distro ill ever use.
Very good distro but I am starting to get curious about the cohesiveness of
freebsd...
Miles
--Original Message--
From: Jack Woehr
To: dev mail list
ReplyTo: dev mail list
Subject: Re: [dev] Suckless (*NIX|*BSD) Distribution?
Sent: Jun 20, 2009 11:53
There's alre
I have dual monitors at work so I'm real excited to try this out on monday. My
current solution is a custom patched dwm. It works but isn't optimal
--Original Message--
From: Anselm R Garbe
To: dev mail list
ReplyTo: dev mail list
Subject: [dev] Re: dwm development continues NOW
Sent:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oFxhqYn-g0
Xcb is the "new" version of xlib around the 6th minute
--Original Message--
From: Uriel
To: dev mail list
ReplyTo: dev mail list
Subject: Re: [dev] XCB: An alternative to Xlib
Sent: Jun 23, 2009 10:03
DSLs are great, but that is no excuse to build sy
Post the code
--Original Message--
From: hessi...@hessiess.com
To: dev mail list
ReplyTo: dev mail list
Subject: Re: [dev] mapping keyboard buttons to move the mouse?
Sent: Aug 26, 2009 21:52
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:46 AM, wrote:
>> Thanks for the application suggestions. how can I g
Xinerama ++
/me hugs his 2 monitors
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:58 AM, David Neu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> Ah that explains a lot. You aren't using dwm-5.6.1, right? You are
>> using dwm-5.6?
>> The bug you were noticing was fixed in dwm-5.6.1. Not buildin
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:58 AM, David Neu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Bottom Stack page lists the status of these patches at dwm 5.6.1, i.e.
>
> bstack.c (dwm 5.6.1) (20090908)
> bstackhoriz.c (dwm 5.6.1) (20090908)
>
> Can anyone advise what, if anything need to make them work with dwm 5.7.2?
>
Is it n
yea
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:23:35AM -0400, Greg Reagle wrote:
> Can someone point me to an article or blog post recommending which of these
> sanitize options would be recommended for general daily use?
Take your favourite Makefile and add
CFLAGS += -fsanitize=address -fsanitize=undefined
LDFLAGS
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 06:45:40AM -0700, Jeremy wrote:
> Regarding readability: in terms of the just the standard libraries, I
> agree that Rust is more readable than C, especially it comes to iterating
> and generics.
impl I {
fn know<'a, How::Someone>(could: &'a Say) -> This<'a>
wit
t (as they should be). So should FC_SCALABLE
being FcFalse / unset be the default? Is there another way to speed up
rendering outside of dmenu's scope if not?
Miles
no trolling in this thread. Suckless people generally seem to respect
others' opinions. Nice to see in this day and age!
Kind regards,
Miles.
l
>have to find another host that's less concerned about the Internet's welfare.
Worth bearing in mind.
Cheers,
Miles.
n for many many months.. due to my
>never-ending eye problem..
>Sensitive or not, computers seemed to heal me mentally.
Perhaps you should take a bit of a break from the internet. Go outside, breathe
the winter/summer air, etc.
Kind regards,
Miles.
I wonder whether filesystems could be more layered. You can already do this to
some extent with LUKS and LVM on Linux, but could you go further? Rather than
having a big monolithic filesystem like ext4, could you run some simpler
filesystem that just did journaling, then on top of that one that
t editor, it is large because
editing is a pretty comprehensive activity. You
couldn't fit the functionality of vim in a smaller
package and I don't think you could build it out of
separate Unix-y pieces.
You can also compile out a lot of the bloat
features like the terminal emulator.
Cheers,
Miles
On 5 July 2023 6:16:34 am NZST, Dave Blanchard wrote:
>People on this email list tend to go to an extreme in favoring simplicity
>above all else, which is why they release dumpster fires like the ST terminal
>emulator for example which has absolutely no features at all, is riddled with
>bugs an
On 6 July 2023 3:04:47 am NZST, Dave Blanchard wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2023 00:01:43 +1200
>Miles Rout wrote:
>
>> There is a page on the website advertising all the many patches available to
>> improve st and dwm.
>> Few if any other software projects provi
On 19 August 2023 12:37:23 am NZST, "Страхиња Радић"
wrote:
>I haven't checked recently, but the most noticeable missing feature of cproc,
>as well as some other compilers, were VLAs. When someone writes the support
>for
>VLAs, cproc & co. will become much more usable.
VLAs are optional in th
18 matches
Mail list logo
