Hi pancake,
2009/5/19 pancake panc...@youterm.com:
I have been looking a bit for an alternative for X11, and I found nano-X
quite interesting,
but it is currently an abandoned project. 8000 LOCs, there's an abstraction
library to wrap
libX11 and there's support for some many IO devices (tty,
2009/5/20 Jacob Todd jaketodd...@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote:
Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just
clean
up X.org and submit patches back upstream? Rewriting/implementing X.org seems
li
ke more work than
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 09:53:30AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
2009/5/20 Jacob Todd jaketodd...@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote:
Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just
clean
up X.org and submit patches back
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a completely new WS in mind, design-wise with no X
dependency, just an X legacy support layer instead.
... , we want a different WS, not a state-machine WS like X.
Do you envision including xcb style asynchrony?
the browser, so
for low memory and resource usage a nanox with dwm-nanox and some
nanoxterms somewhere would
be nice.
There's little movement in the mailing list nowadays, but the last
release is from 1999. So I
can think that the project is dead.
Here's the last release of nanox (0.4)
http
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote:
Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just clean
up X.org and submit patches back upstream? Rewriting/implementing X.org seems li
ke more work than it's worth, but cleaning up Xorg would be better for
On Tue May 19, 2009 at 08:39:56PM -0400, Jacob Todd wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote:
Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just
clean
up X.org and submit patches back upstream? Rewriting/implementing X.org seems
li
ke
