Re: [gentoo-user] Awesome vs Xmonad
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:52:37 +0530 Man Shankar man.ee@gmail.com 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
