Re: [dev] [slock] kill slock with Ctrl+Alt+Multiply
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:53:22 +0100, ilf wrote: > It's reported, that X.Org 1.10.99.902 introduced the possibility to kill > the top X.org window via keybinding Ctrl+Alt+Multiply. I don't have a > current X.Org on this box, but it reportedly works for slock 0.9: > > http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2012/q1/191 > http://gu1.aeroxteam.fr/2012/01/19/bypass-screensaver-locker-program-xorg-111-and-up/ > Don't worry, it only works if you have *physical* access. Wait, what? Confirmed... :< > -- > ilf > > Über 80 Millionen Deutsche benutzen keine Konsole. Klick dich nicht weg! > -- Eine Initiative des Bundesamtes für Tastaturbenutzung Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] interested in issue tracker dev
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:54:58 +0100, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > mail sucks > It may very well be because I'm awake since yesterday, but (taking into account the message you replied to) that was goddamn hilarious! Thanks! Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:46:53 +0200, Jakub Lach wrote: > Dnia 28 października 2011 14:17 hiro > <23h...@googlemail.com> napisał(a): > > > And they discourage compiling > > your own stuff IIRC. > > "Watching shit scroll by for hours makes > me a Linux expert overnight!" > Now you're just being ridiculous. Everyone knows that the only way to become a true expert overnight is by piping your kernel to aplay and listening to it while you sleep. Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:29:24 -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Pieter Praet wrote: > > And I absolutely agree that for most FOSS projects, grokking the source > > is rather unlikely to have a positive ROI re time and effort, so > > > And that's why suckless.org is important. Captain Obvious? It's *you* ?!? ;) > -- > # Kurt H Maier > Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:41:21 -0400, "Michael P. Soulier" wrote: > On 28/10/11 Pieter Praet said: > > > When acquiring *any* type of technology (in the very broad sense of the > > word), you should either make an effort to educate yourself regarding > > available options, usage and maintenance, or reimburse someone to do it > > all for you. > > > > If you refuse to do either of those, you lose every right to complain, > > because most (if not all) problems you encounter will be the product of > > your own intentional ignorance. > > I'll say one thing regarding this, as I mostly agree. When it comes to > open source software, I do find the accompanying documentation often rather > lacking, especially in decent examples. And "use the source" doesn't cut it. > My time is not infinite. > > I often find that the first contribution that I can make to an open source > project is in documentation, because the authors are so often unwilling to do > it, or can't author decent docs to save their lives. > True. This is part of educating yourself re available options (by which I mean implementations). It's *always* a matter of cost-effectiveness analysis. And I absolutely agree that for most FOSS projects, grokking the source is rather unlikely to have a positive ROI re time and effort, so additional motives (knowledge, fun, security, the ability to contribute) are required to make it worth your while. > Without documentation I don't blame anyone if they move on to software that > has it. > No sensible person would. > Cheers, > Mike Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:41:52 +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote: > [...] I think that if generations of people use windows, > this acclimatization also slowly grows in their DNA, So, only a matter of time before this becomes reality: - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ > [...] > > Dieter > Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:47:34 +0200, Manolo Martínez wrote: > On 10/28/11 at 01:35pm, hiro wrote: > > > That's because Ubuntu sucks only marginally less than Windows > > > > > > > Huh? Ubuntu sucks a lot more. > > I'm just a user of some suckless software, but anyway: if "suck" in this > thread > is used with the semi-technical sense of "not abiding by the suckless > philosophy", > then Windows, by concealing the source code entirely, sucks way more than > Ubuntu, which encourages the occasional foray into the terminal emulator, and > the occasional compile. > My thoughts exactly. > I believe it's likely that many people have reached a point in which the > suckless philosophy > makes sense for them by starting with Ubuntu -- I'm one of them. > Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:46:50 -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Troels Henriksen wrote: > > from the purview of the average computer user. > > this is the biggest part of why he's an asshole. if you're not > willing to learn how to use a computer don't buy a computer. if your > biggest complaint about a piece of software is "I can't immediately > use it" then you are an asshole, full stop. > > > You guys disagree with his views, but apparently from > > the perspective of an entirely different class of a user than he's > > trying to talk about. > > since his views are fundamentally flawed, all conclusions he reaches > based on those views are tainted. he specifically says gstreamer > would be fine if everyone used it. this is patently false, just as > how theft would still be wrong even if everyone in the world had a go. > > > Why not respond with "I don't care about the > > problem he's talking about" rather than ranting about how his arguments > > are all wrong when you apply them to something completely different than > > what he's talking about? > > because it's not just that the things he says are wrong. the things > he thinks are wrong, the methodology by which he draws conclusions is > wrong, and the very fact that he was given a podium is wrong. he is a > complete and utter tool, totally devoid of worth, and nothing he said > in that entire presentation was in the slightest bit interesting, > correct, or useful. > > does that clear anything up? > +1 > -- > # Kurt H Maier > Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:18:18 +0200, Troels Henriksen wrote: > Kurt H Maier writes: > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Guilherme Lino wrote: > >> > >> yeah but the true is that a linux desktop is almost useless for a normal > >> person > > > > who the fuck cares about normal people? > > The person who made the talk, obviously. [...] No he doesn't. The norm appears to be "pay for overpriced slick'n'shiny clickety-click retard-proof software, and call tech support screaming murder when product X somehow ate your collection of lolcat pictures because you forgot that electronics don't like diet coke". The person who made the talk is one of those people who cares about getting all of the above, *without* paying the price. <- important nuance > [...]I don't get the cognitive > dissonance here - someone writes a (shallow, I'll give you that) > analysis of so-called "desktop Linux" from the purview of the average > computer user. You guys disagree with his views, but apparently from > the perspective of an entirely different class of a user than he's > trying to talk about. Why not respond with "I don't care about the > problem he's talking about" rather than ranting about how his arguments > are all wrong when you apply them to something completely different than > what he's talking about? > There is no such thing as a "different class of a user" [sic]. There's just different approaches to getting your work done, and whichever approach you choose, you're the one who made the choice, so you only have yourself to thank when it sucks: When acquiring *any* type of technology (in the very broad sense of the word), you should either make an effort to educate yourself regarding available options, usage and maintenance, or reimburse someone to do it all for you. If you refuse to do either of those, you lose every right to complain, because most (if not all) problems you encounter will be the product of your own intentional ignorance. And we *do* care about what he said: When people spout illiterate crap in front of an audience (especially a gullible one), it's detrimental to all parties involved (voluntary or otherwise). BS needs to be clearly labelled as such, if only for posterity's sake. > -- > \ Troels > /\ Henriksen > Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:54:12 +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:33:18 +0100 > Guilherme Lino wrote: > > > latex is cool, vim, dwm, but no one out of the professional > > field of computer sience have the time or patience to learn this unix > > philosophy.. > > are you trolling or what? > "nobody will ever need more then 64k of memory".. > now "no professional computer scientist knows the unix philosophy" ? > I may be mistaken, but I think he meant the exact inverse, which is of course equally ludicrous. Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:15:42 -0700, "Suraj N. Kurapati" wrote: > On Thu 27 Oct 2011 05:00:41 PM PDT, Pieter Praet wrote: > > Don't worry, you're not missing out on anything, besides the guy > > making a total fool of himself in front of a totally oblivious > > audience (which is just annoying; no comical value whatsoever). > > Reminds me of a sketch from the IT Crowd: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTBsm0LzSP0 Hehe :D Unfortunately, we most likely won't be getting a 5th season [1]. > -- > Reality is for people who lack imagination. Peace -- Pieter [1] http://chortle.co.uk/news/2011/05/20/13329/thats_the_end_of_it
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:33:18 +0100, Guilherme Lino wrote: > yeah but the true is that a linux desktop is almost useless for a normal > person > s/normal/uninformed Also, see Kurt Maier's response [1]. > i remember first time i used ubuntu. i started a openoffice presentation on > the 4th slide the system was already unusable. And wet back to windows, even > google docs was better for the job. > That's because Ubuntu sucks only marginally less than Windows (whilst at the same time adding a learning curve for people unfamiliar with Linux-based operation systems), and is *in no way* representative of "The Linux Desktop". Besides, "The Linux Desktop" is a term coined by "the industry", in an effort to market their Linux-based offering to useless Windows/MacOS-users who'd rather pick their nose than learn something new, let alone make an actual contribution. > of course latex is cool, vim, dwm, but no one out of the professional field > of computer sience have the time or patience to learn this unix philosophy.. Time is what you *make*, e.g. by not wasting it on the useless crap most "normal" people think (and want *you* to believe) is important. Patience is what you have when you know it'll be worth your while (i.e. by saving you time, effort and frustration in the long run). And neither a job nor a formal education (be it in CS or otherwise) are required to "to learn this unix philosophy" [sic]. If you are capable of reading English, you have all you need to go RTFM. > -- > > > Guilherme Lino Peace -- Pieter [1] id:"camo156nys6ptfy-jb7kt1u+e0n25yoqjn00t9kcsxfipdhe...@mail.gmail.com"
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:49:15 -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Guilherme Lino wrote: > > > > yeah but the true is that a linux desktop is almost useless for a normal > > person > > who the fuck cares about normal people? +1 > > -- > # Kurt H Maier > Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:04:21 +0200, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > You guys are so stupid if you think ./configure is great > Nobody said anything of the like. Are you projecting or something? ;) Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:02:46 +0200, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > "this video is not available" sucks > Don't worry, you're not missing out on anything, besides the guy making a total fool of himself in front of a totally oblivious audience (which is just annoying; no comical value whatsoever). If you're really intent on wasting some time anyway, this works: youtube-dl http://blip.tv/jupiterbroadcasting/why-desktop-linux-sucks-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-2057606 Peace -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Linux sucks!
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:42 +0100, Guilherme Lino wrote: > yo > > fund this.. it kind of old, but it rise some questions > You're absolutely right, it does raise some questions: So, not only did you take this guy's useless drivel seriously, but you actually thought the suckless community would somehow benefit from it? > http://lunduke.com/?p=429 > Before anyone on this list wastes 45 precious minutes, allow me to obliterate any and all expectations one may have: This has *nothing* to do with Linux (i.e. the kernel) whatsoever; It's one of those guys from the Linux Action Show, running his slides in OpenOffice.org, on Ubuntu, with Compiz enabled, all whilst whining about end-luser issues in end-luser distros. Some revealing quotes: @ 03:55 : "Ubuntu likes to update the kernel randomly, seemingly, on me, and then I have to re-apply all my various drivers..." @ 41:56 : "I'm used to my Linux desktop just auto-updating for me, because it's awesome..." @ 17:47 : "[...] in most cases, just to be able to get these video packages to work, you can't use the ones in the repositories anyway, you've gotta build from source... *NOBODY DOES THAT*" > how do you feel about this? Bryan Lunduke needs to use a distro that doesn't target retards, and memorize "./configure && make && make install" before doing any more talks. > -- > > Guilherme Lino Peace -- Pieter
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, 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, 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
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: > 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] Distribution
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:41:24 +0100, Sir Cyrus wrote: > What's the most suckless Linux distribution? > Perhaps not the *most* suckless, but Arch [1] is a very worthy contender IMHO. Their manifesto [2] is very similar to suckless.org's. [1] https://www.archlinux.org/ [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way -- Pieter
Re: [dev] Sup and dmc
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:58:33 -0500, Hank D wrote: > [...] but I really want an email client that isn't total ass. You may find what you're looking for in notmuch [1]. Even if you do somehow come to the conclusion that it's total ass, the amount of ass would still be notmuch. Considerable less than mutt(ch), anyways. Peace -- Pieter [1] http://notmuchmail.org/
