Re: Seeking GUI refuge
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 06:48:05PM -0400, Patrick Mc(avery wrote: > I tried to load Fluxbox and was disappointed with it. It had several > menubuttons for application that were not yet installed. There is more than just Fluxbox out there. That's UNIX world, it is up to you and you have plenty of choices. Bloatware like Gnome, XFCE, KDE and other crap is available through ports. Minimalistic versions like fvwm, cwm are waiting to be configured to meet your special needs. And in fact, if you cut through the clutter of options and manpages, you might be much more satisfied than using some windows version where you just can tick an option on or off. Random points where you can find further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_manager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_window_manager http://xwinman.org/ -- z...@sdf.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.org
dwm in base
Hello, there are a lot of nice window managers in OpenBSD base (fvwm, cwm, ...). I am a big fan of dwm and I think it shares the philosophy of minimalism which is important to a lot of BSD lovers. Also, it has a good code quality and is rock solid... Is there a reason why dwm isnt in OpenBSD base installation? -- z...@sdf.org
Re: dwm in base
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:38:39AM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:52:14PM +, z...@sdf.org wrote: > > Hello, > > > > there are a lot of nice window managers in OpenBSD base (fvwm, cwm, ...). > > > > I am a big fan of dwm and I think it shares the philosophy of minimalism > > which is important to a lot of BSD lovers. Also, it has a good code > > quality and is rock solid... > > > > Is there a reason why dwm isnt in OpenBSD base installation? > > Because there are already enough/too many window managers in base. > Use the packages if you prefer to use another window manager. > > > -- > Matthieu Herrb > I was surprised how many window managers are in base installation. So, I just was interested why dwm isnt. However, I understand that most people edit the config.h and compile dwm on there own and so do I. But it would be convenient to use dwm to compile my own dwm. Well, I can fork OpenBSD and make things properly :D. Jokes beside: dwm in base doesnt make much sense. Cheers -- z...@sdf.org
Re: kvm and Openbsd 5.1
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 07:29:03PM +0200, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > There is someone that has started obsd on kvm and avoid this problem? > > This problem is kvm related? > > Another, someone has tried obsd 5.1 on ESX? I am running OpenBSD 5.1 and a bunch of NetBSD guests with kvm and everything works as expectecd. They are all i386 machines, so you should try that instaed of amd64. -- z...@sdf.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.org
Re: OpenBSD on GitHub
> git sucks. mercurial ruleZ, i want a mercurial mirror. > And python in base... and some icecream. > python and mercurial sucks both. Both have nothing to do with true UNIX heritage. Use Ubuntu
traffic shaping in OpenBSD
What solution should be used for traffic shaping on real-life, "production" gateways with tens and hundreds users? PF queues seem to be too "userspace"-ish and CPU consuming.
Re: traffic shaping in OpenBSD
For example, in FreeBSD there is "slow" pf in userspace and "fast" kernel-level netgraph. 2011/11/1 Gregory Edigarov > On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:17:56 +0400 > ZZ Wave wrote: > > > What solution should be used for traffic shaping on real-life, > > "production" gateways with tens and hundreds users? PF queues seem to > > be too "userspace"-ish and CPU consuming. > > Pardon? > What do you mean "userspace"-ish ? > > > -- > With best regards, >Gregory Edigarov
cvsup/cvsync/anoncvs
Hi, i am goin to set up cvsup/anoncvs/cvsync server, but don't knwo how. Can you help me with configuration of these *cvs* servers? I have already write an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but w/o any answer. Thanks for help.
