Re: [dev] dwm only?

2009-05-24 Thread Martin Swift
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Uriel wrote: > Other than ad hominems, [...] This from the person whose inital contribution to this topic started with "Stop whining". :-) Gentlemen, different people will have different opinions of what consitutes "chatter" and "stupid". Furthermore, not everyo

Re: [dev][dwm][OT] redundant thread (was: broken gnome (even after reset) after usage of dwm 4.7)

2009-09-20 Thread Martin Swift
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:25:18AM +0200, Uriel wrote: > Somebody thought breaking gnome was a problem rather than a feature, > my comment was *not* universally redundant. It's not entirely clear what you mean by "universally" redundant. On the other hand, it doesn't really matter. You're wrong an

Re: [dev] (x)HTML-based office suite? (aka suckless word processing solution-2)

2009-10-19 Thread Martin Swift
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 05:38:00PM +0200, Uriel wrote: > Then somebody needs to be burned at the stake. In this day and age, > anyone using *any* encoding other than UTF-8 need to be lockedup and > have the key thrown into a black hole, enough harm has been done > already by retarded encodings. I

Re: [dev] content vs navigation in the web

2009-11-08 Thread Martin Swift
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 03:18:23PM +0100, markus schnalke wrote: > Why do people use lists, which take a line for each item? It's easy to > do it without lists and thus having the items of one level all in a > line. First of all, people use lists because they are a sensible way to structure a /lis

Re: [dev] Local vs global variables

2009-11-08 Thread Martin Swift
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 10:25:35PM +0100, Uriel wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Robert C Corsaro > wrote: > > There are fundamentalists the are wrong, and fundamentalists that are > > correct.  I _always_ choose the correct ones because choosing the incorrect > > ones would be stupid. >

Re: [dev] Local vs global variables

2009-11-08 Thread Martin Swift
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 01:18:36AM +0100, hiro wrote: > > Granted, sarcasm can be a great literary tool, but like with any > > sophisticated construct, it must be handled with skill if we are to > > achieve the desired result. In the case above, Uriel mistook a > > sarcastic remark for an honest op

Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp

2009-11-13 Thread Martin Swift
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 05:25:09PM +0100, Mate Nagy wrote: > please stop posting Please don't. I for one find this discussion somewhat interesting, not the least for the effort to exchange logically sound argumets. It's a refreshing alternative to the empty and useless mud-slinging that all too o

[dev] [wmii] Odd key behaviour after changing focus in 3.9b1

2009-11-18 Thread Martin Swift
Dear Comrads, First off, many thanks for 3.9b1. Being the fairly content (read: lazy) type I'd never bothered updating from 3.6r2 which is still the most recent packaged version in Gentoo's Portage. Being stuck in bed with the flu I took the time to update the ebuild for the new version and upgrad

Re: [dev] wmii can save settings on close, can't it ?

2009-12-23 Thread Martin Swift
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 07:36:32PM +0100, Kai Großjohann wrote: > So for me, it is the most natural idea in the world to start up the > email program when I log in and to move it to the right > workspace/view/tag so that Super+1 will show it. Isn't this what tagrules do? You can for example set

Re: [dev] licenses (was: simple portscanner)

2010-01-03 Thread Martin Swift
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 04:19:08PM +0100, hiro wrote: > > as you can't really pass your copyright in germany you should definitely > > base > > your publication on some means of 'contract'/license to protect the one > > using > > your code from you going mad and coming after him with some creepy

Re: [dev] licenses (was: simple portscanner)

2010-01-03 Thread Martin Swift
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:03:38PM +0100, hiro wrote: > So then why shouldn't you be able to defend yourself against creepy lawyers? You should. That's the point. > In Germany the law regarding software copyright is completely vague > and can't be taken serious. Then don't. :-) Cheers, Martin