> I have gtk+-2.16.1 from ~x86.
I use the latest slackware release (12.2) even with slackware current you
get gtk+2-2.14 or something so I wonder for what they need such a recent
gtk version ...
compiling webkit from svn doesn't hurt, but if I want to upgrade to
gtk+2-2.16 I have to solve a lot o
Or maybe the Gecko people just want us to think they're rending pages
correctly, and they're not. It's a conspiracy I tell you. They just want
us all to have to use firefox.
The only problem I'm having with uzbl is cookies, which is something I
need to configure. Other than that I think I'm going
I have gtk+-2.16.1 from ~x86.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:07:02PM +0200, Yoshi Rokuko wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:27:36PM -0400, Jacob Todd wrote:
> > I've been able to get uzbl to compile on my gentoo machine. So far
>
> good for you, my build failed because my gtk+2-2.12.12 seemes to be
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:27:36PM -0400, Jacob Todd wrote:
> I've been able to get uzbl to compile on my gentoo machine. So far
good for you, my build failed because my gtk+2-2.12.12 seemes to be too
old ...
what kind of bleeding edge gtk2 does uzbl need (?)
regards, y0shi
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:27:36PM -0400, Jacob Todd wrote:
it seems to render pages like slashdot faster than firefox with
noscript and flashblock.
KHTML and WebKit render most pages faster than Firefox, but they
don't necessarilly render them correctly.
--
Kris Maglione
C++: an octopus ma
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> it seems to render pages like slashdot faster than firefox with noscript and
> flashblock.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> it seems javascript is turned off.
makes sense to me
--
# Kurt H Maier
Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>
> http://github.com/Dieterbe/uzbl/blob/experimental/docs/multiple-instances-management
>
> Dieter
>
Yeap, I have read it already, and why I noted that uzbl people probably
won't implement buffers-like style of management.
I've been able to get uzbl to compile on my gentoo machine. So far
the browser has been working just fine with my tor + polipo setup, fonts
look nice (but it doesn't seem like you can change them yet), and it seems
to render pages like slashdot faster than firefox with noscript and flashblock.
The
On Mon, 25 May 2009 01:41:10 +0400
Michael wrote:
> sta...@cs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
> > * Michael [2009-05-24 21:55]:
> > > Although concept of one page per instance isn't very useful for
> > > me right now. I use dwm, and I want web page be full screen, but
> > > if I'm not in monocle mode, pages
2009/5/24 Kris Maglione :
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:30:46PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>> Weird. I fetched the wmii 3.6 tarball, but it only contains wmii9menu.
>> no wimenu.
>
> Yeah, it wasn't in 3.6—I think every wmii release to date has been done
> behind my back, and 3.6 is old. I'm wo
Pertag patch (http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/pertag) has this licked.
I use it, and it works fine!
Don
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 09:05:44PM -0400, Ammar James wrote to To dev mail list:
> The whole tabbing situation could be solved if monacle were able to
> function for only one tab (or "virtual d
The whole tabbing situation could be solved if monacle were able to
function for only one tab (or "virtual desktop" if you will).
If that can happen, then simply having moncale on the tab you have the
browser in would be great. if you want to go to another open page you
just shuffle around till yo
nilp wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:47:40PM +0400, Michael wrote:
> > Although concept of one page per instance isn't very useful for me right
> > now. I use dwm, and I want web page be full screen, but if I'm not in
> > monocle mode, pages get shrunk in a half if there is more than one page,
sta...@cs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
> * Michael [2009-05-24 21:55]:
> > Although concept of one page per instance isn't very useful for me right
> > now. I use dwm, and I want web page be full screen, but if I'm not in
> > monocle mode, pages get shrunk in a half if there is more than one page,
> > whic
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:38 PM, wrote:
> * Michael [2009-05-24 21:55]:
>> Although concept of one page per instance isn't very useful for me right
>> now. I use dwm, and I want web page be full screen, but if I'm not in
>> monocle mode, pages get shrunk in a half if there is more than one page
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Michael wrote:
> Jacob Todd wrote:
>> Has anyone tried out uzbl (http://uzbl.org)? Seems interesting, it would
>> be nice to replace firefox with this. I plan on installing it on my
>> gentoo system later today.
>>
>
> I have tried it already, and found very nasty
* Michael [2009-05-24 21:55]:
> Although concept of one page per instance isn't very useful for me right
> now. I use dwm, and I want web page be full screen, but if I'm not in
> monocle mode, pages get shrunk in a half if there is more than one page,
> which is bad, and monocle mode isn't useful
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:47:40PM +0400, Michael wrote:
> Although concept of one page per instance isn't very useful for me right
> now. I use dwm, and I want web page be full screen, but if I'm not in
> monocle mode, pages get shrunk in a half if there is more than one page,
> which is bad, and
Jacob Todd wrote:
> Has anyone tried out uzbl (http://uzbl.org)? Seems interesting, it would
> be nice to replace firefox with this. I plan on installing it on my
> gentoo system later today.
>
I have tried it already, and found very nasty thing about native
language handling (filed bug already),
[2009-05-24 11:31] Charlie Kester
>
> Writing an html renderer is not a simple task, so I understand the
> decision to use an existing one (webkit) rather than set out to write a
> new, suckless one.
If this is possible at all. The current web technology requires
complex software to render the p
On Sun 24 May 2009 at 09:11:37 PDT Leonardo Taccari wrote:
I agree with you Enno, I think that uzbl can became a very interesting
browser because it's trying to follow the Unix way and at the same time
its rendering, thanks to Webkit, isn't bad.
I haven't had a chance to try uzbl yet, but I agr
On Sun, 24 May 2009, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> mind telling us which functionality is lacking?
Those that you wrote in this thread.
> Btw, did you notice the project is just a month old and we have
> no release yet?
>
> About the gtk dependency -> http://www.uzbl.org/faq.php
not gtk dependency
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> About the gtk dependency -> http://www.uzbl.org/faq.php
The GTK dependency is understendable for a graphical browser.
All we can regret is that it comes with glib (but as it's here, it's
normal to use it in a gtk app).
> About the other c
On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:11:37 +0200
Leonardo Taccari wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 04:43:31PM +0200, Enno Boland (Gottox) wrote:
> > NCURSES?! LIBCACA?! You're absolutely insane!
> > Only because it's terminal based makes the libraries not better.
> >
> > GTK is the least sucking way (anyway n
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 04:43:31PM +0200, Enno Boland (Gottox) wrote:
> NCURSES?! LIBCACA?! You're absolutely insane!
> Only because it's terminal based makes the libraries not better.
>
> GTK is the least sucking way (anyway not a good one) to use Webkit. If
> you want to use a textbrowser use el
I use w3m as primary browser and firefox only for sites that need
javascript or ajax. I cannot see this project suckless, it only uses
a bloated rendering engine and lack needed functions. I think one can
take midori and remove some functions to make yet another uzbl. It
will earn more respect b
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Enno Boland (Gottox) wrote:
> GTK is the least sucking way (anyway not a good one) to use Webkit. If
> you want to use a textbrowser use elinks.
If you think by using libcaca I'll have a "textbrowser" like elinks then
you are wrong.
Uzbl is ok for a minimal codeb
NCURSES?! LIBCACA?! You're absolutely insane!
Only because it's terminal based makes the libraries not better.
GTK is the least sucking way (anyway not a good one) to use Webkit. If
you want to use a textbrowser use elinks.
I think uzbl is a good base to write a better browser, but I believe
gtk
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Uriel wrote:
> WTF? They claim to follow 'the unix way', and they write *bash*
> scripts? Are this people retarded? And thy use
> --idiotic-gnu-style-options *YUCK*
I agree, one of the projects motto is "the Unix way", yet I still
need a borked shell and bloated l
WTF? They claim to follow 'the unix way', and they write *bash*
scripts? Are this people retarded? And thy use
--idiotic-gnu-style-options *YUCK*
uriel
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Julien Laffaye wrote:
> I like the main ideas (minimalism/vi(m) key bindings).
> But the poor quality of the sh
> I know that Safari's developer tools are awesome, but I don't know how much
> of that is included in webkit.
>From what I've seen pop up in Arora and Midori, a lot has. Everything
from the javascript profiler and debugging to the live dom tree views,
load graphs and such. However, I don't know
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:30:46PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
I hear you. firebug rocks. I will probably also keep using
FF+firebug+web developer toolbar, but just for developing/debugging/..
web pages. Eg purely as a web development tool. (unless i find
something better). Uzbl aims to be
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 01:35:18PM -0400, Benjamin Conner wrote:
>it looks cool. I will maybe test it out when I get home.
>
>On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Jacob Todd <[1]jaketodd...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
> Has anyone tried out uzbl ([2]http://uzbl.org)? Seems interesting, i
On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:48:46 +0200
"svenguc...@guckes.net" wrote:
> * Dieter Plaetinck [2009-05-23 21:41]:
> > On Sat, 23 May 2009 20:42:46 +0200
> > Sven Guckes wrote:
> > > * Dieter Plaetinck [2009-05-23 20:15]:
> > > > We may have (more or less) the keybinding ideas in
> > > > common with v
On Sat, 23 May 2009 15:26:22 -0400
Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 08:48:28PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> >> No, it doesn't. I'd be in favor of it, but it would require
> >> switching over to xulrunner and breaking compatibility with
> >> other extensions (some of which are
* Dieter Plaetinck [2009-05-23 21:41]:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 20:42:46 +0200
> Sven Guckes wrote:
> > * Dieter Plaetinck [2009-05-23 20:15]:
> > > We may have (more or less) the keybinding ideas in
> > > common with vimperator, but that's where it stops.
> > > (unless I'm mistaken about what vimp
On Sat, 23 May 2009 20:42:46 +0200
Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Dieter Plaetinck [2009-05-23 20:15]:
> > We may have (more or less) the keybinding ideas in
> > common with vimperator, but that's where it stops.
> > (unless I'm mistaken about what vimperator does).
>
> you want a command line! http:/
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 08:48:28PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
No, it doesn't. I'd be in favor of it, but it would require
switching over to xulrunner and breaking compatibility with
other extensions (some of which are too useful to give up).
did you mean switching away from xulrunner? fire
I like the main ideas (minimalism/vi(m) key bindings).
But the poor quality of the shell scripts (especially the shebang with
bash, sic!) and the license (gplv3) disappointed me.
[yeah, im fighting against linuxisms...]
Regards
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> Has anyone tri
* Dieter Plaetinck [2009-05-23 20:15]:
> I have only spent little time with vimperator, but unless
> I'm missing something vimperators idea is adding a vim-like
> interface to firefox (and other mozilla software).
yep.. and it makes firefox *extra* slow. :-(
> AFAIK it does not change that stora
On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:19:40 -0400
Kris Maglione wrote:
Hi Kris, thanks for your reply.
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 08:06:00PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> >I have only spent little time with vimperator, but unless I'm missing
> >something vimperators idea is adding a vim-like interface to fir
[2009-05-23 19:42] José Manuel Pavón Álvarez
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> > Has anyone tried out uzbl (http://uzbl.org)? Seems interesting, it would
> > be nice to replace firefox with this. I plan on installing it on my
> > gentoo system later today.
>
> Looks like the
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 08:06:00PM +0200, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
I have only spent little time with vimperator, but unless I'm missing
something vimperators idea is adding a vim-like interface to firefox
(and other mozilla software). AFAIK it does not change that
storage of your bookmarks, hist
On Sat, 23 May 2009 19:42:31 +0200
José Manuel Pavón Álvarez wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Jacob Todd
> wrote:
> > Has anyone tried out uzbl (http://uzbl.org)? Seems interesting, it
> > would be nice to replace firefox with this. I plan on installing it
> > on my gentoo system later
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 01:53:05PM -0400, Jacob Todd wrote:
Vimperator is just an addon for firefox (what I use atm), uzbl is a
complete browser with vim like keybindings with a good rendering engine,
that leaves all configuration to the user in the form of scripts.
Yep, we talked about it on t
Vimperator is just an addon for firefox (what I use atm), uzbl is a
complete browser with vim like keybindings with a good rendering engine,
that leaves all configuration to the user in the form of scripts.
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 07:42:31PM +0200, Jos? Manuel Pav?n ?lvarez wrote:
> Looks like the
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> Has anyone tried out uzbl (http://uzbl.org)? Seems interesting, it would
> be nice to replace firefox with this. I plan on installing it on my
> gentoo system later today.
Looks like the vimperator [1] idea. I am more happy since I use
vimperat
it looks cool. I will maybe test it out when I get home.
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Jacob Todd wrote:
> Has anyone tried out uzbl (http://uzbl.org)? Seems interesting, it would
> be nice to replace firefox with this. I plan on installing it on my
> gentoo system later today.
>
>
Has anyone tried out uzbl (http://uzbl.org)? Seems interesting, it would
be nice to replace firefox with this. I plan on installing it on my
gentoo system later today.
49 matches
Mail list logo
