On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 05:28:34PM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
>
> *BSD has kqueues, but I'm lacking information, if there are any
> kqueue utils like inotifywait(1).
>
FAM or a FAM-line solution is the only portable solution. gamin, iirc,
uses inotify on linux and kqueues on BSD.
Hey,
On 22 February 2012 14:19, clamiax wrote:
> This mean people can put any kind of patch on suckless.org regardless
> if it comply with our phylosophy or not (and place it above that which
> comply instead). Ok, I just learned a new rule.
I think we can agree that the "maximize vertical/horiz
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:19:28PM +0100, clamiax wrote:
> That's most likely due to your wrong workflow, which includes moving X
> clients between monitors. I'm not complain about multi-head setup, I'm
> just telling you that moving windows between monitor without any kind
> of criteria is a flaw
Hello,
On 22.02.2012 16:35, Troels Henriksen wrote:
Yes, inotify would be the mechanism by which file changes are
discovered, although it's not portable. I'm not certain what the
Suckless Zeitgeist is on using Linux-only facilities.
AFAIK there are some *BSD users who also use suckless tools.
On 22 February 2012 11:50, Peter Hartman wrote:
> It is pretty silly to write surf, which rides on the Hotspur of
> webkit-gtk, and then not utilize whatever cookie apparatus that
> Hotspur offers. Of course, if it offers us a really shitty cookie
> apparatus, then what is EVEN MORE silly is to w
It is pretty silly to write surf, which rides on the Hotspur of
webkit-gtk, and then not utilize whatever cookie apparatus that
Hotspur offers. Of course, if it offers us a really shitty cookie
apparatus, then what is EVEN MORE silly is to write our own. Instead,
we should disable cookies in surf
Greeetings.
Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 22 February 2012 10:35, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>
>>> On 22 February 2012 09:17, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>>> What about inotify? I am now thinking that would be the best. Instead
>>> of loading the file on every request, we cou
On 22 February 2012 10:35, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Calvin Morrison writes:
>
>> On 22 February 2012 09:17, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>>
On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Calvin Morrison writes:
>
>> But, since we write out to th
* Connor Lane Smith [22.02.2012 15:18]:
> Hey,
>
> On 22 February 2012 08:30, Uli Armbruster
> wrote:
> > You named the video "... NEW Xinerama support". Just curious, what was it
> > like before? I've only been using dwm with two monitors since version 6.0
> > came out.
>
> I think it's a j
Calvin Morrison writes:
> On 22 February 2012 09:17, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>
>>> On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
Calvin Morrison writes:
> But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
> inefficient to b
On 22 February 2012 09:17, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Calvin Morrison writes:
>
>> On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>>
But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
inefficient to be constantly re reading (and repars
2012/2/22 Rob :
> I don't agree, I like moving windows with the keyboard, and the
> cross-monitor thing was bugging me
That's most likely due to your wrong workflow, which includes moving X
clients between monitors. I'm not complain about multi-head setup, I'm
just telling you that moving windows b
Hey,
On 22 February 2012 08:30, Uli Armbruster wrote:
> You named the video "... NEW Xinerama support". Just curious, what was it
> like before? I've only been using dwm with two monitors since version 6.0
> came out.
I think it's a jokey reference to the dwm page [1], which says
> NEW dwm cr
Calvin Morrison writes:
> On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>
>>> But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
>>> inefficient to be constantly re reading (and reparsing) the entire
>>> cookie file?
>>
>> Yes, but we're alread
On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Calvin Morrison writes:
>
>> But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
>> inefficient to be constantly re reading (and reparsing) the entire
>> cookie file?
>
> Yes, but we're already doing that, so apparently it's no
Calvin Morrison writes:
> But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
> inefficient to be constantly re reading (and reparsing) the entire
> cookie file?
Yes, but we're already doing that, so apparently it's not a big problem
in practice.
--
\ Troels
/\ Henriksen
On 22 February 2012 05:33, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Peter Hartman writes:
>
>>> This is still is favorable than the current approach as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because in Surf as it is now, cookies are not readable from Javascript,
> and an increasing number of sites rely on this being
On 22 February 2012 08:58, clamiax wrote:
> I'm here to discuss about the change *before* make it, since most
> people may not agree with me.
I don't agree, I like moving windows with the keyboard, and the
cross-monitor thing was bugging me
>> The 6.0 patches do look ok from my point of view.
>
> userbase of < 5 ;)
the age of understatement...
-- s.
Tomas Hlavaty writes:
> Hi all,
>
>> a slightly better patch attached.
>
> looks like the attachement hasn't made it to the list so I'll try to
> repost it again it the message body.
>
> Would it be possible to get it into the main repository?
This will still send cookies, will it not? Is that
Peter Hartman writes:
>> This is stil is favorable than the current approach as far as I can tell.
>
> Why?
Because in Surf as it is now, cookies are not readable from Javascript,
and an increasing number of sites rely on this being possible. The
naive approach used in sb is not by itself usefu
Hi,
2012/2/21 Anselm R Garbe :
> It's a wiki after all and it would be quicker to fix the sites yourself.
I'm here to discuss about the change *before* make it, since most
people may not agree with me.
Also I will not waste my time fixing other people defacements; nor I should.
> The 6.0 patches
* Kai Hendry [22.02.2012 08:09]:
> Hey there,
>
> I've uploaded an embarrassing howto video of how to gain a neck injury
> using dwm 6.0
>
> http://youtu.be/UJuvLOQzSOc
>
> Enjoy,
You named the video "... NEW Xinerama support". Just curious, what was it like
before? I've only been using dwm w
23 matches
Mail list logo
