Uriel wrote:
> No, a 'usable web browser' would be an oxymoron.
The latest versions of Firefox and IE seem to be rather usable
(on Windows XP at any rate). At least I use them a lot...
> It's always nice to find simpler solutions to real-world
> problems than have previously been employed, but it's not nice
> to find simplistic solutions.
the labs have excelled in that. especially in the early days of unix
and plan 9.
- erik
David Leimbach wrote:
> Sure, I think it's just that we all feel we're better off without
> complexity and that no one really needs it, we're just working in a
> world where complexity is the de-facto standard and we must conform to
> be able to function.
The difference between theory and practice
> [...] usable web browser would be a fine idea.
No, a 'usable web browser' would be an oxymoron.
uriel
On Nov 20, 2007 8:58 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand:
> why do you "need" the complexity caused by something that you "want"?
> You "need" to use some tool: fine,
> but you _want_ to use it under plan9, not _need_ to use it under plan9,
> so the complexity is _wanted_ not _need
exactly. if you need to use something, complex or not, you can't say
it's not needed.
so if you need to use some tool and it's complex AND you want to use
it under Plan 9, them that complexity is still needed.
I myself see a big difference between wanting and needing.
I don't understand:
why do
may I suppose you use a web browser?
You may.
if yes, is this complexity needed or not?
No it is not, because the browser is not "needed".
Neither is OS X or the MacBook upon which they run.
AFAIK the only things we _need_ are:
air, food, water, shelter and reproduction (have I missed any?)
Not conform. Adapt. Perhaps accommodate.
On Nov 20, 2007 8:48 AM, Iruata Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 2:39 PM, David Leimbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not needed in the sense that no one needs to add more complexity
> > to their lives or their work flow. It is needed in the sense that the
> > way people d
On Nov 20, 2007 2:39 PM, David Leimbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not needed in the sense that no one needs to add more complexity
> to their lives or their work flow. It is needed in the sense that the
> way people decide to do their work involves having to use things like
> Windows and O
On Nov 20, 2007 7:28 AM, Iruata Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 10:20 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Complexity is never needed.
> >
>
> may I suppose you use a web browser?
> if yes, is this complexity needed or not?
>
> iru
>
It's not needed in the sense that no one needs
On Nov 19, 2007 10:20 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Complexity is never needed.
>
may I suppose you use a web browser?
if yes, is this complexity needed or not?
iru
exactly. last time i stayed with him i ended up with a machine pistol
in my bed, which i must have taken for self protection. some dumb-ass
pigeon woke me up and i shot him, dead. back to sleep.
no! all of his mates were attacking my window and i cursed them
in french and they went away briefly
P.S.: I miss boyd... "if you want lunix you know where to find it".
fortunately, there are still some people trying to port Plan 9 sanity
back to lunix and complex but still needed stuff to Plan 9.
Complexity is never needed.
Lock and load.
D
>it's my fault.
> [brucee]
not really: the compilers made an assumption that would
have been reasonable if the world had not bizarrely plumped
for an architecture full of anomalies, that's hard to get to go fast,
that doesn't extend well to 16 bits let alone 32 or 64
and ... most to the point, ha
> Charles Forsyth wrote:
> > yes, that's the sort of thing that will do it.
> > the resulting expressions are pointlessly big,
> > with lots of parentheses to reduce ordering options.
>
> And yet, other "inferior" compilers like gcc can build it. Sorry, I'm a
> bit jaded by all the gcc/linux bash
On Nov 19, 2007 6:38 PM, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you think there is much linux/gcc/gnu bashing around here you must
> be new, read the archives from years ago if you want some real
> bashing. Hell, you could start with 'cat -v considered harmful' some
> 25 years ago: http://harmful.ca
If you think there is much linux/gcc/gnu bashing around here you must
be new, read the archives from years ago if you want some real
bashing. Hell, you could start with 'cat -v considered harmful' some
25 years ago: http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/
Unfortunately over the years it seems that the peo
it's my fault. 8c is designed not to run out of registers and when
i added the division by constant optimization i thought i could
get away with a temporary. it works nearly all the time :-)
a simple fix is to check for register squeeze and bypass the
optimization if it's going to fail. there ar
>i didn't even say that the compiler shouldn't bother
i'll say a bit more once i'm on a network with reasonable speed...
but gcc and linux should be bashed.
Fortran H could probably build it too.
i didn't even say that the compiler shouldn't
bother, just that the approach that sha implementation is trying
to use is probably counterproductive (even with gcc)
Charles Forsyth wrote:
> yes, that's the sort of thing that will do it.
> the resulting expressions are pointlessly big,
> with lots of parentheses to reduce ordering options.
And yet, other "inferior" compilers like gcc can build it. Sorry, I'm a
bit jaded by all the gcc/linux bashing on this li
> i'm intending to maintain python ports based on APE,
> so i'll merge in your changes and see what can be done
> to have as much of that as possible included in the
> basic python distribution.
sounds fine.
thanks
Federico G. Benavento
---
/bin/fortune:
There is a world in which this sentence
yes, that's the sort of thing that will do it.
the resulting expressions are pointlessly big,
with lots of parentheses to reduce ordering options.
hola,
attached is the offending file
thanks
Federico G. Benavento
---
/bin/fortune:
Please log off, the computer is out to lunch.
--- Begin Message ---
>does the function that causes 8c to quit declare a large
>number of "register int" variables?
it ignores you, and works that out itself.
us
i'm intending to maintain python ports based on APE,
so i'll merge in your changes and see what can be done
to have as much of that as possible included in the
basic python distribution.--- Begin Message ---
hola,
I just did yet another python port, this one using APE,
because I wanted to see if I
>does the function that causes 8c to quit declare a large
>number of "register int" variables?
it ignores you, and works that out itself.
usually the troublesome expression really does use
so many registers it needs to spill to memory, but doesn't.
i get "server error" on the url you gave.
does the function that causes 8c to quit declare a large
number of "register int" variables?
- erik
On Mon Nov 19 11:47:17 EST 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> hola,
>
> I just did yet another python port, this one using APE,
> because I wanted to see i
hola,
I just did yet another python port, this one using APE,
because I wanted to see if I could get HG working
and for that I needed openssl (which I had just reported,
/n/sources/contrib/fgb/openssl.tgz)
It worked, but I had to hack /sys/lib/python/hashlib.py
to not try to import the sha512 modu
29 matches
Mail list logo
