On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:12:13PM +0200, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> Sorry, it is efficient due to text sharing and, in some cases, to
> copy on write. When you run multiple instances of a static linked program
> usual OS make that all these process share the pages of the text segment.
>
The term 'virtual terminal emulator' was broken. There is nothing
virtual about it, it's a terminal emulator.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Huemer
---
README | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/README b/README
index 25606a2..b38c88b 100644
--- a/README
+++ b/README
@@
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 06:22:55PM -0500, Steven Degutis wrote:
> > Don't make yourself at home on OSX!
>
> Obviously we're all entitled to our own opinions. But this discussion
> has gotten very far off-track. My original question was answered
> satisfactorily already, so this thread is largely "
>> > The world you're living in is the walled garden of OS X.
>> > It's your choice to either attempt to improve it, which is futile, or
>> > enter a world in which improvement is possible in the first place.
>>
>> I have to use OS X sometimes for work.
>
> I have to too, from time to time.
>
>> It
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:12:13PM +0200, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:22:31PM +0200, q...@c9x.me wrote:
> > This is OS X specific and weird in my opinion, if you want multiple windows
> > lauch multiple processes. It is safer, you can limit the impact of a crash
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 06:00:54PM -0400, Andrew Hills wrote:
> On 8/17/14, 3:47 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> > The world you're living in is the walled garden of OS X.
> > It's your choice to either attempt to improve it, which is futile, or
> > enter a world in which improvement is possible in the first pl
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:47:48PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> The world you're living in is the walled garden of OS X.
> It's your choice to either attempt to improve it, which is futile, or
> enter a world in which improvement is possible in the first place.
I agree very much with this (generalized) i
On 8/17/14, 3:47 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> The world you're living in is the walled garden of OS X.
> It's your choice to either attempt to improve it, which is futile, or
> enter a world in which improvement is possible in the first place.
I have to use OS X sometimes for work. It's still a general-purp
Sure, I already groked that you was meaning the postpostpostpostpostnextSTEP
environment for the whateverapp store (don't read this in a mocking tone on
your efforts in this system, it isn't intended at all).
Well this really is enlightening about Mac OS, thank you.
Under these constrainments, th
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 22:35:27 +0200 "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero"
> wrote:
>> > I think it would also be beneficial because it is difficult (at least
>> > for me) to keep track of a single ~4k line c file.
>>
>> I usually work in the terminal emulation part, and sometimes it is a
>> bit confusin
Greetings.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 22:35:27 +0200 "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero"
wrote:
> > I think it would also be beneficial because it is difficult (at least
> > for me) to keep track of a single ~4k line c file.
>
> I usually work in the terminal emulation part, and sometimes it is a
> bit conf
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:22:31PM +0200, q...@c9x.me wrote:
> This is OS X specific and weird in my opinion, if you want multiple windows
> lauch multiple processes. It is safer, you can limit the impact of a crash
> to a single window. It is also memory efficient thanks to (haters gonna
> hate)
> I am interested in a separation of terminal and windowing system logic
> for my wayland port[0] of st.
...
You did something like this in the past, didn't it?.
> That said, I don't really see how moving globals into a Term structure
> would help with this. I think you could accomplish this by m
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 14:30:19 -0500
Steven Degutis wrote:
> I just read this to my wife and she paraphrased your comment I think
> pretty accurately: "so, don't improve the world you're in, just live
> with it".
Your wife knows dick.
She assumes everyone is using OS X, which obviously is not the
>> > Who’s still using Apple software in 2014 should be considered a fool.
>> > iPhones are open to everyone, Mac OS X is full of security holes, the
>> > hardware is built by slaves in the third world.
>>
>> None of which is relevant to the task at hand.
>
> It is.
> When you port somethi
> This is OS X specific and weird in my opinion, if you want multiple windows
> lauch multiple processes. It is safer, you can limit the impact of a crash
> to a single window. It is also memory efficient thanks to (haters gonna
> hate) dynamic link.
That's not how OS X users expect their apps t
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:04:12PM -0500, Steven Degutis wrote:
> [...]
> in the same process, which the current architecture of the program
> does not allow. Otherwise the application would be limited to only
> ever having one terminal emulator open, which seems to me like a
> severe limitation.
> Stupid question by an ignorant prosumer: are you serious? You can have only
> one
> instance of something opened in Mac OS?
Oops, I should clarify. This is only the case with graphical programs,
which live within a .app directory, containing the actual executable
and the resources for the progr
>> You're very right: There is no point to it anymore. The changes I've
>> made are necessary for a straight-forward OS X port, because in OS X,
>> applications have only one instance, but may have many windows; thus
>> if you wanted to open multiple terminals, they would all need to live
>> in the
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:04:12PM -0500, Steven Degutis wrote:
> You're very right: There is no point to it anymore. The changes I've
> made are necessary for a straight-forward OS X port, because in OS X,
> applications have only one instance, but may have many windows; thus
> if you wanted to op
Man page was repeating -f option, the second time instead of -i,
and this option was lost in usage() message. This patch also indent
the output of usage().
---
st.1 | 2 +-
st.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/st.1 b/st.1
index 7174da2..e655530 100644
--- a
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:35:18 +0200
Markus Wichmann wrote:
> > Who’s still using Apple software in 2014 should be considered a fool.
> > iPhones are open to everyone, Mac OS X is full of security holes, the
> > hardware is built by slaves in the third world.
>
> None of which is relevant
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Steven Degutis wrote:
[...]
> does not allow. Otherwise the application would be limited to only
> ever having one terminal emulator open, which seems to me like a
> severe limitation.
[...]
This. This is a feature. You're seriously suggesting to only have one
te
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 06:32:01PM -0500, Steven Degutis wrote:
> > What is the point?
> > One obvious cons is that it will bloat the code, make it less readable.
>
> First of all, I would not agree that it would bloat the code or make
> it less readable. In fact I think it will increase readabili
> What is the point?
You're very right: There is no point to it anymore. The changes I've
made are necessary for a straight-forward OS X port, because in OS X,
applications have only one instance, but may have many windows; thus
if you wanted to open multiple terminals, they would all need to live
> You have patches? Just submit them. This kind of meta discussion isn't
> worth anything.
Very good point, thank you Alex. It sounds like my changes most likely
won't be welcome, due to differences of opinion. And that's perfectly
fine.
If anyone is curious, here are the term.c and term.h files
Hi.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 04:51:27PM -0500, Steven Degutis wrote:
> I'm making progress on my port of st to OS X, and one of the changes
> I'm making is to get rid of globals, turning most of them into fields
> on Term, and making all the functions that use them take Term* as an
> argument. It's
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:56:45AM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> You are wrong. The approach to shuffle everything into object‐liked
> structures is what makes software development ill. Stop it now.
It would be hard for that statement to be more wrong, because what makes
software developm
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 04:51:27PM -0500, Steven Degutis wrote:
> original st. Are these changes going to be wanted upstream?
The procedure is to sent these changes to the mailing list and
them they will be reviewed for all the members of the comunity
and then the maintainers will take a decision
Greetings.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 08:56:45 +0200 Steven Degutis wrote:
> > What is the point?
> > One obvious cons is that it will bloat the code, make it less readable.
>
> First of all, I would not agree that it would bloat the code or make
> it less readable. In fact I think it will increase rea
30 matches
Mail list logo
