On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:34 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Will Light wrote:
>> but the notion of a browser-based terminal
>> for a local machine just seems ridiculous...and that's a mild example!
>> a browser-based music sequencer or vid
> But the reason it's successful (where "successful" means "popular") is
> because it's offloaded the responsibility to get things working from the
> end receiver to the developer, isn't it? -POLM
yeah, the web has completely changed the way that applications are
distributed to the users. for app
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> Personally I would love to see a minimalistic replacement, and I have
> followed the Wayland development for some time. Since the computer is
> almost never used without a web browser, I’d like to see the web
> browser engine run in fullsc
arch linux has netcfg, which I use. it, like wicd, can be a little
warty, but the whole thing is written in bash and doesn't require a
UI. adding network profiles is done through editing conf files in
/etc/network.d/
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Netcfg
-w
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Uriel wrote:
> Actually it is sad that git moved from 'small specialized tools'
> towards a more centralized/monolithic model. But nobody will miss the
> dependency on perl...
Git is still an array of small specialized tools, they just don't all
get dumped in /usr
