Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Mon 04 Jul 2011 08:58:07 PM PDT, Pieter Praet wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:18:16 -0700, Noah Birnel wrote: > > I am not arguing that no one should attempt to calibrate their > > monitor - but that it is not a necessity for all graphics work. > > In our case, it would be a waste of time. > > So you'll just keep on printing 1x1.3m's until the colors seem > right? That reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbes comic strip: http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1986/ch861126.gif -- Nothing is ever a total loss; it can always serve as a bad example. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:18:16 -0700, Noah Birnel wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 07:00:33PM +0200, hiro wrote: > > I don't get it, are you calibrating your printer so that it matches > > the display instead? > > > No. The printer and the monitor are not going to match. There is no > hope for that. What matters to us is the print. > > I am not arguing that no one should attempt to calibrate their monitor - > but that it is not a necessity for all graphics work. In our case, it > would be a waste of time. So you'll just keep on printing 1x1.3m's until the colors seem right? Do you have stock options on ink/toner cartridge manufacturer shares? > -noah > Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 07:00:33PM +0200, hiro wrote: > I don't get it, are you calibrating your printer so that it matches > the display instead? > No. The printer and the monitor are not going to match. There is no hope for that. What matters to us is the print. I am not arguing that no one should attempt to calibrate their monitor - but that it is not a necessity for all graphics work. In our case, it would be a waste of time. -noah
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
I don't get it, are you calibrating your printer so that it matches the display instead? On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 18:39, Noah Birnel wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:00:49PM +0200, Pieter Praet wrote: >> Color calibration [1] (and frequent recalibration) is mandatory when >> doing *anything* graphics-related for production purposes, as the output >> of any and every visual output device known to man *will* be distorted, >> due to used materials, quality, aging, environmental variables, ... >> > Part of what I do for a living is large-ish (3x4 ft / 1x1.3 m) > color printouts for trial displays. We don't attempt to calibrate our > monitors for that very reason - we know they *will* be distorted. The > proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what we care about is the > print appearance, not the monitor. > > (This has certainly drifted from 'suckless file manager'.) > > Cheers > > noah > >
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:00:49PM +0200, Pieter Praet wrote: > Color calibration [1] (and frequent recalibration) is mandatory when > doing *anything* graphics-related for production purposes, as the output > of any and every visual output device known to man *will* be distorted, > due to used materials, quality, aging, environmental variables, ... > Part of what I do for a living is large-ish (3x4 ft / 1x1.3 m) color printouts for trial displays. We don't attempt to calibrate our monitors for that very reason - we know they *will* be distorted. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what we care about is the print appearance, not the monitor. (This has certainly drifted from 'suckless file manager'.) Cheers noah
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 16:13:09 +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > [...] > I do seem to have less of a problem when there's a color management > system in the display, but I can't imagine anything more sucky in a > display than a system to adjust every already-rendered pixel. > [...] Color calibration [1] (and frequent recalibration) is mandatory when doing *anything* graphics-related for production purposes, as the output of any and every visual output device known to man *will* be distorted, due to used materials, quality, aging, environmental variables, ... CRTs aren't exempt from this. Peace -- Pieter [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_calibration
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:23:05 +0200 Pieter Praet wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:55:38 +0200, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Most people getting eye problems in front of the computer are caused > > by the concentrated day-long staring without blinking once. > > ^ Also rather influential. > > Especially for Ethan, who (based on his reference to deviantART today [1]) > appears to be a pixel-pusher. Probably started around the same time he bought > his LCD. Would explain alot. I started doing something arty about 6 months before I bought my LCD, yeah. The LCD took some of the fun out of it (which would be a color depth issue,) but I'm not even comfortable using that particular LCD for plain text any more. Aside from a little burst a few months ago, my artwork has trailed off entirely. It might be related to viewing angle and posture; I find I subconsciously hold my head in a very fixed position for the LCD monitor where I don't remember doing that with CRTs at all. I guess I'm trying to get the position where the color depth is the least bad. > > Personally I hate the typical CRT flickering (especially if set to <85 Hz) Yeah... I didn't have much of a problem with flickering myself but I'm not trying to say it wasn't bad for anyone else. I just got angry at the blanket "TFT is better", especially when stated as if it had scientific backing. If some scientists have produced 'proof' of that, they constructed their experiments badly. It also reeks of the "better is better" circle-jerk... eh, I'll stop now. I do seem to have less of a problem when there's a color management system in the display, but I can't imagine anything more sucky in a display than a system to adjust every already-rendered pixel. That reminds of how elegant a CRT is in its way - there's only 15 connections to the tube, compared to all the rows and columns of an LCD. Still, pushing a CRT up to 85Hz non-interlaced requires some fairly extreme engineering.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:55:38 +0200, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Most people getting eye problems in front of the computer are caused > by the concentrated day-long staring without blinking once. ^ Also rather influential. Especially for Ethan, who (based on his reference to deviantART today [1]) appears to be a pixel-pusher. Probably started around the same time he bought his LCD. Would explain alot. > Personally I hate the typical CRT flickering (especially if set to <85 Hz) > Peace -- Pieter [1] id:"20110704115545.19a56...@kolari.ethans.dre.am"
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Most people getting eye problems in front of the computer are caused by the concentrated day-long staring without blinking once. Personally I hate the typical CRT flickering (especially if set to <85 Hz)
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 12:20:02 +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:23:03 +0200 > pancake wrote: > > > Also crt and lcd/tft screens have differet brightness effects. Tft are less > > damaging to eyes than crt.. So i think discussion about colors on text > > moved to only stethical and personal issue because its no longer dramatic > > as it was in the crt era. > > Really? Who made this screaming bullshit up? My eyes haven't been right since > I bought my first TFT monitor, and I've run into several people ONLINE who > tell me they can't use LCD monitors AT ALL. Imagine that; relying on the > internet and yet you can't use LCDs. Given how many people would simply > forget about using computers if they had such a problem, I expect LCD screens > make a LOT of peoples' eyes bleed. I think you're blindly believing _lies_ > spewed by monitor manufacturers. > > Pancake... I'm sorry to say this but I get a "wtf moment" from nearly every > post you send to this list. I realize that's not constructive criticism... > You may want to consider how information flows especially how and when it it > is possible to determine truth from lies. I don't mean how data flows; I mean > how _meaning_ gets passed from human to human, and what can be lost in > transit, especially when the sending humans are working on behalf of a > megacorp (or government, for that matter). > While I won't comment on the rest of pancake's message (I've already done so for one of his other points): You can verify all this CRT-related "screaming bullshit" [sic] empirically, in the comfort of your own home: Eye-related: + greater contrast ratio and color depth (degrades over time) + multisync (= scaling to different resolutions) + higher response time - constant flicker - image loss/distortion at boundaries - uneven brightness - more susceptible to glare - difficult to position ergonomically Other: + cheap - prone to imploding (and setting fire to the elderly) - emits high-pitched tone - wasteful: - greater size (especially considering equivalent viewing area) - higher weight - higher power consumption (+ heat output) (ionizing radiation and "filled to the brim with toxic crap" omitted due to requiring specialized equipment to determine) Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:23:03 +0200 pancake wrote: > Also crt and lcd/tft screens have differet brightness effects. Tft are less > damaging to eyes than crt.. So i think discussion about colors on text moved > to only stethical and personal issue because its no longer dramatic as it was > in the crt era. Really? Who made this screaming bullshit up? My eyes haven't been right since I bought my first TFT monitor, and I've run into several people ONLINE who tell me they can't use LCD monitors AT ALL. Imagine that; relying on the internet and yet you can't use LCDs. Given how many people would simply forget about using computers if they had such a problem, I expect LCD screens make a LOT of peoples' eyes bleed. I think you're blindly believing _lies_ spewed by monitor manufacturers. Pancake... I'm sorry to say this but I get a "wtf moment" from nearly every post you send to this list. I realize that's not constructive criticism... You may want to consider how information flows especially how and when it it is possible to determine truth from lies. I don't mean how data flows; I mean how _meaning_ gets passed from human to human, and what can be lost in transit, especially when the sending humans are working on behalf of a megacorp (or government, for that matter).
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 08:49:45PM +0200, Jakub Lach wrote: > To add another one, I'm not entirely sure LCD vs CRT > eyes health debate is settled. > I'm fairly sure the "Cathode ray cannon pointed at your head; is it safe ?" debate is well over.. djp
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Dnia 13 czerwca 2011 20:14 Michael Farnbach napisał(a): > Then the easiest to read is amber on black. There is a lot we can > learn from the sharp shooters, and the old dumb terminals. Wondering if this concept is related to "selective yellow" [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_yellow "The intent of selective yellow is to improve vision by removing shorter, blue wavelengths from the projected light, as these wavelengths are difficult for the human visual system to process properly(...)" On the side note, I use white on black with selective yellow cursor. W&B is no-brainer for me, maximizes contrast while minimizing screen brightness. To add another one, I'm not entirely sure LCD vs CRT eyes health debate is settled. regards, - Jakub Lach
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Then the easiest to read is amber on black. There is a lot we can learn from the sharp shooters, and the old dumb terminals. On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Pieter Praet wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:23:03 +0200, pancake wrote: > > Just to add my 5c to the thread.. > > > > I remember in the msdos5.0 age where everybody was using a 80x25 text > console to run programs and graphical mode was just for games.. > > > > Many text editors used a blue background. This is: wordperfect/wordstar/ > edit.com .. > > > > I remember my teacher arguing this as something medically prooft that > white or black on blue is better than b/w or w/b. > > Your teacher is full of shit. > > Google "photoreceptor cell apoptosis induced by in vivo blue light > exposure". > > Hint: "apoptosis" means DEATH. > > > Another point in this topic is that many ebook readers (iBooks) allow to > change the background color to 'sepia'. Which is good for long readings, as > the contrast is lower than b/w. > > > > I think that for long readings you use to be in a fixed position and your > eyes get more tired if there's more bright on the screen. > > > > Also crt and lcd/tft screens have differet brightness effects. Tft are > less damaging to eyes than crt.. So i think discussion about colors on text > moved to only stethical and personal issue because its no longer dramatic as > it was in the crt era. > > > > > > --pancake > > > > On 12/06/2011, at 12:20, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > > > > > On 12 June 2011 10:53, Nicolai Waniek wrote: > > >> Quite the opposite, that they could not detect any difference. > > > > > > So uh, not *quite* the opposite. > > > > > > I'm willing to believe people have a higher reading speed with > > > black-on-white, though I suspect this is in part because that's how we > > > read the vast majority of the time. However, especially when I'm > > > tired, I can *feel* my eyes strain against the brightness (and if you > > > lower the brightness you get an unreadable grey-on-grey). We may be > > > good at reading black-on-white, but perhaps not black-on-fluorescent. > > > > > > It's possible I'm an outlier, being almost blind in one eye, but I > > > doubt that has much of an effect in this case. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > cls > > > > > > > Peace > > -- > Pieter > >
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:23:03 +0200, pancake wrote: > Just to add my 5c to the thread.. > > I remember in the msdos5.0 age where everybody was using a 80x25 text console > to run programs and graphical mode was just for games.. > > Many text editors used a blue background. This is: > wordperfect/wordstar/edit.com .. > > I remember my teacher arguing this as something medically prooft that white > or black on blue is better than b/w or w/b. Your teacher is full of shit. Google "photoreceptor cell apoptosis induced by in vivo blue light exposure". Hint: "apoptosis" means DEATH. > Another point in this topic is that many ebook readers (iBooks) allow to > change the background color to 'sepia'. Which is good for long readings, as > the contrast is lower than b/w. > > I think that for long readings you use to be in a fixed position and your > eyes get more tired if there's more bright on the screen. > > Also crt and lcd/tft screens have differet brightness effects. Tft are less > damaging to eyes than crt.. So i think discussion about colors on text moved > to only stethical and personal issue because its no longer dramatic as it was > in the crt era. > > > --pancake > > On 12/06/2011, at 12:20, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > > > On 12 June 2011 10:53, Nicolai Waniek wrote: > >> Quite the opposite, that they could not detect any difference. > > > > So uh, not *quite* the opposite. > > > > I'm willing to believe people have a higher reading speed with > > black-on-white, though I suspect this is in part because that's how we > > read the vast majority of the time. However, especially when I'm > > tired, I can *feel* my eyes strain against the brightness (and if you > > lower the brightness you get an unreadable grey-on-grey). We may be > > good at reading black-on-white, but perhaps not black-on-fluorescent. > > > > It's possible I'm an outlier, being almost blind in one eye, but I > > doubt that has much of an effect in this case. > > > > Thanks, > > cls > > > Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:53:32 +0200, Nicolai Waniek wrote: > On 06/07/2011 07:09 PM, pancake wrote: > > Its anti natural. > > It's not. > > Because I asked myself which is the best working environment regarding > ones eyes some time ago, I looked around for some scientific research on > the topic of black-background vs white background. > > There's not that much research to be cited (and to be honest, after > reading the papers I removed them) but the overall conclusion is that > most probants had a higher reading speed and slightly less reading > errors with black text on white background. Nevertheless, the > differences are very small. Was there any mention of ambient lighting? I suspect these tests weren't conducted at 4am in a typical coder's cave, but rather in some fluorescent tube infested lab... Just take your laptop outside for a while, that's all the research you need ;) > [SNIP] > The only clear direction stated was that when you have to work with a > monitor and feel that your eyes are tiring, you should probably go to an > optician as you might have a minor amblyopia (+.25, -.25 something like > that) and proper way to work against it is to try eyeglasses. "The only clear direction stated was that when you have to walk and feel that your legs are aching, you should probably go to a radiologist as you might have a broken leg and proper way to work against it is to try immobilization." OR "You mean your eyes get tired after staring at a bright light for long stretches of time? That's not normal, you have bad eyes dude..." I'm aching to see that study :D > > > regards Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Just to add my 5c to the thread.. I remember in the msdos5.0 age where everybody was using a 80x25 text console to run programs and graphical mode was just for games.. Many text editors used a blue background. This is: wordperfect/wordstar/edit.com .. I remember my teacher arguing this as something medically prooft that white or black on blue is better than b/w or w/b. Another point in this topic is that many ebook readers (iBooks) allow to change the background color to 'sepia'. Which is good for long readings, as the contrast is lower than b/w. I think that for long readings you use to be in a fixed position and your eyes get more tired if there's more bright on the screen. Also crt and lcd/tft screens have differet brightness effects. Tft are less damaging to eyes than crt.. So i think discussion about colors on text moved to only stethical and personal issue because its no longer dramatic as it was in the crt era. --pancake On 12/06/2011, at 12:20, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > On 12 June 2011 10:53, Nicolai Waniek wrote: >> Quite the opposite, that they could not detect any difference. > > So uh, not *quite* the opposite. > > I'm willing to believe people have a higher reading speed with > black-on-white, though I suspect this is in part because that's how we > read the vast majority of the time. However, especially when I'm > tired, I can *feel* my eyes strain against the brightness (and if you > lower the brightness you get an unreadable grey-on-grey). We may be > good at reading black-on-white, but perhaps not black-on-fluorescent. > > It's possible I'm an outlier, being almost blind in one eye, but I > doubt that has much of an effect in this case. > > Thanks, > cls >
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 12 June 2011 10:53, Nicolai Waniek wrote: > Quite the opposite, that they could not detect any difference. So uh, not *quite* the opposite. I'm willing to believe people have a higher reading speed with black-on-white, though I suspect this is in part because that's how we read the vast majority of the time. However, especially when I'm tired, I can *feel* my eyes strain against the brightness (and if you lower the brightness you get an unreadable grey-on-grey). We may be good at reading black-on-white, but perhaps not black-on-fluorescent. It's possible I'm an outlier, being almost blind in one eye, but I doubt that has much of an effect in this case. Thanks, cls
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 06/07/2011 07:09 PM, pancake wrote: > Its anti natural. It's not. Because I asked myself which is the best working environment regarding ones eyes some time ago, I looked around for some scientific research on the topic of black-background vs white background. There's not that much research to be cited (and to be honest, after reading the papers I removed them) but the overall conclusion is that most probants had a higher reading speed and slightly less reading errors with black text on white background. Nevertheless, the differences are very small. In the end it comes down to personal preference. Additionally, I looked around for some research regarding eye health w.r.t. black- vs white-background because one common 'understanding' seems to be that your eyes will be treated more friendly with a black background. Again, none of the research papers I read (origin from about 1970 - 2008 or so, when I have some time and the will to I'll search the papers) came to the conclusion that this is true. Quite the opposite, that they could not detect any difference. The only clear direction stated was that when you have to work with a monitor and feel that your eyes are tiring, you should probably go to an optician as you might have a minor amblyopia (+.25, -.25 something like that) and proper way to work against it is to try eyeglasses. regards
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:45:54 +0200 hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I like his rationale. pre-aliasing and neuro-aliasing come to mind, > but idiotic as it might sound the only technically clear term is > really "not antialiased". > > I guess I (we?) should get a life :D Probably. :D I like what he said, to. I think all art is like that; he medium of expression influences or even changes what you produce.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
I like his rationale. pre-aliasing and neuro-aliasing come to mind, but idiotic as it might sound the only technically clear term is really "not antialiased". I guess I (we?) should get a life :D
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Thu 09 Jun 2011 02:50:53 PM PDT, hiro wrote: > The Tamsyn guy says it's an "aliased font". What does it mean? Here's a reply from the author of Tamsyn regarding this matter: Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:04:43 -0700 From: Scott Fial To: "Suraj N. Kurapati" Subject: Re: Tamsyn font - aliased or smoothed? Hi Suraj, Now that I'm done I realize that I've written more than this subject probably deserves, but its close to my heart so bear with me. To be honest, I'm no expert in fonts or the terminology. I'm just some guy and somehow this font became my hobby. It seems the words "aliased" and "anti-aliased" have meaning beyond my simplistic interpretation. I naively used the term "aliased" to mean: not anti-aliased, hinted, or smoothed in any way. But that's because I vaguely equate "anti-aliasing" with the blurring and blending of a font to smooth the jagged edges. And if that's the case, then the jagged edges must be the "aliasing" (right?) since the true curves and angles of each character can't be represented perfectly as pixels. Such was my logic. Its a vector font in my mind; I have a mental picture of the true shape of each character, but I'm faced with aliasing effects as I try to represent that shape as pixels. The fun comes in finding designs which look nice given that constraint while avoiding as much of the resulting visual "static" as possible. The point I'm trying to make on the web page is that the font will look the same wherever you use it and has no dependency on sophisticated font rendering technologies. So, given all that I've said here, what *is* the term I should be using to describe this kind of font? I want the web page to be correct. Please put it to your forum and let me know if anyone has the answer. thanks, Scott On 6/9/2011 9:07 AM, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: > Hello, > > There has been some discussion on whether Tamsyn is "aliased" > here: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.suckless/6178 > > I thought you'd like to comment on this to clarify your > definition, or perhaps revise your description on the Tamsyn > homepage accordingly. > > Cheers. > > P.S. Many thanks for Tamsyn: it's the best monospaced font ever! :-) -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 15:00, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > I'm not sure "aliased" is quite an appropriate word for a font since it's the > display which does the aliasing by virtue of its pixellated nature. I think neither would be appropriate because in the artistic task of creating the font each pixel was put there by purpose. A chess board is not aliased either just because it has a grid. I agree that anti-aliased stuff at 100dpi isn't sharp enough, I'm mostly using the olde hinted Microsoft fonts.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
> The Tamsyn guy says it's an "aliased font". What does it mean? He means it's not anti-aliased. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing -- Eckehard Berns
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:55:30 +0100 Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:50:53 +0200 > hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > The Tamsyn guy says it's an "aliased font". What does it mean? > > It's not, but it has some overlap in places which makes it look smoother. My bad, I thought he said "anti-aliased". I'm not sure "aliased" is quite an appropriate word for a font since it's the display which does the aliasing by virtue of its pixellated nature.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:50:53 +0200 hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > The Tamsyn guy says it's an "aliased font". What does it mean? It's not, but it has some overlap in places which makes it look smoother.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 9 June 2011 13:50, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > The Tamsyn guy says it's an "aliased font". What does it mean? It means it isn't anti-aliased. Nice font, btw. cls
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
The Tamsyn guy says it's an "aliased font". What does it mean? On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:00, ilf wrote: > On 06-09 09:04, Petr Sabata wrote: >> >> How about bgs? http://s01.de/~tox/index.cgi/proj_bgs > > Been using that for a while. Doesn't do it for me with rxvt-unicode 9.09 any > more, because it doesn't set XROOTPMAP on the root window. Too busy to fix. > > -- > ilf > > Über 80 Millionen Deutsche benutzen keine Konsole. Klick dich nicht weg! > -- Eine Initiative des Bundesamtes für Tastaturbenutzung >
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 06-09 09:04, Petr Sabata wrote: How about bgs? http://s01.de/~tox/index.cgi/proj_bgs Been using that for a while. Doesn't do it for me with rxvt-unicode 9.09 any more, because it doesn't set XROOTPMAP on the root window. Too busy to fix. -- ilf Über 80 Millionen Deutsche benutzen keine Konsole. Klick dich nicht weg! -- Eine Initiative des Bundesamtes für Tastaturbenutzung signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 10:12:26PM +0200, Mate Nagy wrote: > Hi, > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:40:48PM +0200, ilf wrote: > > On 06-08 12:13, Bert Münnich wrote: > > >>i dont think this is a task for an image viewer. we should > > >>probably write an ssetroot or so linking against imlib2 and > > >>allowing opaque colors like xsetroot does.. > I think developing another X background setter would make sense in only > one scenario: if it finally had decent support for xinerama. Because > currently there is _no_ _such_ _thing_. How about bgs? http://s01.de/~tox/index.cgi/proj_bgs -- # Petr Sabata pgp1ff1tydEzV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed 08 Jun 2011 10:11:52 PM PDT, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:50:14 -0700 "Suraj N. Kurapati" wrote: > > [2]: http://www.fial.com/~scott/tamsyn-font/ > > If I may say so on brief acquaintance with it, that's a well-made > bitmap font, that is. Indeed, Tamsyn is the fairest monospaced font of them all, IMHO. :-) -- Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult. -- R.S. Barton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:47:02 +0100 Connor Lane Smith wrote: > On 8 June 2011 21:39, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > > Incidentally, I compared executable sizes of curl wget and p9p hget the > > other day, finding hget to be larger than curl. Maybe it's the p9p libs, > > but Plan 9 hget is about as large. > > P9P executables are huge. It's ridiculous. I suspect the reason P9's > hget is a similar size is that it is statically linked? It is statically linked. P9P execs are statically linked with the P9P libraries too.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:50:14 -0700 "Suraj N. Kurapati" wrote: > On Wed 08 Jun 2011 09:26:08 PM PDT, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 19:09:25 +0200 pancake wrote: > > > White background terminals harm my eyes. > > > > > > I cant think on anybody spending lot of time on a white > > > background terminal. Its anti natural. > > > > I've been through a lot of (old) screens and I have to say it > > depends on screen and font. > > I agree. Newer trends, like the Solarized color scheme[1], seem to > favor thick fonts with supplemental anti-aliasing, such as DejaVu > Sans Mono. Using bitmapped and inherently aliased fonts, such as > Tamsyn[2], with such color schemes is not as good[3]. Instead, I > find that they are much easier to read on a dark background[4]. > > [1]: http://ethanschoonover.com/solarized > [2]: http://www.fial.com/~scott/tamsyn-font/ > [3]: http://ompldr.org/vOHo2Nw > [4]: http://ompldr.org/vOHo2YQ > > -- > E Pluribus Unix If I may say so on brief acquaintance with it, that's a well-made bitmap font, that is.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed 08 Jun 2011 09:26:08 PM PDT, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 19:09:25 +0200 pancake wrote: > > White background terminals harm my eyes. > > > > I cant think on anybody spending lot of time on a white > > background terminal. Its anti natural. > > I've been through a lot of (old) screens and I have to say it > depends on screen and font. I agree. Newer trends, like the Solarized color scheme[1], seem to favor thick fonts with supplemental anti-aliasing, such as DejaVu Sans Mono. Using bitmapped and inherently aliased fonts, such as Tamsyn[2], with such color schemes is not as good[3]. Instead, I find that they are much easier to read on a dark background[4]. [1]: http://ethanschoonover.com/solarized [2]: http://www.fial.com/~scott/tamsyn-font/ [3]: http://ompldr.org/vOHo2Nw [4]: http://ompldr.org/vOHo2YQ -- E Pluribus Unix signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 8 June 2011 21:39, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > Incidentally, I compared executable sizes of curl wget and p9p hget the other > day, finding hget to be larger than curl. Maybe it's the p9p libs, but Plan 9 > hget is about as large. P9P executables are huge. It's ridiculous. I suspect the reason P9's hget is a similar size is that it is statically linked? cls
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:52:23 +0100 Nick wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:09:38AM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > > It's also good for unpacking archives, I much prefer its zoom-to-unpack to > > mucking about with tar (or especially zip,) although it's not as clean as > > p9's `hget url | gunzip | tar -x`. > > you know you can do something like > `curl url | zcat | tar x` or `wget -O - url | zcat | tar x` > on any respectable unix variant, right? zcat isn't quite so clean as having gunzip work properly in a filter, but yeah. Incidentally, I compared executable sizes of curl wget and p9p hget the other day, finding hget to be larger than curl. Maybe it's the p9p libs, but Plan 9 hget is about as large.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 19:09:25 +0200 pancake wrote: > White background terminals harm my eyes. > > I cant think on anybody spending lot of time on a white background terminal. > Its anti natural. I've been through a lot of (old) screens and I have to say it depends on screen and font. Still, I really don't think full brightness white should be used for anything other than image highlights, but it's far too late to convert the world to that.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Hi, On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:40:48PM +0200, ilf wrote: > On 06-08 12:13, Bert Münnich wrote: > >>i dont think this is a task for an image viewer. we should > >>probably write an ssetroot or so linking against imlib2 and > >>allowing opaque colors like xsetroot does.. I think developing another X background setter would make sense in only one scenario: if it finally had decent support for xinerama. Because currently there is _no_ _such_ _thing_. regards, Mate
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 06-08 12:13, Bert Münnich wrote: i dont think this is a task for an image viewer. we should probably write an ssetroot or so linking against imlib2 and allowing opaque colors like xsetroot does.. Yay! but well.. changing the background is not something we do everyday unless you have any kind of mental disease.. My background is set in .xinitrc, and I start (and quit) X several times a day. In the meantime, have a look at imlibsetroot: http://robotmonkeys.net/2010/08/03/imlibsetroot-1-3/ "imlibsetroot is pretty much Esetroot, but *much* more feature rich." http://robotmonkeys.net/2010/03/30/imlibsetroot/ -- ilf Über 80 Millionen Deutsche benutzen keine Konsole. Klick dich nicht weg! -- Eine Initiative des Bundesamtes für Tastaturbenutzung signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:32:43AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > it is impossible to rename a file Har. Yes, sometimes I want to to rename some arbitrarily named files.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 8 June 2011 09:32, Kurt H Maier wrote: > it is impossible to rename a file > O wow, I definitely missed the sarcasm here, was about to say > rename(2) ? I must be tired.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Noah Birnel wrote: > Really? You never work with files created and named by other people? And > all of the files you see fit a universal naming scheme that is machine > sortable across all interesting selections? I wonder why your computer > needs you at all, once you've written a script for it to solipsisticly > touch, sort, and unlink rationally named files. it is impossible to rename a file -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:45:11PM +0800, Patrick Haller wrote: > file manager > = file selection + file (pre)viewing > = ls/awk/$EDITOR + i_give_my_files_retarded_names > => fix your naming convention > Really? You never work with files created and named by other people? And all of the files you see fit a universal naming scheme that is machine sortable across all interesting selections? I wonder why your computer needs you at all, once you've written a script for it to solipsisticly touch, sort, and unlink rationally named files. --Noah
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 06/08/11 14:43, Mate Nagy wrote: I like to change my background to a random color every 2-10ms; it's http://dagobah.net/flash/epilepsy-with-nice-music.swf http://lolcathost.org/
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
>I like to change my background to a random color every 2-10ms; it's >easier on the eyes than the plain black I used formerly, especially >with my transparent terminals. I hate to say it but this makes some sense. However, the tools to use to get it right are already around (cron+xsetroot+sh), so I would ignore this corner usecase.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
> I like to change my background to a random color every 2-10ms; it's http://dagobah.net/flash/epilepsy-with-nice-music.swf
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, pancake wrote: > changing the background is not something we do everyday unless > you have any kind of mental disease.. I like to change my background to a random color every 2-10ms; it's easier on the eyes than the plain black I used formerly, especially with my transparent terminals. --Andrew Hills
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 08.06.11, pancake wrote: > On 06/08/11 11:49, ilf wrote: > >On 06-08 11:23, Yoshi Rokuko wrote: > >>>sxiv is my image viewer of choice, currently... > >>>http://github.com/muennich/sxiv > >>thank you for pointing out - i immediately?switched from feh to > >>sxiv it's so much better and tiling friendly ... > > > >I use feh only for --bg-center, any way to do that with sxiv? > > > i dont think this is a task for an image viewer. we should probably > write an ssetroot or so linking against imlib2 and allowing opaque > colors like xsetroot does.. I second this. I will not add any bg setting routine to sxiv. > but well.. changing the background is not something we do everyday > unless you have any kind of mental disease..so probably we can just > embed the jpg/gif/png inside the same program at compile time. So > load time is much shorter because it just have to dump the buffer to > X, no need to uncompress or so. and if we place the image buffer > aligned in memory it should load even faster. > > What do you think? In the meantime, have a look at imlibsetroot: http://robotmonkeys.net/2010/08/03/imlibsetroot-1-3/ Bert
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 06/08/11 11:49, ilf wrote: On 06-08 11:23, Yoshi Rokuko wrote: sxiv is my image viewer of choice, currently... http://github.com/muennich/sxiv thank you for pointing out - i immediately?switched from feh to sxiv it's so much better and tiling friendly ... I use feh only for --bg-center, any way to do that with sxiv? i dont think this is a task for an image viewer. we should probably write an ssetroot or so linking against imlib2 and allowing opaque colors like xsetroot does.. but well.. changing the background is not something we do everyday unless you have any kind of mental disease..so probably we can just embed the jpg/gif/png inside the same program at compile time. So load time is much shorter because it just have to dump the buffer to X, no need to uncompress or so. and if we place the image buffer aligned in memory it should load even faster. What do you think? you can configure an sxiv keybinding to compile "ssetroot" with the given image and execute it. anybody wanna write a PoC? --pancake
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 06-08 11:23, Yoshi Rokuko wrote: sxiv is my image viewer of choice, currently... http://github.com/muennich/sxiv thank you for pointing out - i immediately?switched from feh to sxiv it's so much better and tiling friendly ... I use feh only for --bg-center, any way to do that with sxiv? -- ilf Über 80 Millionen Deutsche benutzen keine Konsole. Klick dich nicht weg! -- Eine Initiative des Bundesamtes für Tastaturbenutzung signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
+-- Petr Sabata ---+ > > sxiv is my image viewer of choice, currently... > > http://github.com/muennich/sxiv > thank you for pointing out - i immediatelyÂswitched from feh to sxiv it's so much better and tiling friendly ...
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Noah Birnel writes: > So a suckless file manager would maybe throw away the whole file manager > concept and have a sort of dmenu-like multiple file selector? This patch may be useful: http://tools.suckless.org/dmenu/patches/multiselect_and_newline -- \ Troels /\ Henriksen
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
+ pancake ---+ > > White background terminals harm my eyes. > > I cant think on anybody spending lot of time on a white background terminal. > Its anti natural. > no for me it is not, i'm using black on white for a long time now: UXTerm*foreground: black UXTerm*background: white UXTerm*cursorColor:red UXTerm*font: -*-terminus-medium-r-*-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:09:38AM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > It's also good for unpacking archives, I much prefer its zoom-to-unpack to > mucking about with tar (or especially zip,) although it's not as clean as > p9's `hget url | gunzip | tar -x`. you know you can do something like `curl url | zcat | tar x` or `wget -O - url | zcat | tar x` on any respectable unix variant, right?
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 06/07/11 19:44, Andreas Wagner wrote: I like dmenfm (dmenu based file manager): https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=2&p=1 yay, looks like a nice tool. but: - it's bash, should be rewritten to be posix - there's spaguettis in the file opening code - doesnt honor default unix environ (EDITOR...) - dinamic configuration of dmenu colors is just sucky those changes will make dmenfm much more simpler and clean. --pancake
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
I can only say: Wow! it's 2088LOC..but it's config.h friendly, simple, clean and fast. x)) thanks for noticing, im gonna package it in slpm On 06/08/11 08:05, Petr Sabata wrote: On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:34:00PM +0200, pancake wrote: If you need thumbs use an image viewer. Gqview works quite well for this. sxiv is my image viewer of choice, currently... http://github.com/muennich/sxiv
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:01:10AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:57:40PM +0800, Patrick Haller wrote: > > > > define $EDITOR then ^x^e > > I guess this is just something bash-specific? yeah, edit the current command using $EDITOR file manager = file selection + file (pre)viewing = ls/awk/$EDITOR + i_give_my_files_retarded_names => fix your naming convention Patrick
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:34:00PM +0200, pancake wrote: > If you need thumbs use an image viewer. Gqview works quite well for this. > sxiv is my image viewer of choice, currently... http://github.com/muennich/sxiv -- # Petr Sabata pgpmcotAqOQJu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:57:40PM +0800, Patrick Haller wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:03:06PM -0700, Noah Birnel wrote: > > ls >listing && vim listing && mv `cat listing` dest > > define $EDITOR then ^x^e I guess this is just something bash-specific? -- # Petr Sabata pgpfZqzUqtb6n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:03:06PM -0700, Noah Birnel wrote: > ls >listing && vim listing && mv `cat listing` dest define $EDITOR then ^x^e Patrick
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 04:25:40PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> With the exception of image thumbnails, icons are really completely pointless.
>
+1
> My thoughts on a suckless file manager, though my file manager is 'ls':
>
> Orthodox: two paned, plus command line. At compile time you just
> define commands like,
> { CTRL('m'), "mv $+ $@" }
> You select a bunch of files on the left, navigate to a directory on
> the left, and hit C-m. Simple, effective. It's not amazing, but it
> would do its job.
>
Can of worms. There's always another damn command, or another archive
format. And the user must learn what is essentially another shell.
I was looking for a tolerable file manager for a long time, and found
nothing fast and simple enough - lfm was closest. I realized that
from the shell, all I (occaisionally) miss in an fm is the ability to
quickly select an arbitrary group of files to operate on. Not scriptable
/ machine stuff like
mv chapter-[0-9][0-9].pdf dest/
but human stuff like
mv chapter-02.pdf chapter-16.pdf appendix.pdf dest/
Obviously tab-completion makes that quick and easy, but for longer lists my
non-fm solution is a little tedious:
ls >listing && vim listing && mv `cat listing` dest
So a suckless file manager would maybe throw away the whole file manager
concept and have a sort of dmenu-like multiple file selector? I suppose
zenity could do this, but it's hardly suckless.
Proposed man page snippets:
NAME
sfm -- suckless file manager
SYNOPSIS
sfm [-av] [directory]
DESCRIPTION
sfm pops up a dmenu-like selector where multiple filenames can be
selected and printed to standard out. Click or tab selects, Esc
cancels, return submits.
By default sfm shows the current directory and does not show
dotfiles.
Example of use would be:
mv `sfm` dest_dir/
--Noah
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:13:28 +0100 Rob wrote: > I like rox, I used to use thunar but it stopped loading thumbnails, > which is the only reason I use a file manager, so I switched. IMO, rox > without all the desktop-panel extras is good enough. When not looking at > thumbnails though, coreutils do the job fine. I wouldn't have thought of mentioning it on this list but if it's thumbnails you're after, I found Eagle Mode hard to beat. It's a medium-large C++ app but navigation is far faster than with any other file manager I've ever used and the file manager buttons all run simple Perl scripts. (Actually I think they can use any interpreter.) You can zoom right into pictures which is useful in cases where the thumbnail isn't so helpful. As well as pictures it displays text files, although I don't find the columnar layout easy to navigate. Still, I've had quite a bit of use out of this feature. The biggest problem is it's not so hot if you have a very large number of pictures in one dir; using it becomes less efficient. Conversely it can be good with extremely long text files. It's also good for unpacking archives, I much prefer its zoom-to-unpack to mucking about with tar (or especially zip,) although it's not as clean as p9's `hget url | gunzip | tar -x`.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Ok the last mail to the list,is proof that all smartphones suck... What are the thoughts on 'pilot ' alpones file manager (its available as a standalone app iirc) Jase On 7 Jun 2011 20:29, "Hootiegibbon" wrote: > On 7 Jun 2011 18:45, "Andreas Wagner" wrote: > > I like dmenfm (dmenu b... > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Le Tian wrote: > Continuing these threads abo...
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 7 Jun 2011 18:45, "Andreas Wagner" wrote: I like dmenfm (dmenu based file manager): https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=2&p=1 On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Le Tian wrote: > Continuing these threads abo...
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
I like dmenfm (dmenu based file manager): https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=2&p=1 On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Le Tian wrote: > Continuing these threads about suckless "anything" > I've been looking quite a long time for fast and lightweight file manager > for dwm. There are occasions, when u need to see or show some lovely icons. > MC and derivatives are the last resort here. I liked pcmanfm, but it just > lacks functionality. Rox-filer is nice, but then again I needed something > else. Recently I've installed Xfe, and it looks like I'm pretty happy with > it. > Xfe has decent configuration options and decent look. So I wonder, is there > any chance that we shall see a suckless file manager in the future? Does > anybody plan or think about developing it? > (Just a thought) > -- > Tian >
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
White background terminals harm my eyes. I cant think on anybody spending lot of time on a white background terminal. Its anti natural. As a funny note. All non-advanced users tell me that this black terminal have aome text they cant delete. (the prompt) Looks like the plan9 terminal will be more usable or at least more logical to people not used to terminals. Another point is that a friend of me who is a designer explained me the reason why white bg with black text is better for reading .. But I cant still realize this is a good reason.. Maybe i cant switch because i started typing on black terminals on 40x25 screens many years ago. The first white bg terminal was on a apple quadra 650 running netbsd. It was the most painful experience with a slow framebuffer terminal. But managed to compile gdb after 3 days of compilation (most of the time was running the configure scripts..) but thats another story.. On 07/06/2011, at 18:01, Le Tian wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Benjamin R. Haskell > wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Le Tian wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > > [...] (I find inverting the colours actually helps to a worrying degree.) > > > Interesting... Yeah, "I find inverting the colours actually helps to a > worrying degree." I think this should be a default in all linux distros, due > a phycological factor.) > > Inverting the colors = light text on dark background? > > And the dark background is less scary? I'd have expected the opposite, but > maybe I've been conditioned by movies to think that dark terminals are > 'leet'. To me, light backgrounds feel warmer and more natural, dark ones > feel more cold and mechanical. > > -- > Best, > Ben > > I thought he meant light background and dark font. This actually was > implemented in opensuse, when I just started my journey with linux. Suse KDE > konsole has light background by default. And it feels less tense I guess) > -- > Tian > >
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 7 June 2011 17:01, Le Tian wrote: > > And the dark background is less scary? I'd have expected the opposite > > I thought he meant light background and dark font. Indeed. This is how it is in Plan 9 and OS X, too. I used dark-on-light for a while, actually, and it just didn't feel right. Maybe I'm just used to light-on-dark. (I usually use greys on either extreme.) People who use green on black, on the other hand... -.-; cls
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Le Tian wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: >> >> [...] (I find inverting the colours actually helps to a worrying degree.) >>> >>> >>> Interesting... Yeah, "I find inverting the colours actually helps to a >> worrying degree." I think this should be a default in all linux distros, >> due a phycological factor.) >> > > Inverting the colors = light text on dark background? > > And the dark background is less scary? I'd have expected the opposite, but > maybe I've been conditioned by movies to think that dark terminals are > 'leet'. To me, light backgrounds feel warmer and more natural, dark ones > feel more cold and mechanical. > > -- > Best, > Ben > > I thought he meant light background and dark font. This actually was implemented in opensuse, when I just started my journey with linux. Suse KDE konsole has light background by default. And it feels less tense I guess) -- Tian
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Le Tian wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: [...] (I find inverting the colours actually helps to a worrying degree.) Interesting... Yeah, "I find inverting the colours actually helps to a worrying degree." I think this should be a default in all linux distros, due a phycological factor.) Inverting the colors = light text on dark background? And the dark background is less scary? I'd have expected the opposite, but maybe I've been conditioned by movies to think that dark terminals are 'leet'. To me, light backgrounds feel warmer and more natural, dark ones feel more cold and mechanical. -- Best, Ben
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Jakub Lach wrote: > pancake wrote: > > > What's phycology? > > Oh, well.. Wikipedia informs: "the scientific studies of algae" > > Hey! Just because they can't use terminal does not mean > they're algae. That could be somebody's mother you > know. > > lol, but anyway, the question was, whether or not suckless.org will have its own suckless file manager. ranger seems pretty neat choice imho. -- Tian
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
pancake wrote: > What's phycology? > Oh, well.. Wikipedia informs: "the scientific studies of algae" Hey! Just because they can't use terminal does not mean they're algae. That could be somebody's mother you know.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 6/7/11, pancake wrote: > What's phycology? > > Oh, well.. Wikipedia informs: "the scientific studies of algae" > No.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
What's phycology?
Oh, well.. Wikipedia informs: "the scientific studies of algae"
On 07/06/2011, at 17:32, Le Tian wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 7 June 2011 15:53, Le Tian wrote:
> > There are occasions, when u need to see or show some lovely icons.
>
> With the exception of image thumbnails, icons are really completely pointless.
>
> On 7 June 2011 16:17, Le Tian wrote:
> > like a girlfriend, she needs icons and stuff
>
> Yeah, it's well-known that females can't read, and rely on pictures
> instead... No, don't be silly, she doesn't need icons, people
> unfamiliar with shells just find the terminal intimidating. Once they
> get over that fear it's really no problem. (I find inverting the
> colours actually helps to a worrying degree.)
>
> My thoughts on a suckless file manager, though my file manager is 'ls':
>
> Orthodox: two paned, plus command line. At compile time you just
> define commands like,
>{ CTRL('m'), "mv $+ $@" }
> You select a bunch of files on the left, navigate to a directory on
> the left, and hit C-m. Simple, effective. It's not amazing, but it
> would do its job.
>
> cls
>
> Interesting... Yeah, "I find inverting the colours actually helps to a
> worrying degree." I think this should be a default in all linux distros, due
> a phycological factor.)
> --
> Tian
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:17:32AM -0400, Le Tian wrote: > Yes, icons are not efficient, but there are cases, when not only you will > use the pc, like a girlfriend, she needs icons and stuff). I think it's a > bad habit of a windows user, to see everything in rows of thumbs. But still > like clicking a video file with a mouse in a file manager, when editing > happens only in console. If your girlfriend uses your pc and got problems with suckless/non-bloated software then get her a parallel setup of debian/arch/.. with a nice KDE/Gnome. (works quite fine over here ;)) v4hn pgp7gj5uj6EK4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Another filemanager is vim. But i dont really use it. Shell is superior in all aspects. On 07/06/2011, at 17:17, Le Tian wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM, pancake wrote: > I've never felt the need of seeing files as icons. It's just inneficient and > useless. > > Many years ago i wrote 'canoe' a lightweight filemanager in gtk. I did it for > the n770.. So clicking on icons is better than Using the shitty onscreen > keyboard that n770 had > > It has some segfaults, and supports icon themes and virtual filesystems > implemented in shellscript. > > Check out the source as always in my http://hg.youterm.com/canoe repo > > On 07/06/2011, at 17:00, Jakub Lach wrote: > > >> Xfe, > > > > I'm waiting for suckless BonziBUDDY. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, icons are not efficient, but there are cases, when not only you will use > the pc, like a girlfriend, she needs icons and stuff). I think it's a bad > habit of a windows user, to see everything in rows of thumbs. But still like > clicking a video file with a mouse in a file manager, when editing happens > only in console. > -- > Tian
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
If you need thumbs use an image viewer. Gqview works quite well for this. For other file formats i dont see any reason to use thumbnails. Maybe to easily see the mimetype or file extension more graphically.. Buy if you can sort or glob files like canoe does its much more efficient than having to analyze all the files everytime. The osx thumbnailing is just as amazing as inception.. You can play media or read pdfs (passing pages) when zooming the thumbnail. Its just unnecesary. But works fast. But certainly. The nextstep filemanager is probably one of thr worst i have ever tried unless you have a multitouch trackpad. So, it sucks even more. On 07/06/2011, at 17:17, Le Tian wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM, pancake wrote: > I've never felt the need of seeing files as icons. It's just inneficient and > useless. > > Many years ago i wrote 'canoe' a lightweight filemanager in gtk. I did it for > the n770.. So clicking on icons is better than Using the shitty onscreen > keyboard that n770 had > > It has some segfaults, and supports icon themes and virtual filesystems > implemented in shellscript. > > Check out the source as always in my http://hg.youterm.com/canoe repo > > On 07/06/2011, at 17:00, Jakub Lach wrote: > > >> Xfe, > > > > I'm waiting for suckless BonziBUDDY. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, icons are not efficient, but there are cases, when not only you will use > the pc, like a girlfriend, she needs icons and stuff). I think it's a bad > habit of a windows user, to see everything in rows of thumbs. But still like > clicking a video file with a mouse in a file manager, when editing happens > only in console. > -- > Tian
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 7 June 2011 15:53, Le Tian wrote:
> > There are occasions, when u need to see or show some lovely icons.
>
> With the exception of image thumbnails, icons are really completely
> pointless.
>
> On 7 June 2011 16:17, Le Tian wrote:
> > like a girlfriend, she needs icons and stuff
>
> Yeah, it's well-known that females can't read, and rely on pictures
> instead... No, don't be silly, she doesn't need icons, people
> unfamiliar with shells just find the terminal intimidating. Once they
> get over that fear it's really no problem. (I find inverting the
> colours actually helps to a worrying degree.)
>
> My thoughts on a suckless file manager, though my file manager is 'ls':
>
> Orthodox: two paned, plus command line. At compile time you just
> define commands like,
>{ CTRL('m'), "mv $+ $@" }
> You select a bunch of files on the left, navigate to a directory on
> the left, and hit C-m. Simple, effective. It's not amazing, but it
> would do its job.
>
> cls
>
> Interesting... Yeah, "I find inverting the colours actually helps to a
worrying degree." I think this should be a default in all linux distros,
due a phycological factor.)
--
Tian
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Hey,
On 7 June 2011 15:53, Le Tian wrote:
> There are occasions, when u need to see or show some lovely icons.
With the exception of image thumbnails, icons are really completely pointless.
On 7 June 2011 16:17, Le Tian wrote:
> like a girlfriend, she needs icons and stuff
Yeah, it's well-known that females can't read, and rely on pictures
instead... No, don't be silly, she doesn't need icons, people
unfamiliar with shells just find the terminal intimidating. Once they
get over that fear it's really no problem. (I find inverting the
colours actually helps to a worrying degree.)
My thoughts on a suckless file manager, though my file manager is 'ls':
Orthodox: two paned, plus command line. At compile time you just
define commands like,
{ CTRL('m'), "mv $+ $@" }
You select a bunch of files on the left, navigate to a directory on
the left, and hit C-m. Simple, effective. It's not amazing, but it
would do its job.
cls
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM, pancake wrote: > I've never felt the need of seeing files as icons. It's just inneficient > and useless. > > Many years ago i wrote 'canoe' a lightweight filemanager in gtk. I did it > for the n770.. So clicking on icons is better than Using the shitty onscreen > keyboard that n770 had > > It has some segfaults, and supports icon themes and virtual filesystems > implemented in shellscript. > > Check out the source as always in my http://hg.youterm.com/canoe repo > > On 07/06/2011, at 17:00, Jakub Lach wrote: > > >> Xfe, > > > > I'm waiting for suckless BonziBUDDY. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, icons are not efficient, but there are cases, when not only you will use the pc, like a girlfriend, she needs icons and stuff). I think it's a bad habit of a windows user, to see everything in rows of thumbs. But still like clicking a video file with a mouse in a file manager, when editing happens only in console. -- Tian
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On 7 June 2011 15:53, Le Tian wrote: > Continuing these threads about suckless "anything" > I've been looking quite a long time for fast and lightweight file manager > for dwm. There are occasions, when u need to see or show some lovely icons. > MC and derivatives are the last resort here. I liked pcmanfm, but it just > lacks functionality. Rox-filer is nice, but then again I needed something > else. Recently I've installed Xfe, and it looks like I'm pretty happy with > it. > Xfe has decent configuration options and decent look. So I wonder, is there > any chance that we shall see a suckless file manager in the future? Does > anybody plan or think about developing it? > (Just a thought) I like rox, I used to use thunar but it stopped loading thumbnails, which is the only reason I use a file manager, so I switched. IMO, rox without all the desktop-panel extras is good enough. When not looking at thumbnails though, coreutils do the job fine.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
I've never felt the need of seeing files as icons. It's just inneficient and useless. Many years ago i wrote 'canoe' a lightweight filemanager in gtk. I did it for the n770.. So clicking on icons is better than Using the shitty onscreen keyboard that n770 had It has some segfaults, and supports icon themes and virtual filesystems implemented in shellscript. Check out the source as always in my http://hg.youterm.com/canoe repo On 07/06/2011, at 17:00, Jakub Lach wrote: >> Xfe, > > I'm waiting for suckless BonziBUDDY. > > > >
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
> Xfe, I'm waiting for suckless BonziBUDDY.
Re: [dev] ideas on suckless file manager
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:53:03 -0400 Le Tian wrote: > Continuing these threads about suckless "anything" > I've been looking quite a long time for fast and lightweight file > manager for dwm. There are occasions, when u need to see or show some > lovely icons. MC and derivatives are the last resort here. I liked > pcmanfm, but it just lacks functionality. Rox-filer is nice, but then > again I needed something else. Recently I've installed Xfe, and it > looks like I'm pretty happy with it. > Xfe has decent configuration options and decent look. So I wonder, is > there any chance that we shall see a suckless file manager in the > future? Does anybody plan or think about developing it? > (Just a thought) ranger is quite okay. http://ranger.nongnu.org/ though it's limited by the typical shell/terminal limitations we've talked about earlier (i.e. previewing images is done with an external tool, which uses inefficient conversion to vague escape-character-based terminal sequences) Dieter
[dev] ideas on suckless file manager
Continuing these threads about suckless "anything" I've been looking quite a long time for fast and lightweight file manager for dwm. There are occasions, when u need to see or show some lovely icons. MC and derivatives are the last resort here. I liked pcmanfm, but it just lacks functionality. Rox-filer is nice, but then again I needed something else. Recently I've installed Xfe, and it looks like I'm pretty happy with it. Xfe has decent configuration options and decent look. So I wonder, is there any chance that we shall see a suckless file manager in the future? Does anybody plan or think about developing it? (Just a thought) -- Tian
