hiro,
did you drink your coffee before it was cool?
Sincerely,
Calvin Morrison
On 30 June 2013 17:59, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And then stop those stupid questions without any intro‐
>> duction or greeting. You are disrespectuful and should not use other
>> people’s time in such a
> And then stop those stupid questions without any intro‐
> duction or greeting. You are disrespectuful and should not use other
> people’s time in such a parasitic way.
what about your tasteless hipster justification?
> In short, would you still hate X11 if someone went and streamlined both
> protocol and implementation? If so, why?
Maybe not, but that's changing both what it is, and what it does. It
would be a fundamentally different program; how is anyone supposed
to speculate on that?
> If the argument is
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:05:41 +0200 Markus Wichmann
wrote:
> I can see, that Xorg is a very complex implementation of the X11
> protocol, and that that protocoll is not very good, seeing as how it
> was extended several times, the extensions oftentimes being
> incompatible with each other (e.g. Xin
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Louis-Guillaume Gagnon <
louis.guillaume.gag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/6/29 Andrew Gwozdziewycz :
> > I don't speak for the suckless community, but despite the fact that I
> love
> > it, Lisp is complicated and not very simple at all
>
> It's worth noting that th
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> Andrew Gwozdziewycz writes:
>
> >I don't speak for the suckless community, but despite the fact that I
> >love it, Lisp is complicated and not very simple at all, which I'm
> >guessing is why you don't hear about it. I'm curre
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> r5rs is much more limited in scope than c99, it has a synthetic
> design that provides the bare minimum to express high level
> computations, while c99 has an ugly pragmatic design, the result
> of long evolution and contradicting const
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:27:36AM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 10:27:36 +0200 oneofthem wrote:
> > Why doesn't any of the suckless software use a client-server model?
>
> Learn about X11. And then stop those stupid questions without any intro‐
> duction o
Yes, there aren't enough Patterns in suckless software. Why doesn't st use
a client server model? Why doesn't the sbase implementation of split?
Perhaps dwm should follow a distributed pub-sub pattern over COM for window
control.
On 30/06/2013 6:30 PM, "Christoph Lohmann" <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
>
Greetings.
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 10:27:36 +0200 oneofthem wrote:
> Why doesn't any of the suckless software use a client-server model?
Learn about X11. And then stop those stupid questions without any intro‐
duction or greeting. You are disrespectuful and should not use other
people’s time in
Why doesn't any of the suckless software use a client-server model?
11 matches
Mail list logo
