Re: [gentoo-user] Awesome vs Xmonad
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:52:37 +0530 Man Shankar wrote: > On 09:39 Wed 17 Dec , Gregory SACRE wrote: > > One of the other things I really like in awesome, it's the fact that > > you can mix up tiling windows and floating ones. You can define, for > > certain window titles in the configuration file, the fact that they > > are floating. Then, when you start them, they appear as floating > > windows and not tiled as the rest of them. This is pretty much > > interesting for applications such as Skype, gitk, mplayer, ... > > As for other tiling wm, you can also assign tags (sort of virtual > > desktops) to window titles so when you start it, it goes directly > > there, leaving your actual tag clean with what you were doing. > > That is a required feature because some stupid programs dont go well > with the tiling concept. Another neat feature i found in default > xmonad was the fact that there was no gap between adjacent windows. I > am sure awesome should be able to do that as well, just that the > default conf doesnt. But, then again i really haven't dug in. > Look at point 3.3 in http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ Like Gregory, I really like awesome but I have never tried xmonad. However I have recently switched from Ion3. Cheers, Dede
Re: [gentoo-user] Modelling software - free - preferably easy to install under Gentoo.
Hi Steve, Personally I really like Numpy/Scipy: http://www.scipy.org/ with Matplotlib for 2D graphs. They have all ebuilds for Gentoo but you need to edit your /etc/portage/package.keywords to emerge. I understand your feeling, if you do not really know what you need, the batteries included of Python are for you. Moreover Python has R bindings so it's a very flexible solution. Best regards, Dede On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:15:24 +0100 "Steve [Gentoo]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have some (say 100) discrete data sequences sampling a single > analogue system with time-stamp data. > > I would like to do some analysis on these signals to see if there are > any interesting things that can be demonstrated - for example, if I > could show a strong correlation in the signals between two times, but > none at other times, I might be able to conclude that there was > communication of some description, but only for a fixed duration. > > At the moment I'm open minded about what kind of software I'd want to > employ - and also about what I'd like to prove. Essentially, I'd like > to analyse the data for features - then ask if they correspond with > system events I'm already broadly aware about (rather than > vice-versa.) > > Can anyone point me in the right direction, please? > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
