On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:36:17 -0700, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
2009/9/9 pancake :
There is also "neko". The problem is that I don't see the need of clientside
scripting. A clean design should split presentation and data. And having a
templating language for merging them into a canvas. So not having
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:54:30 -0700, frederic wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:06:20 +0200, Anselm R Garbe
wrote:
2009/9/9 Pinocchio :
I am saying this because even after a lot of marketing muscle and
commercial force, it has been hard for Adobe, Sun and Microsoft to
push
their rendering stacks
Maybe it is not that hard to do. I think it is possible to build a
prototype using Lua with some GUI toolkit bindings for instance: the
server would send the Lua source to the client, and the client
interprets
it.
Yup something like that. I guess you chose Lua because Lua is small in
size
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:06:20 +0200, Anselm R Garbe
wrote:
2009/9/9 Pinocchio :
I am saying this because even after a lot of marketing muscle and
commercial force, it has been hard for Adobe, Sun and Microsoft to
push
their rendering stacks over HTML + Javascript. Flash is the only thing
w
2009/9/9 Pinocchio :
>>> I am saying this because even after a lot of marketing muscle and
>>> commercial force, it has been hard for Adobe, Sun and Microsoft to push
>>> their rendering stacks over HTML + Javascript. Flash is the only thing
>>> which gained major adoption... and the picture might
2009/9/9 pancake :
> There is also "neko". The problem is that I don't see the need of clientside
> scripting. A clean design should split presentation and data. And having a
> templating language for merging them into a canvas. So not having the
> possibility to create infinite loops, eat the CPU,
Sent from my iPod
On Sep 9, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:37:58 -0700, frederic
wrote:
Of course it has to be totally incompatible with the current "web
stack",
browser included. It can be quite a problem for wide acceptance;
the
majority of "web users"
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:37:58 -0700, frederic wrote:
Of course it has to be totally incompatible with the current "web
stack",
browser included. It can be quite a problem for wide acceptance; the
majority of "web users" today are, I think, not computer literates.
It doesn't need wide accept
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>> Unless and until that happens, I want no part of this.
>
> can you maybe whine about uriel on livejournal or somewhere else that
> doesn't require me to actively filter your mail
>
Twitter,
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
> Of course, your work on http 0.2 seems to be comprehensive. A suckless
> browser should attempt to incorporate http 0.2 once its ready for adoption.
> Did you think about adopting just a sane subset of HTTP/1.1 has HTTP 0.2 or
> did you find HTTP/1
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:08:23 -0700, Uriel wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:26:05 -0700, frederic wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:51:46 +0200, Uriel wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
A few months ago lobobrowser.org caugh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
> Unless and until that happens, I want no part of this.
can you maybe whine about uriel on livejournal or somewhere else that
doesn't require me to actively filter your mail
thanks
--
# Kurt H Maier
> There was no personal offense; I haven't been part of the discussion,
> fortunately. But why do you bother responding to this guy at all?
> Anyone who deals with people as he does does not deserve a response.
> Responding to him continues the discussion, pollutes the list, and
> offends people li
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Aurélien Aptel wrote:
> I also like Uriel's madness. His rants are always exaggerated, and as
> said Anselm you don't have to take them too seriously.
> He's just a cute troll (and you know the saying).
> "Uriel, the suckless Tough Guy, filled with anger and liquid
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
> There was no personal offense; I haven't been part of the discussion,
> fortunately. But why do you bother responding to this guy at all?
> Anyone who deals with people as he does does not deserve a response.
> Responding to him continues the d
I also like Uriel's madness. His rants are always exaggerated, and as
said Anselm you don't have to take them too seriously.
He's just a cute troll (and you know the saying).
"Uriel, the suckless Tough Guy, filled with anger and liquid shit"
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
> O
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Donald Allen :
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>> 2009/9/8 Donald Allen :
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2009-09-08 01:16] Uriel
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, mar
Don,
Uriel's rants are not only informative (sometimes), they're usually
fcking hilarious. Lighten up, Donald.
Uriel,
Keep 'em coming; screw these Gnome lovin' fgz.
Guy
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
> I think your concern is appropriate. Why anyone puts up with Uriel's
>
2009/9/8 Donald Allen :
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> 2009/9/8 Donald Allen :
>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
[2009-09-08 01:16] Uriel
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> >
> > Read my slides,
>
>>>
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Donald Allen :
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>>> [2009-09-08 01:16] Uriel
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>
> Read my slides,
I would read them, if they were
[2009-09-08 17:05] Donald Allen
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> >
> > ... but maybe, better don't read them. I'm worried about you're
> > health. ;-)
sorry: s/you're/your/
> I think your concern is appropriate. Why anyone puts up with Uriel's
> disgusting, offensive,
2009/9/8 Donald Allen :
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>> [2009-09-08 01:16] Uriel
>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Read my slides,
>>>
>>> I would read them, if they were written in the standard language used
>>> by the software indu
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2009-09-08 01:16] Uriel
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>> >
>> > Read my slides,
>>
>> I would read them, if they were written in the standard language used
>> by the software industry (and the internet as a whole
[2009-09-08 01:16] Uriel
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> >
> > Read my slides,
>
> I would read them, if they were written in the standard language used
> by the software industry (and the internet as a whole). People that
> write stuff in marginal historical languages
This discussion has become too silly even for the ministry of silly
mailing list discussions.
uriel
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Uriel :
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>> So you judge about things you believe you have superior clue ab
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> So you judge about things you believe you have superior clue about,
> then go ahead and do us a favor and build a decent web browser that we
> can all be happy with.
Blah, blah, blah, irrelevant nonsequitour.
> As I said very often to you: t
2009/9/8 Uriel :
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> So you judge about things you believe you have superior clue about,
>> then go ahead and do us a favor and build a decent web browser that we
>> can all be happy with.
>
> Blah, blah, blah, irrelevant nonsequitour.
>
>> As
2009/9/8 Uriel :
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> 2009/9/8 Uriel :
>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
I think it is clear that the existing web stack can't be implemented
in a less sucking way.
>>>
>>> This is ridiculous, are you saying t
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Uriel :
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>> I think it is clear that the existing web stack can't be implemented
>>> in a less sucking way.
>>
>> This is ridiculous, are you saying that a web rendering engin
2009/9/8 Uriel :
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> I think it is clear that the existing web stack can't be implemented
>> in a less sucking way.
>
> This is ridiculous, are you saying that a web rendering engine can't
> suck less than webkit or geko? Are you fucking kiddi
* defining a protocol that would play the role of HTTP,
I don't think that would be necessary. HTTP is okay.
Good enough versus Right. An old story.
It is true it isn't that bad, but it needs some cleanup.
Of course it has to be totally incompatible with the current "web
stack",
browser in
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Uriel :
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>>> The point is: It is simply not possible to have sane web browsers. But
>>> you both come to bad results IMO.
>>>
>>> Uriel says: Okay, so we'll not have a sane web
2009/9/8 Uriel :
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>> The point is: It is simply not possible to have sane web browsers. But
>> you both come to bad results IMO.
>>
>> Uriel says: Okay, so we'll not have a sane web browsers, thus we use
>> one of the bad ones or better don't
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 01:16:10 +0200
Uriel wrote:
> No, I'm saying that I wish people would write or help write a browser
> that sucks less. My point is that adding a coat of paint on top of an
> existing browser (>90% of the browser is the rendering/js/etc. engine)
> is not the same as writing that
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> Well, (most) religion(s) has done nothing but provided a 'justifiable' reason
> for
> genocide. I don't know what propaganda/FUD you subscribe too, so I can't say
> anything about *your* religion.
I guess we know what propaganda/FUD *you* subscr
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:04:07AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:33:19PM +0200, Uriel wrote:
> >> ruled by a religion
> > I thought you were a 'utopian philosopher'? Everyone knows that in a utopia
> > there would be no religi
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:26:05 -0700, frederic wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:51:46 +0200, Uriel wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
A few months ago lobobrowser.org caught my eye. Its a browser written in
>
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:26:05 -0700, frederic wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:51:46 +0200, Uriel wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
A few months ago lobobrowser.org caught my eye. Its a browser written in
java (hold on... don't kick me off the list... :) ) but the thing I
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:34 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2009-09-07 22:05] Paul Malherbe
>>
>>
>> --snip---
>
> Your mail gets most likely redirected to /dev/null before he reads it.
Indeed, what the fuck is up with retards using HTML email?
uriel
>
>
> meillo
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2009-09-07 11:50] Uriel
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Ray Kohler wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Uriel wrote:
>> >> You can't have a "sane web browser"[1] with an insane rendering
>> >> engine. All you are doing otherwise i
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:33:19PM +0200, Uriel wrote:
>> ruled by a religion
> I thought you were a 'utopian philosopher'? Everyone knows that in a utopia
> there would be no religion.
No religion? What is wrong with *my* religion?
> Everything
[2009-09-07 22:05] Paul Malherbe
>
>
> --snip---
Your mail gets most likely redirected to /dev/null before he reads it.
meillo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bye Bye
Regards
Paul
Uriel wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
2009/9/7 frederic :
So, the only way is to get rid of the whole "Web" stack and to rewrite a
"sane" one. This would mean:
Following Uriel's logic the
> Again, uzbl and surf developers are *not* 'browser programmers', they
> are not writing any browsers, they are painting a very thin coat of
> paint over existing turd browsers out there.
why give up history autocompletion and go back to the dark ages of .ini file
editing ?
its the same turd in
[2009-09-07 21:47] Dieter Plaetinck
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:35:50 +0200
> markus schnalke wrote:
> >
> > Read my slides, I clearly state this: Take the broken render engine as
> > black box and add sane interfaces around.
> >
> (..)
> >
> > It's the web browser that complies better with the Un
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:35:50 +0200
markus schnalke wrote:
>
> Read my slides, I clearly state this: Take the broken render engine as
> black box and add sane interfaces around.
>
(..)
>
> It's the web browser that complies better with the Unix Philosophy
> than any other I've seen. Only the re
[2009-09-07 11:50] Uriel
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Ray Kohler wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Uriel wrote:
> >> You can't have a "sane web browser"[1] with an insane rendering
> >> engine. All you are doing otherwise is giving a turd another coat of
> >> paint.
> >> [1]: Of cou
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:33:19PM +0200, Uriel wrote:
>> ruled by a religion
> I thought you were a 'utopian philosopher'? Everyone knows that in a utopia
> there would be no religion. Everything would be solved rationally.
On Planet9 from Bell
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:33:19PM +0200, Uriel wrote:
> ruled by a religion
I thought you were a 'utopian philosopher'? Everyone knows that in a utopia
there would be no religion. Everything would be solved rationally.
> uriel
>
--
Jake Todd
// If it isn't broke, tweak it!
pgpMMPuKjt9fQ.pgp
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/9/7 frederic :
>> So, the only way is to get rid of the whole "Web" stack and to rewrite a
>> "sane" one. This would mean:
>
> Following Uriel's logic the only way to get rid of the "Web" stack is
> wether suicide or going to the forest
2009/9/7 frederic :
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:51:46 +0200, Uriel wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
>>>
>>> A few months ago lobobrowser.org caught my eye. Its a browser written in
>>> java (hold on... don't kick me off the list... :) ) but the thing I liked
>>> about it w
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:51:46 +0200, Uriel wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
A few months ago lobobrowser.org caught my eye. Its a browser written in
java (hold on... don't kick me off the list... :) ) but the thing I
liked
about it was its support for alternative docum
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Pinocchio wrote:
> A few months ago lobobrowser.org caught my eye. Its a browser written in
> java (hold on... don't kick me off the list... :) ) but the thing I liked
> about it was its support for alternative document formats. It supports
> JavaFX out of the box an
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Ray Kohler wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Uriel wrote:
>> You can't have a "sane web browser"[1] with an insane rendering
>> engine. All you are doing otherwise is giving a turd another coat of
>> paint.
>>
>> At the moment my only hope for a minimally sane
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:50:50 -0700, Ray Kohler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Uriel wrote:
You can't have a "sane web browser"[1] with an insane rendering
engine. All you are doing otherwise is giving a turd another coat of
paint.
At the moment my only hope for a minimally sane web re
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Uriel wrote:
> You can't have a "sane web browser"[1] with an insane rendering
> engine. All you are doing otherwise is giving a turd another coat of
> paint.
>
> At the moment my only hope for a minimally sane web rendering engine
> is http://www.netsurf-browser.org
You can't have a "sane web browser"[1] with an insane rendering
engine. All you are doing otherwise is giving a turd another coat of
paint.
At the moment my only hope for a minimally sane web rendering engine
is http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
The latest released version is not too useful, but de
Troff works great for generating slides.
uriel
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 09:36:23PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
>>
>> P.S. (especially @Uriel ;-) ): Please don't blame me because the
>> software I used for the slides ... I know I should impr
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 09:36:23PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
P.S. (especially @Uriel ;-) ): Please don't blame me because the
software I used for the slides ... I know I should improve it. But hit
me if you provide constructive help. ;-)
Beamer. I don't use anything else for slides anymore.
Hoi,
a few weeks ago, I did a lightning talk at the CCC in Stuttgart about
`uzbl', or better: about `sane web browsers'.
You might be interested.
Slides in English (it was a 20min talk, though) and audio recording in
German are available:
http://marmaro.de/docs/#lightning-talk-uzbl
me
60 matches
Mail list logo
