Quoth Rob:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:15:22AM -0800, Andrew Hills wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > > But if we're thinking about
> > > breaking from the terminal, how would remote editing work?
> > > Some sort of ssh piping from / to the file on the server?
> > > I hav
On the other hand with html5 we will finally have a good reason to ditch the web
altogether since it won't be good enough any more. I will look into
gopher again...
As I don't need in-browser video/audio (never understood the html5 webm craze) I
use a few scripts for direct playback on on tv and s
Hi Rudy,
On 13 June 2011 10:45, Rudy Matela wrote:
> There is a bug in the last version of dwm (verified on 5.8, 5.8.2 and
> r1549) regarding the bar width. By reading the BUGS file, I can see
> that it may be similar to the bug reported by "voltaic". In my case,
> it appears whenever I change th
Hey,
On 17 June 2011 19:39, Rudy Matela wrote:
> Anyone has the same bug as me?
Sorry for the silence, Anselm doesn't seem to have the time to apply
patches atm. At least one person on IRC had a (similar but different)
problem which was solved by your patch, so I don't think you're alone.
I woul
The base problem is simple:
The Web is a hammer. It's a nice pretty hammer, but there's a lot of things
that aren't nails.
Somebody claiming to be Mate Nagy wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:55:37PM -0400, Bryan Bennett wrote:
> > Let's face it - the web is no longer focused on Gopher-like info
Anyone has the same bug as me?
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 05:45, Rudy Matela wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is a bug in the last version of dwm (verified on 5.8, 5.8.2 and
> r1549) regarding the bar width. By reading the BUGS file, I can see
> that it may be similar to the bug reported by "voltaic". In m
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:55:37PM -0400, Bryan Bennett wrote:
> Let's face it - the web is no longer focused on Gopher-like information
> presentation and gathering any longer. Live with it.
The Chrome browser source code is 155MB without libraries.
Its you and similar people who made the web to
AS a web developer, I'll +1 Kurt on this one. The doctype bullshit is gone, and
we now FINALLY have a "one version to bind them". XHTML vs HTML is
stupid as hell. We finally get a modern, "all in one" solution that doesn't
require the XML bullshit that XHTML 1.0 needs. Granted - there's some shit
i
On 17 June 2011 15:24, Martin Kühl wrote:
> If "ex mode" were just a command buffer, you could
> use every piece of functionality your editor provided, maybe even open
> another command buffer operating on the current one.
I'd not even considered this possibility, but you're right, it would
work
> Not true! html5 frees us from xml bullshit, and most doctype idiocy.
Nope, all xml bullshit is included to be compatible.
Just like the fucking Microsoft bugfixes.
If I understand it correctly webgl just implements all these stupid
html5 features.
They never managed 2d in any timely, consistent manner and now they
complicate it further with 3d? I want html developers to leave me the
fuck alone and get a life.
Just a few points from random things in this thread...
Someone said they want cut and paste to be put to tmux, X, etc...
I don't know that X or tmux have anything more than mark and copy to
clipboard. The rest is handled by the program in them.
Also the modeless second window isn't a bad idea, b
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:46 PM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> html5 is everything bad we ever had in the web together in one
> enormous steaming pile of shit.
> If there is anything not at least 99% stupid in there it must be a
> very lucky coincidence, just some of thousand random bugs.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Rob wrote:
> sshfs?
That's what I use, personally, but some people hate it, and it's not
always available. I prefer to see the network latency when I'm
actually reading or writing the file rather than seeing my editor
freeze, though, so I always use sshfs or scp.
On 17.06.2011, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> html5 and webgl are not the same thing
>
> only one of them is *completely* stupid
html5 is everything bad we ever had in the web together in one
enormous steaming pile of shit.
If there is anything not at least 99% stupid in there it must be a
very lucky coin
On 06-17 16:40, Rob wrote:
Sure, they don't have a leg to stand on in this area
Not to defend Microsoft, but we're not in the Ninetees any more. Since
Vista, they have invested millions into security and flew in almost
every internationally known security researcher to break their stuff.
The
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Rob wrote:
> Honestly, I think they have a point. Sure, they don't have a leg to stand on
> in
> this area, but look at Flash. All that allows is interaction with the mouse
> and keyboard + video and sound playback, but not a week goes by without yet
> another ex
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 04:40:21PM +0100, Rob wrote:
> It's a shame they didn't go into more detail, at the moment it could just be
> FUD spreading.
https://lwn.net/Articles/444672/?format=printable
The comments are also worth reading
Honestly, I think they have a point. Sure, they don't have a leg to stand on in
this area, but look at Flash. All that allows is interaction with the mouse
and keyboard + video and sound playback, but not a week goes by without yet
another exploit being uncovered in it.
That could just be because t
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:15:22AM -0800, Andrew Hills wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > But if we're thinking about
> > breaking from the terminal, how would remote editing work?
> > Some sort of ssh piping from / to the file on the server?
> > I haven't thought this throu
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:15:22AM -0800, Andrew Hills wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > But if we're thinking about
> > breaking from the terminal, how would remote editing work?
> > Some sort of ssh piping from / to the file on the server?
> > I haven't thought this throu
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> But if we're thinking about
> breaking from the terminal, how would remote editing work?
> Some sort of ssh piping from / to the file on the server?
> I haven't thought this through, but it's certainly a usecase
> which would be nice to cover.
scp
-
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:49:12AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > I haven't used it,
> > so don't know it's level of suckiness, but might cairo work?
>
>
> No.
Guessed that would be the case, just throwing it out there
;)
Connor's stuff tends to
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:49:12AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > I haven't used it,
> > so don't know it's level of suckiness, but might cairo work?
>
>
> No.
maybe check out animator: http://repo.hu/projects/animator/
disclaimers:
- i'm the aut
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> I haven't used it,
> so don't know it's level of suckiness, but might cairo work?
No.
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 03:16:00PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> I'm writing a simple UI abstraction library, sort of like swk meets
> draw.c, in that it's completely platform-agnostic (so we can port it
> to other things than Xlib), but doesn't use widgets, you just draw
> things. This has the
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:07, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2011-06-15 14:47] Connor Lane Smith
>> On 15 June 2011 12:26, markus schnalke wrote:
> In vi, you enter insert mode, which you consider a real mode, with `i'
> and leave it with Escape. Likewise you enter ex mode (i.e. last-line
> mode), w
On 17 June 2011 10:07, markus schnalke wrote:
> I disagree with this analogy. Shift is no quasimode.
Yes it is.
> Likewise you enter ex mode (i.e. last-line
> mode), which you consider a quasimode
No, you misunderstand completely: I don't consider ex mode `quasi'.
What I said was that in my edi
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:00:25PM +0200, hiro wrote:
> http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-considered-harmful.aspx
>
> They learned their lesson and I want a button for disabling HTML5 in my
> browser.
>
They haven't learned anything.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:00 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-considered-harmful.aspx
>
> They learned their lesson and I want a button for disabling HTML5 in my
> browser.
html5 and webgl are not the same thing
only one of them is
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:00 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-considered-harmful.aspx
>From the article:
"In its current form, WebGL is not a technology Microsoft can endorse
from a security perspective."
It doesn't sound any worse
it called afraid,
microsoft haz a lot
why would the platform with more vulnerabilities talking about that
they want to keep with their html5 render engine, witch cost them a lot
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:00 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/201
http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-considered-harmful.aspx
They learned their lesson and I want a button for disabling HTML5 in my browser.
[2011-06-17 09:54] David Tweed
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
> >> On 06/17/2011 10:37 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
> >>> For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
> >>> reason we want se
[2011-06-15 14:47] Connor Lane Smith
> On 15 June 2011 12:26, markus schnalke wrote:
>> What's the difference between a mode and a ``quasimode''?
>
> What's the difference between shift and caps lock?
I disagree with this analogy. Shift is no quasimode.
In vi, you enter insert mode, which you c
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
>> On 06/17/2011 10:37 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
>>> For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
>>> reason we want several programming languages: Because ``One
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 10:37 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
>> For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
>> reason we want several programming languages: Because ``One fits all''
>> is an illusion.
>
>
> Then try to figure ou
On 06/17/2011 10:37 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
> For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
> reason we want several programming languages: Because ``One fits all''
> is an illusion.
Then try to figure out some basic tools that you can glue together to
form a fully fun
[2011-06-15 08:12] Peter John Hartman
>
> Why would you want several editors?
For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
reason we want several programming languages: Because ``One fits all''
is an illusion.
> The problem with vi and mutt is that
> they have all thes
hi,
> > Whether or not your keyboard has a page up/down key is a bit moot;
> > the point is that an editor should have under 10 keybindings: up,
> > down, left, right (C-hjkl), page up and down (C-uv), save and quite
> > (and search and search-and-replace (if you are feeling luxurious)).
> you are
40 matches
Mail list logo
