Greetings,
could you provide a use-case for this attribute? It seems very obscure
to me, and not so long ago, there was a huge debate which resulted in
mucking with colours being interpreted as negative.
Not really. I'm going to keep it in, but you go ahead and do whatever.
cheers
aes
* FRIGN 2014-06-24 17:07
Damn, you are right -.-. Back to the drawing board.
FWIW
CEILmy(x) ((int)(x) + ((x) - (int)(x) 0))
the porblem with CEIL(3.01) remains, though.
--s.
You kids have heard about testing, right?
(Yes, that was incendiary)
The right way to deal with things like this is to make a few obvious
test cases and test. It's hard, because testing in C just sucks, but
that's another story.
cheers
aes
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
There's also smdev[0] if you are interested.
[0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
files to recompile for a build
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:05:20 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
files to recompile for a build increment.
Are you serious?
Not a fan of the licence, will still
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
Nobody cares how you build the kernel.
Ok, you are from those who does not care.
Unfortunately, I'm from those who do care. Then I should not care
about stali once I hit linux kernel issues. From now, I may have a
look at
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Say what?
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:13:15PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:05:20 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
files to recompile for a build increment.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
There's also smdev[0] if you are interested.
[0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Learn how to write
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:38:27PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
Nobody cares how you build the kernel.
Ok, you are from those who does not care.
Unfortunately, I'm from those who do care. Then I should not care
about
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is
to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to
minimize build time.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
needs.
Nothing to see here.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
needs.
Nothing to see here.
?
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
There's also smdev[0] if you are interested.
[0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
There's also
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is
to cherry pick what to recompile
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them
irrationnal so be it. My SDKs will be irrationnal then :)
This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
annoying with a brutal and stupid sh
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:25:58PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at
On June 25, 2014 4:34:59 PM CEST, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
source files takes
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -- I'll go makefile
to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build.
I love the comment at the top[0]
[0] https://github.com/sylware/mudev/blob/master/makefile
Why not to use simply XLIB??
Look with a minimum of deps, one can easily do a sort of powerful
vector graphics.
To compile mine (which is still too basic), I use only:
gcc -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11 x11vectgfx.c -o x11vectgfx ; ./x11vectgfx
The problem I have with Xfig and Xpaint is that it
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
source files takes little time.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:08PM +0200, koneu wrote:
Thanks. You prefixing the GPL with GNU each and every GNU time
made this so much GNU more entertaining to GNU read.
I thank you too for your large contribution to the topic. Come
on! If you disagree, give me arguments!
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making
SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components
in small SDKs.
To look at things another way: simple projects don’t require
FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
needs.
Nothing to see here.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of
the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size.
I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned!
Says the guy who puts
#This is a brutal
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:43:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -- I'll go makefile
to cherry pick what to
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:08:52AM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote:
FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from suckless distro
Sorry, I took some of my free time to feed the trolls...
I'll stop very soon.
All my apologies.
regards,
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Carlos Torres vlaadbr...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
I stole
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:03PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them
irrationnal so be it. My SDKs will be irrationnal then :)
This is where I draw the line for my
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote:
Thread subjects are overrated. As is bottom posting.
touché sir, touché!
On Wed 25 Jun 2014 at 08:39:11 PDT Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it
reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs
included!).
It's an old argument: cost to develop versus cost to deploy or run.
The trend in mainstream software
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:16:34PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of
the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size.
I guess, I draw the line
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:07:17AM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making
SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components
in small SDKs.
To
Greetings,
I would vote to drop the macro, because supporting it for future
use-cases can be a nightmare. What to use for ceiliing in those
calculations is another matter... we could always just add 1 -
FLT_EPSILON and call it a day.
I agree with you in drop the macro, and because nobody
I will apply this patch. Even if we don't implement at the end any
difference between fast and slow blinking, I think is a good idea at least
have different bits for them. The same criteria apply to faint, struck
and invisible bits.
Regards,
--
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
The implementation is far simple, so I think it is a good idea apply
this patch. Are you sure that is not there any terminfo capability
related to this feature? I am not sure, but I think there is one.
--
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
On a previous thread off thread topic, we got this:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:07:49 +0200
FRIGN d...@frign.de wrote:
...
I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to
the knee.
Cheers
FRIGN
Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
I'm eager
Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
see [0]
[0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
Implement crossed-out text with an XftDrawRect call, similar to how
underline is implemented. The line is drawn at 2/3 of the font ascent,
which seems to work nicely in practice.
Ok, I understand know what you mean with struck attribute. I was thinking
in something very different,
On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
see [0]
[0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
But more seriously, GNU freedom is the same kind of 'freedom' that is
promised by communists.
Render faint attribute
Faint text is implemented by allocating a new color at one-half
intensity of each of the r, g, b components, or if the text bold at the
same time, it is not made lighter.
I think it is a good idea, but Christoph knows more than me about this part
of
is this really necessary? Default constants don't really mean
anything, they persist literally until the window is mapped and the
text buffer is resized at
(apologies for accidentally sending)
L3726, so if anything, I'd vote for their removal, not their
canonicalization through
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:47:53 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
I'm eager to know *exactly* why you were disgusted by the GNU GPL
license.
It's *very* serious.
Since it may change my mind about this license.
Hey
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
see [0]
[0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
But more seriously, GNU
I think this is a first step in order to improve the code of the main loop,
because it will make the loop more understable. I think in the final
implementation of the main loop we shouldn't need this separation, because
it should be enough simple and clear that spliting it in functions
shouldn't
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:13:33 +0200
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero k...@shike2.com wrote:
I don't have a clear idea about this patch. I would like listen what think
another suckless developers before of taking a decision. If we emulate the
fast blinking with the slow blinking it will not generate
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:09:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:47:53 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
I'm eager to know *exactly* why you were disgusted by the GNU GPL
license.
It's *very*
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
see [0]
[0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
But more seriously,
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:38:01 -0500
M Farkas-Dyck strake...@gmail.com wrote:
You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not
a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical
costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common
interface to
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
Computers are meant to do tedious work for us. That includes us who
program them. The appropriate metric of code quality, ergo, is how
much easier it makes one's life. To this end, mental costs trump
technical costs by far.
A
If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they
will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater
good'
The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion?
It's a great thing in my opinion, but coercion isn't really a good way
to achieve
NEL version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index 4813524..85e1e0f 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -2412,7 +2412,9 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar
DCS, APC, PM, OSC version for 7 bits environments already was implemented
in st. This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 39 ---
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index e4fab61..982f0f6 100644
--- a/st.c
+++
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 06:46:46PM +0200, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
The implementation is far simple, so I think it is a good idea apply
this patch. Are you sure that is not there any terminfo capability
related to this feature? I am not sure, but I think there is one.
You mean invis?
DECID version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index f8f262a..4813524 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -2419,7 +2419,9 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
On 25/06/2014, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it
reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs
included!).
In the reality, each case is
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:52:14PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they
will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater
good'
The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion?
It's a
i think Slackware is a fairly simple distro. like sin mentioned you
can have a fairly small install with tag files. It also hasn't
changed much in 10 years. they just have new packages :)
there are some live distros like slax that are based on slackware :)
or corelinux are good.
i think the
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
giberish...
Sylvain
why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts
The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free.
No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I
release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free
and there's nothing anybody else can do about it.
GPL tries to control what other people do with code they wrote.
On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
files to recompile for a build increment.
Huh. Make strikes me as one of the more suckless tools out there. It
does exactly what
Granted, GPL did a lot of good, it created a free software culture and
made Linux what it is. Ubuntu has also done a lot of good by getting
people started in Linux, but that doesn't make it suckless.
You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed
first, then licenses were
This is a reboot of the previous thread that was hi-jacked by a
derived topic ;)
Let's stay focused on the pertinent topic of
the thread, without the damage of what we wrongly did on the
thread related to the suckless distro,
thank you for your understanding.
On 25 June 2014 14:28, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
This is a reboot of the previous thread that was hi-jacked by a
derived topic ;)
Let's stay focused on the pertinent topic of
the thread, without the damage of what we wrongly did on the
thread related to the suckless distro,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:21:05PM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
giberish...
Sylvain
why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts
Something is not fishy there, I have never sent this message
As rightfully requested.
A dedicated thread.
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:52:07PM +0530, Weldon Goree wrote:
On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
files to recompile for a build increment.
Huh. Make
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
As rightfully requested.
A dedicated thread.
Sylvain, please don't do this.
I understand why you are so angry and frustrated, it's difficult to argue
about subjective things when people have such strong opinions as in the
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:30:48PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
stop repeating yourself. You don't need a new subject and a duplicate
post to garner a response. what a waste of space
Please, keep this thread for frign to expose *explicitely* what
went wrong with the GNU GPL licenses and
Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to
create for this topic.
STOP. PLEASE. get decent mail software that can handle subthreads and
it's not an issue.
On 06/26/2014 12:08 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to
create for this topic.
No, I have neither a dog in this fight (use whatever works for you,
seriously) nor a desire to alienate a list which
1) I only joined a few days ago,
2) Is
Sylvain,
You've had positive contributions here before. Please have consideration
for the many subscribers who are here to participate in discussion
related to suckless.org and suckless philosophy, and have no interest in
meaningless mud slinging between two people.
There is a good way to
You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed
first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them.
Ok, well then in popularized or spread free software. My point was
just that has done good doesn't justify its continued use, and
doesn't make it suckless. That's
We are still waiting...
Who is that we you're speaking of.
please run attached cleaner.exe to reorder the threads according to
the human rights.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:09:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
Hey Sylvain,
the GNU GPL is best describes as the prophecy of the beast and the
legend of Dovahkiin, the Last Dragonborn.
The appearance of the last Dragonborn was prophesied upon the GNU GPL,
a large edifice found within GNU Haven
On June 25, 2014 8:00:30 PM CEST, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
k...@shike2.com wrote:
DECID version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free.
No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I
release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free
and there's nothing anybody else can do about
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 04:07:14AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed
first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them.
Ok, well then in popularized or spread free software. My point was
just that has done good
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Kurt Van Dijck
dev.k...@vandijck-laurijssen.be wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free.
No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I
release under MIT or BSD, that
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:52:33 -0400
Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with
it. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but
leave my name on it. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 06:33:17AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
Nobody can take your code and make it non-free under a MIT/BSD license,
they can only make their modifications non-free.
I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following:
Redistribution and use in source and binary
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:30:28PM +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
In my understanding, GPL enforces that derived work of your code
will still be free to its users. This covers 2 major aspects:
* One cannot repackage or modify GPL software and make it non-free
I think that is a guarantee that
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote:
I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:24:23AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote:
I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:59:09AM +0800, Chris Down wrote:
Sylvain,
You've had positive contributions here before. Please have consideration
for the many subscribers who are here to participate in discussion
related to suckless.org and suckless philosophy, and have no interest in
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
I'm very disappointed: I was the guy who was attacked on his
published work on internet (in a rather clumsy and harsh way).
It's the internet, people say stuff, don't let it get to you.
Nethertheless, when I'm about
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:07:26AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
It's the internet, people say stuff, don't let it get to you.
It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to
trolls).
On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the
time except, of course, regarding
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to
trolls).
On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the
time except, of course, regarding closed source system software
manufacturers. Could
Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
files to recompile for a build increment.
For an opinion that matters, try Kernighan Pike (The Unix Programming
Environment, pg. 241):
It's a
Commit 5edeec1 introduced a wrong factor for nanosecond computation, the correct
value is 1E6. Time and timeout values are 10 times less than they should be and
this cause high CPU usage.
Reported by pyroh on IRC. Thanks!
---
st.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:27:52PM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, FRIGN d...@frign.de wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:47:27 +0200
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero k...@shike2.com wrote:
I agree with you and I like the patch. If nobody have problems with
it I will
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:11:38AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote:
It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to
trolls).
On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the
time except, of
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:12:10PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
files to recompile for a build increment.
For an opinion that matters, try
Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt
by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for
all open source coders. And communication would have been
an enrichment for the suckless community.
The thread will die because I think
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:32:33PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt
by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for
all open source coders. And communication would have been
an enrichment
Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:32:33PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt
by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for
all open source coders. And communication
99 matches
Mail list logo
