Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/445/ On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Seth Hover wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Kurt H Maier wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:05:09PM +0100, Stefan Mark wrote: >> > This statement has some nice boomerang Irony. >> >> pretty amazing that you don't understand boomerangs OR irony >> > > i bought a boomerang once, and it didn't come back when i threw it. > > talk about a rainy wedding day. > > --sth >
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:05:09PM +0100, Stefan Mark wrote: > > This statement has some nice boomerang Irony. > > pretty amazing that you don't understand boomerangs OR irony > > i bought a boomerang once, and it didn't come back when i threw it. talk about a rainy wedding day. --sth
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:05:09PM +0100, Stefan Mark wrote: > This statement has some nice boomerang Irony. pretty amazing that you don't understand boomerangs OR irony
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On 29 December 2011 05:55, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: > monsterwm[1] is a cool new dwm fork that's currently less than 700 SLOC > while sporting bstack and grid layouts in addition to tile and monocle. > > It's very popular[2] these days on the Arch Linux forums; try it out! :) > > [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=132122 > [2]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/search.php?search_id=966955587 Well dwm without tagging, Xinerama and a status bar would lead to a similar SLOC. Cheers, Anselm
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On 30.12.2011 21:35, Kurt H Maier wrote: > I love arch linux's facility for coralling all the nitwits into one > self-contained forum. It just sucks when some of the retardation leaks > out into the real world. > This statement has some nice boomerang Irony.
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
Happy new Year!! ;) Manolo Martínez schrieb: >On 12/31/11 at 12:02pm, Ryan Mullen wrote: >> > crux is a linux distribution that I hate markedly less than some others, >> > but it's got significant problems of its own -- specifically during >> > installation. when they come up with a test regimen for their >> > perpetually-in-alpha 64-bit release it will be worth another look. >> >> FWIW I've been running 64-bit CRUX for a number of months with no issue. >> >> The devs also have a multilib setup that supposedly works, but I have >> no use for it. >> >> One of the biggest faults of CRUX is their "meh" attitude about >> publicity. People don't want to look at the homepage and see one news >> item per year. >> >> Anyway, I'm enjoying it, and I don't think I'll be going back to Gentoo. >> >I don't know, I like the "rolling distro" deal of Arch. Anyway, this is just to >wish a very happy, quite suckless, New Year to everyone in this very useful, >very friendly -- once you get past the trollish facade -- mailing list. > >Manolo >
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On 12/31/11 at 12:02pm, Ryan Mullen wrote: > > crux is a linux distribution that I hate markedly less than some others, > > but it's got significant problems of its own -- specifically during > > installation. when they come up with a test regimen for their > > perpetually-in-alpha 64-bit release it will be worth another look. > > FWIW I've been running 64-bit CRUX for a number of months with no issue. > > The devs also have a multilib setup that supposedly works, but I have > no use for it. > > One of the biggest faults of CRUX is their "meh" attitude about > publicity. People don't want to look at the homepage and see one news > item per year. > > Anyway, I'm enjoying it, and I don't think I'll be going back to Gentoo. > I don't know, I like the "rolling distro" deal of Arch. Anyway, this is just to wish a very happy, quite suckless, New Year to everyone in this very useful, very friendly -- once you get past the trollish facade -- mailing list. Manolo
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
> crux is a linux distribution that I hate markedly less than some others, > but it's got significant problems of its own -- specifically during > installation. when they come up with a test regimen for their > perpetually-in-alpha 64-bit release it will be worth another look. FWIW I've been running 64-bit CRUX for a number of months with no issue. The devs also have a multilib setup that supposedly works, but I have no use for it. One of the biggest faults of CRUX is their "meh" attitude about publicity. People don't want to look at the homepage and see one news item per year. Anyway, I'm enjoying it, and I don't think I'll be going back to Gentoo.
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
OHAI, > Gentoo sucks ina massive and ponderous way. There really isn't a > 'good' linux distribution. OpenBSD all the way down. -Sime
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 05:47:24PM +0100, uki wrote: > have you tried CRUX? > it's small and less complicated than gentoo/debian (I wouldn't use > word simple, for it still uses some of the more bloated gnu apps) crux is a linux distribution that I hate markedly less than some others, but it's got significant problems of its own -- specifically during installation. when they come up with a test regimen for their perpetually-in-alpha 64-bit release it will be worth another look.
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
have you tried CRUX? it's small and less complicated than gentoo/debian (I wouldn't use word simple, for it still uses some of the more bloated gnu apps) Cheers, Łukasz Gruner 2011/12/31 Kurt H Maier : > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:03:57AM +0100, Manolo Mart�nez wrote: >> >> Genuinely curious: what's the suckless way to Linux then? Gentoo and Gentoo >> only? >> > > Gentoo sucks ina massive and ponderous way. There really isn't a 'good' > linux distribution. >
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:03:57AM +0100, Manolo Mart�nez wrote: > > Genuinely curious: what's the suckless way to Linux then? Gentoo and Gentoo > only? > Gentoo sucks ina massive and ponderous way. There really isn't a 'good' linux distribution.
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
Dnia 31 grudnia 2011 10:03 Manolo Martínez napisał(a): > Genuinely curious: what's the suckless > way to Linux then? Gentoo and Gentoo > only? Are you by any chance writing this using wmii@ Ubuntu?
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On 12/31/11, Manolo Martínez wrote: > On 12/30/11 at 03:35pm, Kurt H Maier wrote: >> I love arch linux's facility for coralling all the nitwits into one >> self-contained forum. It just sucks when some of the retardation leaks >> out into the real world. >> >> I think it would be better if it were called Genbuntoo or something >> so there's less confusion about exactly what sort of idiot should sign >> on. >> > > Genuinely curious: what's the suckless way to Linux then? Gentoo and Gentoo > only? Not likely, though I'm sure there are a few people that use Gentoo. I can recall Kurt voicing his opinions (criticisms) about a few different Linux distros in past discussion on this list, but I can't recall him ever mentioning which one he uses. If I had to guess then.. maybe slackware or one of the BSDs..? I use Debian stable, if it makes any difference.. John
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On 12/30/11 at 03:35pm, Kurt H Maier wrote: > I love arch linux's facility for coralling all the nitwits into one > self-contained forum. It just sucks when some of the retardation leaks > out into the real world. > > I think it would be better if it were called Genbuntoo or something > so there's less confusion about exactly what sort of idiot should sign > on. > Genuinely curious: what's the suckless way to Linux then? Gentoo and Gentoo only?
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Jason Dempsey wrote: The elitism appears to be thick in here. On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 16:56, Jason Dempsey wrote: My it's stifling in here...must be all the egos. On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 13:49, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: I love suckless' facility for coralling all the nitwits into one self-contained forum. It just sucks when some of the retardation leaks out into the real world. T,FTFY The real world is still safe. You're not. elitism here is a feature ok back to lurkin on the list as I am a ratpoison-using PCLinuxOS remastering loon that breaks into your real world from time-to-time, you are not safe ;) Jase
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
The elitism appears to be thick in here. On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 16:56, Jason Dempsey wrote: > My it's stifling in here...must be all the egos. > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 13:49, Bjartur Thorlacius > wrote: >>> I love suckless' facility for coralling all the nitwits into one >>> >>> self-contained forum. It just sucks when some of the retardation leaks >>> out into the real world. >>> >> T,FTFY >> The real world is still safe. You're not. >>
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
I love suckless' facility for coralling all the nitwits into one self-contained forum. It just sucks when some of the retardation leaks out into the real world. T,FTFY The real world is still safe. You're not.
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 09:27:52PM +0100, Džen wrote: > On 30/12/2011 11:38, hiro wrote: > > Some critics are getting old and boring to me > > No surprise, since people come up with the same invalid statements > day by day. And some won't understand it even after criticising them > a thousand times. I love arch linux's facility for coralling all the nitwits into one self-contained forum. It just sucks when some of the retardation leaks out into the real world. I think it would be better if it were called Genbuntoo or something so there's less confusion about exactly what sort of idiot should sign on.
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On 30/12/2011 11:38, hiro wrote: Some critics are getting old and boring to me No surprise, since people come up with the same invalid statements day by day. And some won't understand it even after criticising them a thousand times. -- Džen
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
Some critics are getting old and boring to me
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On Thu 29 Dec 2011 07:20:21 PM PST, Nick wrote: > The Arch community [...] seem to have [...] uninformed people > doing strange things in their midst. All good practise and > experimentation and whathaveyou, but It's a bazaar of artist/tinkerers sharing, learning, and having fun. > can be annoying to see such works referenced before they have > become interesting. I felt it was interesting enough to share because it follows the "less SLOC is better" approach championed by the suckless community. Besides, I enjoy reading Kurt's and others' scathing criticisms. ;) -- You can't push on a string. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
> > first thing i noticed. kind of kills the functionality unless it has SOME > kind of 'virtual desktop'/tag ability, unless you only use 1-3 windows at a > time, EVER. looks like oversimplification at the expense of flexibility. > > Oops, my bad. There is a 'desktops' function... but I prefer tagging these days. -- --sth
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
Quoth Kurt H Maier: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 08:55:21PM -0800, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: > > monsterwm[1] is a cool new dwm fork that's currently less than 700 SLOC > > while sporting bstack and grid layouts in addition to tile and monocle. > > it doesn't do tagging at all, as far as I can tell. Yep, this makes it just a plaything, as far as I'm concerned. Ripping float and tagging code out of dwm and pointing out that it's smaller isn't a particularly interesting thing to do. > > It's very popular[2] these days on the Arch Linux forums; try it out! :) > > this is basically the worst possible endorsement I can think of. > it's like trying to sell a specific brand of motor oil because pol > pot preferred to drown people in it. I was hoping you'd respond to this, Kurt. The Arch community is not one I'm involved in at all, but from the outside they seem to have a lot of pretty uninformed people doing strange things in their midst. All good practise and experimentation and whathaveyou, but can be annoying to see such works referenced before they have become interesting. pgpfvM34CS0Ra.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Kurt H Maier wrote: > > > it doesn't do tagging at all, as far as I can tell. > first thing i noticed. kind of kills the functionality unless it has SOME kind of 'virtual desktop'/tag ability, unless you only use 1-3 windows at a time, EVER. looks like oversimplification at the expense of flexibility. > > > It's very popular[2] these days on the Arch Linux forums; try it out! :) > > this is basically the worst possible endorsement I can think of. > it's like trying to sell a specific brand of motor oil because pol > pot preferred to drown people in it. > > ouch... but the truth hurts! reminds me of the joke: "how do you know somebody uses Arch? don't worry - they'll tell you." -- --sth
Re: [dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 08:55:21PM -0800, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: > monsterwm[1] is a cool new dwm fork that's currently less than 700 SLOC > while sporting bstack and grid layouts in addition to tile and monocle. it doesn't do tagging at all, as far as I can tell. > It's very popular[2] these days on the Arch Linux forums; try it out! :) this is basically the worst possible endorsement I can think of. it's like trying to sell a specific brand of motor oil because pol pot preferred to drown people in it.
[dev] monsterwm - 700 SLOC dwm fork
monsterwm[1] is a cool new dwm fork that's currently less than 700 SLOC while sporting bstack and grid layouts in addition to tile and monocle. It's very popular[2] these days on the Arch Linux forums; try it out! :) [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=132122 [2]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/search.php?search_id=966955587 -- Staff meeting in the conference room in %d minutes.
