I installed dwm 5.4.1 from the openbsd package on my Thinkpad X61
running openbsd 4.5 (amd64). Works fine, no issues, other than
attempts to pipe the date into stdin not working (I think how to use
the read-from-stdin facility to display stuff needs to be explained
more fully in the documentation).
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/7/20 Anselm R Garbe :
>> 2009/7/20 Donald Allen :
>>> I installed dwm 5.4.1 from the openbsd package on my Thinkpad X61
>>> running openbsd 4.5 (amd64). Works fine, no issues, other than
>>> atte
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 7/20/09, Donald Allen wrote:
>> running openbsd 4.5 (amd64). Works fine, no issues, other than
>> attempts to pipe the date into stdin not working (I think how to use
> this has changed see README in the source (o
Anselm --
By the way, my compliments on your work. I'm of the minimalist
persuasion when it comes to almost anything involving computers. I
much prefer to start with a small environment and add just what I need
and no more. So, of course, I can't stand Windows (for many, many
reasons, but its bloa
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/7/20 Donald Allen :
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>> 2009/7/20 Anselm R Garbe :
>>>> 2009/7/20 Donald Allen :
>>>>> I installed dwm 5.4.1 from the openbsd pac
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> a patch was pushed to the repository that should fix your issue with
> enabled xinerama
>
> can you please test the hg tip version of dwm?
Ok. I'll let you know the result when I do.
/Don
>
> http://code.suckless.org/hg/dwm/
>
>
I think the default key bindings for dwm are a unfortunate in some
cases. For example, alt-f, a natural choice for *f*loat mode,
conflicts with pulling down the File menu in many applications from
the keyboard. alt-T similarly conflicts with using the Tools menu in
Firefox from the keyboard.
I rea
would save a
lot of power, because the computer would be useless and thus I
wouldn't turn it on.
>
> JPEC
>
> Donald Allen a écrit :
>
>>I think the default key bindings for dwm are a unfortunate in some
>>cases. For example, alt-f, a natural choice for *f*loat
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Julien Pecqueur
> (JPEC) wrote:
>> I think the ctrl+alt combinaison suck : you need two hands for killing a
>> client...
>
> Not so, at least on my IBM keyboards and Thinkpad laptop
awesome or musca. Which would
> allow me to use different xbindkey configs dependant on the peripheral's
> capabilities.
>
> --
> stadik.net
>
> On Jul 22, 2009 8:20 AM, "Donald Allen" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Donald Allen
> wrote: &
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Julien Pecqueur
>> (JPEC) wrote:
>>> I think the ctrl+alt combinaison suck : you need two hands for killing a
>>> cl
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Michael wrote:
> Donald Allen wrote:
>> I realize that these bindings can be changed. But that requires some
>> work (and knowledge of C) on the part of the user. I'm talking about
>> the choice of the defaults. Perhaps the keys modified b
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Donald Chai wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>> Donald Allen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I realize that these bindings can be changed. Bu
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Jimmy Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:07:42PM -0400, Donald Allen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Donald Chai wrote:
>> > On Jul 22, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/7/22 Donald Allen :
>> I think the default key bindings for dwm are a unfortunate in some
>> cases. For example, alt-f, a natural choice for *f*loat mode,
>> conflicts with pulling down the File menu in many app
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 7/23/09, Donald Allen wrote:
>> fix it, when (in my opinion) a reasonable fix exists (change
>> alt- to ctrl-alt-), even for keyboards
>> without the Windows key.
>
> editing ctrl-alt out from the default co
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> On 7/23/09, Donald Allen wrote:
>>> fix it, when (in my opinion) a reasonable fix exists (change
>>> alt- to ctrl-alt-), even for keyboards
>>> wi
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>> On 7/23/09, Donald Allen wrote:
>>>> fix it, when (in my opinion) a reasonable fix exists
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 7/23/09, Donald Allen wrote:
>> fix it, when (in my opinion) a reasonable fix exists (change
>> alt- to ctrl-alt-), even for keyboards
>> without the Windows key.
>
> editing ctrl-alt out from the default co
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm glad to announce a new bugfix release of dwm:
>
> http://code.suckless.org/dl/dwm/dwm-5.6.1.tar.gz
>
> This release contains several man page fixes and a fixed Xinerama
> handling if all reported screens are of the same ori
I'm seeing what I think is non-intuitive behavior of the focus after closing
a window in tiled mode. Here's the situation:
I use rox as my file-system browser. Let's assume rox is by itself in tag 6
and dwm is in tile mode. Now suppose I open a .pdf file and then another by
clicking them in rox, h
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Hi Donald,
>
> 2009/8/27 Donald Allen :
> > I'm seeing what I think is non-intuitive behavior of the focus after
> closing
> > a window in tiled mode. Here's the situation:
> >
> > I use rox
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
>> Hi Donald,
>>
>> 2009/8/27 Donald Allen :
>> > I'm seeing what I think is non-intuitive behavior of the focus after
>> closing
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2009-09-08 01:16] Uriel
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>> >
>> > Read my slides,
>>
>> I would read them, if they were written in the standard language used
>> by the software industry (and the internet as a whole
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Donald Allen :
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>>> [2009-09-08 01:16] Uriel
>>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>>>> >
>>>&g
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Donald Allen :
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>> 2009/9/8 Donald Allen :
>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>>>>> [2009-09-08 01:16]
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"
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
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
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 mi
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 th
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
&g
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
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Aled Gest wrote:
>> * Because manual memory management is a mess.
>>
>> * Because some data structures and algorithms (red-black trees, for a
>> classic example) are extremely cumbersome in C compared to other
>> languages.
>
> Hiding complexity from a prog
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Thorben Krueger
wrote:
> On 22 June 2010 20:17, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>>> So, if we take you at your
>>> word, you are advocating returning to writing assembly code. As
>
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>> Absolutely. Furthermore, there is far more leverage at the algorithmic
>> level in a lot of cpu-intensive problems than there is from code
>> optimization. In o
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Aled Gest wrote:
>> But C does that, too. With C, you are writing in a language quite
>> removed from the actual instructions the processor executes; it's
>> hiding the complexity of machine code. So, if we take you at your
>> word, you are advocating returning to
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Aled Gest wrote:
>> No. The extent to which you employ abstraction (in the sense of how
>> your code is architected) is your choice in Scheme and in C. What
>> Scheme gives you is very clean semantics, simple syntax, and garbage
>> collection. Together this makes c
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Aled Gest wrote:
>> Yes, wasting resources is a Bad Thing, by the strict definition of
>> 'waste' -- cost with no benefit. But if you use more of one
>> inexpensive resource in order to reduce the use of another expensive
>> resource and achieve a net gain in the
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>
>> I've written code in just
>> about every language you can think of (except Perl, which looks like
>> something that came out of a broken modem to
dwm-5.8.2: if you attempt to apply both the pertag and bstack patches to
dwm, the resulting code will not compile. The reason is that the definition
of the monitor struct is moved after the include of config.h in dwm.c by
the pertag patch. The bstack patch includes the bstack and bstackhoriz
functi
If you go to the dwm man page on the suckless.org site and click the link
the dmenu at the bottom of the page, you get
The requested document at '*http://man.suckless.org/dwm/1/dmenu*' doesn't
exist
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Andrew Antle wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Donald Allen
> wrote:
> > dwm-5.8.2: if you attempt to apply both the pertag and bstack patches to
> > dwm, the resulting code will not compile. The reason is that the
> definition
>
me for not getting answers.
>
I just subscribed today, in order to send my email. I had not seen your
message.
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:08:13AM -0400, Donald Allen wrote:
> > It appears that whoever updated this patch for 5.8.2 didn't bother to
> test
> > whether it
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Antle wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Donald Allen
> wrote:
> > I actually offered to do this in a private message to Anselm last
> December.
> > He didn't respond. He's always been very good about responding to
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Antle wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Donald Allen
>> wrote:
>> > I actually offered to do this in a private message to Anselm last
>> December.
&
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Antle wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Donald Allen
> wrote:
> > I actually offered to do this in a private message to Anselm last
> December.
> > He didn't respond. He's always been very good about responding to
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:08 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:44:42AM +0200, Aur?lien Aptel wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Donald Allen
> wrote:
> > > I'm an old-timer, very familiar with rcs and cvs and just a bit
> > > with svn. No git, n
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:08 AM, wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:44:42AM +0200, Aur?lien Aptel wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Donald Allen
>> wrote:
>> > > I'm an ol
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:09:08AM +0200, Jens Staal wrote:
>>
>> Hi all.
>>
>> While waiting for Sta.li to be finnished, I started playing around with a
>> custom ubuntu build that uses plan9port as default user interface on as
>> many
>> l
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 05:58:55PM +0200, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>>
>> Kris Maglione writes:
>>>
>>> I'm more than a little surprised that you'd start with such an
>>> overgrown, hulking Goliath of a system such as Ubuntu. I think it says
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 01:17:49PM -0400, Donald Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Kris Maglione
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> No. Slackware may be relatively simple, but it's no simpler th
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 02:47:45PM -0400, Donald Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> I never said ‘weaker’ meant simpler.
>>
>> That's true and I didn't say you did. You said it was 'weaker' and I
&
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Christoph Schied
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 06:59:29PM +0200, yy wrote:
>> You can define as many tags as you want in your config.h file.
>
> thats actually not true:
> struct NumTags { char limitexceeded[LENGTH(tags) > 31 ? -1 : 1]; };
To the original poster
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:27 PM, TJ Robotham wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:50:13PM +0200, thuban wrote:
>> However, I'm surprised that this is not the default use of dwm. It is
>> supposed to be suckless, and on my own, I think having "opened tags"
>> that are useless (meaning with no window
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:27 AM, thuban wrote:
>>
>> I just changed the colour scheme in drawbar() so that unoccupied tags
>> are invisible (by making the text colour the same as the background).
>> This was enough for me, as I was mostly concerned with the visual
>> noise of all the unoccupied tag
I am running dwm 6.1 on a FreeBSD 10.3 system. dwm I have applied the
pertag, better-borders, and status-colors patches.
The (mis-)behavior I am observing is this: I have two windows, call
them A and B associated with Tag 1. I have selected monocle mode while
viewing Tag 1 and am viewing window B.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Cág wrote:
>> Is there any need for a new language,
>
>
> No
>
>> or is C good enough?
>
>
> Yes
>
> There is Go already, if C is not enough.
And Rust.
My personal opinion: I've used Go a fair amount and while it has some
nice aspects, is well-documented and has
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Eric Pruitt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0400, Donald Allen wrote:
>> I am running dwm 6.1 on a FreeBSD 10.3 system. dwm I have applied the
>> pertag, better-borders, and status-colors patches.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>&
On 20 June 2017 at 12:34, Kristaps Čivkulis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe I explained it badly.
>
> By default, the visible tiled windows form two "stacks" - left and
> right. By calling incnmaster (which by default is MODKEY+i and
> MODKEY+p),
You are not helping matters by persisting in making the err
On 20 November 2017 at 04:09, David Demelier wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> With firefox 57 and dwm 6.1, watching a video on youtube and clicking on the
> fullscreen button makes the video fill the firefox frame, not the whole
> screen.
>
> I remember some years ago that it worked fine, I wonder if som
vered.
On 20 November 2017 at 09:19, David Demelier wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>>
>> I am not seeing this, with the same version of Firefox on an Arch
>> Linux system. You did not say what patches, if any, you have applied
>> to
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 22:58, Jordan Timmerman wrote:
>
> Hi Anselm,
>
> I run the following script:
>
> echo 'a\nb\nc' | dmenu
>
> I then press Enter. The program segaults.
I just did this on an up-to-date Arch Linux system with dmenu 4.9
installed and it does not seg-fault on my system.
dca@fra
9 at 10:19 PM Jordan Timmerman wrote:
> >
> > Well shucks. Okay. Thanks for trying! Must be something on my end.
> > Perhaps the version of a dynamically linked library could be affecting
> > it?
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 10:13 PM Donald A
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 23:56, Jordan Timmerman wrote:
>
> Thanks, Donald.
>
> My `ldd` output includes all the same libraries as yours, although the
> addresses of the libraries of course differ.
>
> I'm pretty confident at this point that the segfault occurs during the
> call to libx11 XmbLookupSt
I'm running surf 0.6 on an x86_64 Arch Linux system. The new version
seems to be an improvement overall (some problems with gmail are
gone), but here are some issues I've noticed:
1. Attempting to play youtube videos frequently results in youtube
reporting that "This video is currently unavailable
66 matches
Mail list logo
