On 20/11/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:53:12 -0500
> M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
>
>> OpenBSD has poor multiprocessing performance but Bitrig is working on it.
>
> You can buy yourself performance by buying faster Hardware, but you
> can't buy yourself security.
> That's why choosing secur
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014, at 06:34 PM, Greg Reagle wrote:
> Well I am a member of this mailing list, and I am very interested in
> Minix.
Yes, to be clear - I meant "ignored in discussions on this mailing
list," not "ignored by members of this mailing list." :)
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014, at 09:25 PM, Charles Thorley wrote:
> It's surprising to me that Minix 3 appears to be, by way of googling
> 'site:lists.suckless.org minix', almost completely ignored by this
> mailing list. This thread brought that curiosity to my attention once
> again. I wonder if anyone
Greetings to the Suckless community. Thanks for all the awesome
software.
I find Minix3 to be extremely interesting, and attractive (at least in
principle). A kernel that's only a few thousand (I think I heard 12
last?) LOC sounds like "do one thing and do it well" taken to an
extreme. I realize
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe said:
> None of this applies to insane software. (I do not wish to recompile
> libwebkitgtk _ever again_, for example.) But aside from speeding up
> fresh installs, software too awful to compile is the only good
> argument for a large binary package library.
Updating softwa
Quoth Markus Wichmann on Thu, Nov 20 2014 21:18 +0100:
sabotage/Morpheus/sta.li: All great ideas, but since they're
lacking the sheer manpower the major distributions boast, they
can't possibly have the same library of packages.
After running Slackware for a while, I've come to think this is no
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014, at 14:40, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> Not always. One thing that reliably gets on people's nerves here is
> shared libraries. And those aren't protected with that ETXTBSY thing.
>
> The reason is that the MAP_DENYWRITE flag became the irrecoverable
> source of a DoS attack and h
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned TinyCore Linux. Not everything
about it is suckless, but at least it's frugal on resources once you
get it configured how you like.
For my development machines, I started on RedHat in the 90s and
continued on with Fedora until I found Crux around 2002. Loved it
Markus Wichmann said:
> sabotage/Morpheus/sta.li: All great ideas, but since they're lacking the
> sheer manpower the major distributions boast, they can't possibly have
> the same library of packages.
They can't possibly have the same library of packages simply because
their goal is to be suckles
Hey there,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:19:15PM -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote:
> I'm curious to know what flavor of *nix people on this list use on a
> day-to-day basis.
Slackware atm at home, I'm still tinkering with it to get an environment which
conforms to my quirks.
It's installed in dual boot
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:19:15PM -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote:
> So for those of you that participate in the suckless community in some
> way: What do you run on your computer, and why?
>
Debian testing on my laptop and Windows on my PC. Because I use my
laptop for working and playing around wit
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:12:43AM -0500, random...@fastmail.us wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, at 09:55, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > Regarding your question on cp -f then the answer is not quite.
> >
> > cp -f will try to unlink the destination if it fails to open it for
> > whatever
> > reason
On 19 November 2014 19:19, Josh Lawrence wrote:
> I'm curious to know what flavor of *nix people on this list use on a
> day-to-day basis. I've recall that some have mentioned using OpenBSD,
> and I recently saw a reference to Fedora which, to be honest,
> surprised me.
I haven't settled yet, I
On 20 November 2014 15:19, Maxime Coste wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 07:56:29AM +0100, ans...@garbe.us wrote:
>> > But regarding the typedefs for structs: C has only a few namespace
>> > features, so lets not dismantle the probably most used one, alright?
>> > "struct stat" can be something di
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:53:12 -0500
M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> OpenBSD has poor multiprocessing performance but Bitrig is working on it.
You can buy yourself performance by buying faster Hardware, but you
can't buy yourself security.
That's why choosing security is always better than choosing speed.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 07:56:29AM +0100, ans...@garbe.us wrote:
> > But regarding the typedefs for structs: C has only a few namespace
> > features, so lets not dismantle the probably most used one, alright?
> > "struct stat" can be something different from "stat()"! I like that
> > namespace thin
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:19:15PM -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote:
> So for those of you that participate in the suckless community in some
> way: What do you run on your computer, and why?
I use Exherbo, which is similar to Gentoo but more decentralized, (and probably
less user friendly). I
Hand-crafted Linux distro on my desktop, maintaining it is a pain in the
ass so might switch to Gentoo soon. I am currently using root to log in
and run each "package" with a different uid (was supposed to be an
experiment but it worked somewhat well) which might be hard to do on
Gentoo.
Arch with
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, at 16:44, k...@shike2.com wrote:
> > C90, or any version of standard C, does not have a concept of "system
> > headers", other than giving implementations permission to place their
> > own implementation-defined files in places searched by #include
> > .
>
> At this point I
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Marc André Tanner wrote:
> The whole repeating implementation probably needs a overhaul. A redesign
> should also consider howto implement macro support. Then the . command
> would simply replay a short macro. I will have to give it some more
> thought but unfortun
k...@shike2.com wrote:
> For long time I followed the rule of kernel style of not using typedef
> ever, but I changed it to the rule of using typedef only with structs
> and capital letter, and I can say that this last is far better; You
> get more readable function definitions:
Not typedefing rea
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 09:53:19PM -0500, random...@fastmail.us wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014, at 17:59, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
> > I've written up patches to make it so that I, a, A, s, ce, etc can be
> > repeated properly with . -- not sure if I'm doing this the Right Way,
> > but
> > it se
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 06:37:20PM -0800, Evan Gates wrote:
> As we recently found out POSIX make is lacking. For fun I started to
> write a POSIX sh script to build sbase (attached and linked[0]). I
> don't know if we should use it, but it's food for thought after the
> recent pain (including requ
23 matches
Mail list logo
