On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:36 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> My view is that the plan 9 technologies are attractive if and only if
> they're used everywhere: if a pseudo-filesystem interface was
> pervasive it would avoid the "learn another new language/technology
> tricks/etc for this task" and the prob
So, there have been some wild rumours about surf not
handling cookies well. The last item of
http://suckless.org/project_ideas even mentions this.
However, it has always worked fine for me, and I haven't
heard any complaints about it for a long time.
I believe surf isn't using webkit's cookie han
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Petr Šabata wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:54:11PM -0500, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Roger wrote:
>>
>> >I'm using dwm-5.9. I'd love to get a dwm-.ebuild into Gentoo,
>> >but some hate cvs/svn/git ebuilds and I have a tou
On 11 Nov 2011 04:30, "Anselm R Garbe" wrote:
>
> On 8 November 2011 07:28, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
>
> > And how is "modern" wmii different from its, let's say, "pre-modern"
> > phase? From my view, it still uses the Plan9 protocol and the Plan9
> > approach of exposing a virtual filesystem fo
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 08/11/2011, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
>> I thought Suckless folks were enthusiastic about Plan9 technologies;
>> has this changed? If so, why?
>
> Appreciative, not necessarily enthusiastic. Plan 9 technologies have
> their place, but
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:54:11PM -0500, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Roger wrote:
>
> >I'm using dwm-5.9. I'd love to get a dwm-.ebuild into Gentoo,
> >but some hate cvs/svn/git ebuilds and I have a tough time getting
> >them into Gentoo.
>
> It doesn't make a whole lo
