lördagen den 17 november 2012 14.50.23 skrev Kurt H Maier:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 06:20:03PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> > sta.li
> > --
> > To me archlinux was a good distro until a couple of years ago.
> > Nowadays it seems to be very en vogue and thus has degraded quite
> > significan
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 06:20:03PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> dwm
> ---
> (i) First I plan a new dwm release with the introduction of draw{.h,c}
> or libdraw. The idea is to abstract all the PCF/Xft cruft away from
> the dwm implementation and to define a clean draw.h interface to be
> used ins
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 00:25:16 +0200
Marc Weber wrote:
> resources * expected_users => waste of energy
>
> Thus you should also take into account how often a site is actually
> viewed by users.
>
> Best would be making browsers show a "this page is going to drawn your
> battery soon" hints ..
>
On 11/17/12, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Ok, I've heard enough.
>
> The built-in bar stays as is, but I will organize its code in a way,
> that dwm can be compiled without the bar.
>
> Best regards,
> -Anselm
>
>
sounds like a very useful thing, I can betatest if you like.
I use the mouse quite a bit to switch tags when working with virtual
machines and RDP sessions that fill my screen, less the bar. Bringing
mouse support in via patch wouldn't be a big deal.
> I know that some of you are inclined to use dwm on tablets. But I'm
> not convinced that tablets or touch interfaces in general are a nice
> fit with the terminal world we live in.
tablets are used to read pdfs, and tablets do not have keyboards.
however, while i didn't quite parse your whole pr
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 06:20:03PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
> sta.li
> --
> To me archlinux was a good distro until a couple of years ago.
> Nowadays it seems to be very en vogue and thus has degraded quite
> significantly in terms of simplicity. I'm not aware of any distro that
> would
Greetings.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:26:09 +0100 Manolo Martínez
wrote:
> On 11/17/12 at 01:15pm, Newton Smartt wrote:
> > What's wrong with Arch?
>
> systemd is probably frowned upon around here.
People proposing systemd are likely pedophiles or terrorists. The only
difference to tor users is
For whatever it's worth (which is not much since I don't contribute much of
anything to this community anyway), I hardly touch the mouse and wouldn't
even notice if mouse functionality was removed from the bar. I do like
having the bar managed by DWM though. The fewer external programs I have
to
On 11/17/12 at 01:15pm, Newton Smartt wrote:
> What's wrong with Arch?
systemd is probably frowned upon around here.
What's wrong with Arch?
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM, clamiax wrote:
> 2012/11/17 Anselm R Garbe
>
>> Hi there,
>>
> Hi.
>
>
>> I'm back in the game ;)
>>
> Welcome back!
>
>
>> (i) First I plan a new dwm release with the introduction of draw{.h,c}
>> or libdraw. The idea is to abstract all
2012/11/17 Anselm R Garbe
> Hi there,
>
Hi.
> I'm back in the game ;)
>
Welcome back!
> (i) First I plan a new dwm release with the introduction of draw{.h,c}
> or libdraw. The idea is to abstract all the PCF/Xft cruft away from
> the dwm implementation and to define a clean draw.h interface
Ok, I've heard enough.
The built-in bar stays as is, but I will organize its code in a way,
that dwm can be compiled without the bar.
Best regards,
-Anselm
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Manolo Martínez
wrote:
> If this is something like a poll, I concur: no mouse, yes bar.
This is also my feeling. I never use the mouse on the bar, but unless
sbar will be able to display those handy little boxes over the tags,
I'd rather keep what dwm has currentl
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> (iii) A third idea is an old idea that 20h brought into the discussion
> when investigating 2wm. The man page of 2wm mentions sbar, which was
> abandoned a couple of years ago. My question here is:
>
> -> is there anyone who uses the mouse functionality of the dwm bar
> rig
Hi,
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> (iii) A third idea is an old idea that 20h brought into the discussion
> when investigating 2wm. The man page of 2wm mentions sbar, which was
> abandoned a couple of years ago. My question here is:
>
> -> is there anyone who uses the mouse functiona
you know what, i take beck what i said about a couple of things:
1) while separating out common drawing functionality in to a librady
is appealing.
i don't think all suckless apps should be depending on an external
source. they're
all independent right now. and i've only incrementally started usi
On 11/17/12 at 01:57pm, Jamie Bragg wrote:
> I rarely use the mouse functionality of the dwm bar and wouldn't miss it. I
> would kind of miss the dwm bar if it went away, simply because I'd have to
> find another solution.
>
If this is something like a poll, I concur: no mouse, yes bar.
M
Hi,
* Anselm R Garbe [2012-11-17 18:22]:
> I'm back in the game ;)
wb :)
[...]
> I barely use the mouse for the dwm bar and would be in favour for
> removing the bar altogether from dwm. Instead I would output the
> current dwm state to stdout which could be used by a different program
> like s
On 17 November 2012 18:58, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:58:22 +0100 Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> I’m all for draw.{h,c}. Otherwise the complexity of dependency handling
> will need to be added to all of the packages using libdraw. There might
> be a tendency of
Good to hear you're back
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I'm back in the game ;)
>
> Here is my master plan:
>
> dwm
> ---
> (i) First I plan a new dwm release with the introduction of draw{.h,c}
> or libdraw. The idea is to abstract all the PCF/Xft cruft
Hi,
The mouse functionnality in dwm bar could become a patch, no more
mainline. I don't use it often, but when I do it's to launch a 9menu.
I concur with Nick about the bar, I need it and I trust the dwm one.
It's good to hear from you
Xavier
Le 18:20:03 le 17 nov. 2012 , Anselm R Garbe a écri
Greetings.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:58:22 +0100 Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> dwm
> ---
> (i) First I plan a new dwm release with the introduction of draw{.h,c}
> or libdraw. The idea is to abstract all the PCF/Xft cruft away from
> the dwm implementation and to define a clean draw.h interface to be
> us
On 15 November 2012 01:01, neil klopfenstein wrote:
> Attached is the diff of my changes. Please let me know if there's a better
> way for me to submit this patch.
Thanks applied (slightly modified).
-Anselm
On 17 November 2012 18:57, Jamie Bragg wrote:
> I rarely use the mouse functionality of the dwm bar and wouldn't miss it. I
> would kind of miss the dwm bar if it went away, simply because I'd have to
> find another solution.
To be clear, of course I would implement sbar instead which could be
us
I rarely use the mouse functionality of the dwm bar and wouldn't miss it. I
would kind of miss the dwm bar if it went away, simply because I'd have to
find another solution.
Jamie
On 17 Nov 2012 13:42, "Nick" wrote:
> Quoth Anselm R Garbe:
> > -> is there anyone who uses the mouse functionality
Quoth Anselm R Garbe:
> -> is there anyone who uses the mouse functionality of the dwm bar
> right now? Could you live without it?
I do use it sometimes, but could live without it. No strong
preferences.
> I barely use the mouse for the dwm bar and would be in favour for
> removing the bar altog
Hi there,
I'm back in the game ;)
Here is my master plan:
dwm
---
(i) First I plan a new dwm release with the introduction of draw{.h,c}
or libdraw. The idea is to abstract all the PCF/Xft cruft away from
the dwm implementation and to define a clean draw.h interface to be
used instead. This shou
28 matches
Mail list logo
