web,
> programming, research, ..) which is actualy usable, not rotten inside and
> alive?
Hm, I think we already concluded somewhat that a research application
is unlikely to be suckless. I'm not really sure what you mean
I think the general opinion of Plan 9 in suckless is positive, but
most people don't find it practical (probably because it hasn't been
widely adopted), and I think most people opt for linux distributions
like debian and arch. I don't know many with a high opinion of MS
Windows.
There's work going
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-to-be-suckless operating systems out there?
What does suckless thinks about Plan9, *BSD, GNU/Linux, MS Windo
53 matches
Mail list logo
