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"
Why not spawn a process instead of appending the URL to a file.. Sthg
like .cmd="echo '%s' >> bookmarks"
But i have the feeling that URL and title will be better accesible
from the environment instead of formatstring.
In this way I will be able to spawn another surf opening the location
o
Ok, I put this together in five min while sleep deprived, but I think
it still should be enough to get you started:
http://repo.cat-v.org/troff-slider/
Enjoy.
uriel
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Tue 08 Sep 2009 at 10:38:26 PDT markus schnalke wrote:
>>
>> [2009-09-0
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
I have 3 patches for surf:
config_file_locs: Makes all file and directory locations that surf
writes to into config.def.h variables. The other two patches depend on
this one.
write_bookmarks: Adds a function to append the current URI to a
(compile-time-defined) file. Default config binds it to MO
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
On Tue 08 Sep 2009 at 10:38:26 PDT markus schnalke wrote:
[2009-09-08 01:20] Uriel
I have always used troff to generate really nice 4:3 landscape slides,
but that is on Plan 9, I should put my macros and some examples in
http://repo.cat-v.org but it really is not rocket science.
Please do so
[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
[2009-09-08 01:20] Uriel
>
> I have always used troff to generate really nice 4:3 landscape slides,
> but that is on Plan 9, I should put my macros and some examples in
> http://repo.cat-v.org but it really is not rocket science.
Please do so.
meillo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signat
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
Szabolcs Nagy dixit (2009-09-08, 13:44):
> i occasionally tried to use matlab from cmdline (matlab -nodisplay or
> matlab -nodesktop -nosplash) but the terminal handling of the
> interpreter is horrible (no readline support)
Try rlwrap next time you have an occasion. It usually works quite well
w
On 9/8/09, Zhengning Jiang wrote:
> love how dwm tiles the my matlab windows (debug, code, help). But the
> problems starts if i run matlab code
> which creates its own window (e.g. ... figure; imshow(plot);). All the other
> windows break out of the tiling window order.
> The result is 1 tiled wi
Because there is only one Tex and many browsers. If you stick on a
single browser you can perfectly control that rendering.
What about adding printing functionalitoes to surf? A non interactive
mode could be used to generate a PDF for presentations.
Btw in PDF happens sometimes the same that in
Hi,
i wonder if you guys know a fix for my problem. I use matlab with dwm a lot
and i just
love how dwm tiles the my matlab windows (debug, code, help). But the
problems starts if i run matlab code
which creates its own window (e.g. ... figure; imshow(plot);). All the other
windows break out of th
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
