Hello @misc,
I am yet another interested in provided OpenBSD defaults. More
specifically the XTerm and GCC. Apparently there are better alternatives
like:
URXVT
* The code base is half the size of XTerm's
* Consumes 25% less memory
* Can be daemonized
* Much better handling of different fonts an
> both of which are more or less crappy xterm (not vt100, not vt220) emulators
The fact that they consume less, work faster, have clean and actually readable
code
which you can hack through without symptoms of nausea -- all these make tham
crappier than
the xterm?! All the cars in the world more
Theo, I do NOT even try to "recommend" you or any other OpenBSD devs or
actually anyone
reading this mail the one true way of solving the problems. Don't do any
advocacy, even
though it may look like that I do. And of course you are perfectly right that
there are no
diffs in mail. The sole pupr
Thanks for your answer, Zoran. Apparently it's true that everyone will want
their own set
of prefered applications, especially when it comes to something like a web
browser. And as
for me, I didn't like neither surf, nor luakit, nor conkeror as well. But after
all, I think
it's been pointed rig
Martin Schröder wrote:
> 2013/7/30 :
> > than the Apple+Google co-owned Clang stuff.
>
> Source for that claim? All I can find is
> > Copyright (c) 2007-2013 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/LICENSE.TXT?revision=171342&view=markup
>
> Be
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-07-29, h...@riseup.net wrote:
> > URXVT
> > * The code base is half the size of XTerm's
>
> given that you have to include things like glib, gettext and iconv in this,
> somehow I doubt this...
>
> $ pkg_info -S rxvt-unicode
> Information for inst:rxvt-unicode-9
> The 4014 support is much more uncommon, but I do actually use it
> occasionally[1].
>
> The real issue is that people now expect X to come with xterm and that's
> that. Removing xterm would be quite unfortunate, as it breaks people's
> expectations of how the system works.
Okay, jeez... I think
Finally. Someone who's really smart Explained Everything in a solid bug-free
english text
(shame on me).
> And if/when such a switch happens, bugs will trigger and problems will
> need fixing; and we can not risk being naive enough to expect llvm
> developers to handle bug reports and bugfix rele
> Well, I think you get the point
Certainly I do, but this leaves everything but gcc overboard as pcc project is
too small to
scale so widely on all the architectures OpenBSD supports. The same applies to
Clang - it's
been thought mainly as a commercial replacement for gcc for titanics like
App
> when st or a similarly small project passes a test for vim, emacs,
> mutt, other popular ncurses clients, then it's worth thinking about
> replacing xterm
Here we go. A bunch of screenshots depicting st runinng multimple curses
applications including
(but not limited) vim, htop, alsamixer, utf8
Almost forgot to say about this vttest thing. Um, you do realize that it's been
written by
the author of XTerm? And how it is XTerm-specific? St aside, as for urxvt - I
have never
seen an application refusing to run through it. Not even something like
"compatible" mode
run where rxvt simply pret
Actually, according to what we are tracking at http://bsdstats.org, there are
currently *8*:
PC-BSD
FreeBSD
PYC-BSD (aka Rus-BSD)
DesktopBSD
OpenBSD
NetBSD
DragonflyBSD
MidnightBSD
On 2012-11-16, at 12:30 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 11/13/12 2:45 AM, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
>> On Tue,
On 2012-11-16, at 6:42 AM, Erich Dollansky
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:52:48 +0100
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-16 12:48, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Hub- FreeBSD
>>> wrote:
>>>>
On 2012-11-16, at 5:52 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2012-11-16 12:48, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Hub- FreeBSD wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, according to what we are tracking at http://bsdstats.org, there
>>> are currently *8*:
14 matches
Mail list logo
