On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:54:49AM +, Nick wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:23:08AM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> > Cross-site scripting is already a backwards compatibility to Google,
> > like Windows is the backward compatibility to the proprietary world. But
> > yes, it would b
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:45:35PM +0100, sta...@cs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
> - borders are useful
configuration
border-width: 0
problem solved
Some times ago, for fun, I wrote a small C fastcgi wrapper too, for lighttpd in
my case.
There is less than 1k lines of C, and it's very basic but works.
The idea is to write a page in C, compile it, then load in on-the-fly on a
fastcgi prefork. Each pre-fork keep the loaded page on memory (or r
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:13:06PM +0100, Yoshi Rokuko wrote:
> somehow you guys still haven't convinced me of not using a local
> /etc/hosts with all these 0.0.0.0 goat.cx in it.
Thanks for letting us know, Yoshi Rokuko.
--- Kurt H Maier on Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:47:46 -0500 ---
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:42:34PM +, Nick wrote:
> >
> > What I meant is that privoxy will strip out e.g. > src="badthing.png"> from the HTML it delivers to the browser, so the
> > browser will not request it. I think it does
Borders are not drawn by dwm, the border width is a part of the window
configuration dwm tells
the X server to use on each window. The *only* drawing performed by dwm is the
bar. Getting rid
of the bar would also mean that the status string does not have to pass through
dwm as it would
rather be
- borders are useful
- the information in the bar is quite useful, too. Don't mind if it is
provided separately. But isn't it too much ofa hassle to interface it
with dwm then?
- never used mouse in the bar, and don't plan to.
cheers
--s_
On 121117 2053, Ruben Mikkonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> However, why would dwm need draw{.h,c} if there were no bar? Window
> borders? They're imo somewhat useless: a) If a window is a terminal
> window, then you easily see from the cursor if it's active. b) Otherwise
> you most likely need the mouse anyw
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:23:08AM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Crossâside scripting is already a backwards compatibility to Google,
> like Windows is the backward compatibility to the proprietary world. But
> yes, it would be a nice toggle for surf, to turn off by default any
> cross
Greetings.
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:23:08 +0100 Sam Watkins wrote:
> On 11-20 08:08, Andrew Hills wrote:
> > Would it be possible to disable requests made by the page to any
> > address outside the page's domain?
>
> This is a worthwhile option for the browser.
>
> It can block many ads, and also
I redirect to localhost which will most of the time just send an 404
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I block only in my DNS. I think it's the most important feature of my
> home network. Not only because it blocks ads, but also because it
> block fads.
How do you proceed? Do you actually blackhole blocked domains, or do
you redirec
12 matches
Mail list logo
