Re: Default software in the base

2013-08-01 Thread hub
when st or a similarly small project passes a test for vim, emacs, mutt, other popular ncurses clients, then it's worth thinking about replacing xterm Here we go. A bunch of screenshots depicting st runinng multimple curses applications including (but not limited) vim, htop, alsamixer, utf8

Re: Default software in the base

2013-08-01 Thread hub
Almost forgot to say about this vttest thing. Um, you do realize that it's been written by the author of XTerm? And how it is XTerm-specific? St aside, as for urxvt - I have never seen an application refusing to run through it. Not even something like compatible mode run where rxvt simply

Re: Default software in the base

2013-08-01 Thread Andres Perera
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:47 AM, h...@riseup.net wrote: Almost forgot to say about this vttest thing. Um, you do realize that it's been written by the author of XTerm? that does not imply bias. you're coming off as ignorant And how it is XTerm-specific? and these are xterm replacements.

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread James Griffin
Tue 30.Jul'13 at 18:46:59 -0400, STeve Andre' On 07/30/13 18:15, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:48:11PM +0400, h...@riseup.net wrote: I realize that everything has its pros and cons (like URXVT is GPL-licensed, st is pretty much hackish for

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread hub
Martin Schröder mar...@oneiros.de wrote: 2013/7/30 h...@riseup.net: than the Apple+Google co-owned Clang stuff. Source for that claim? All I can find is Copyright (c) 2007-2013 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2013-07-29, h...@riseup.net h...@riseup.net wrote: URXVT * The code base is half the size of XTerm's given that you have to include things like glib, gettext and iconv in this, somehow I doubt this... $ pkg_info -S rxvt-unicode Information for inst:rxvt-unicode-9.18 Signature:

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread Zoran Kolic
couldn't you actually provide an example link on freebsd lists clang discussion that you found untolerable/suspicious? I will provide you with few links on the subject and let you make your own conclusions. Personally, I have no for or against feeling.

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread hub
Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2013-07-29, h...@riseup.net h...@riseup.net wrote: URXVT * The code base is half the size of XTerm's given that you have to include things like glib, gettext and iconv in this, somehow I doubt this... $ pkg_info -S rxvt-unicode

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread Theo de Raadt
All right, people, just don't get mad on my proclaimations after all... So you've got an opinion, and something else.

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread Martin Brandenburg
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:31:41PM +0400, h...@riseup.net wrote: These are optional dependencies, it can be compiled without them given you do this by hand. A minimal installation doesn't require any gtk libs, neither it does gettext, iconv or perl. Most of the bloat is hidden inside the

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Martin Brandenburg mar...@martinbrandenburg.com wrote: xterm supports two terminals, DEC VT100 and Tektronix 4014. Actually, xterm's main emulation target has been the VT220 for many years, and about a year ago the default emulation level has been switched to VT420. -- Christian naddy

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread hub
The 4014 support is much more uncommon, but I do actually use it occasionally[1]. The real issue is that people now expect X to come with xterm and that's that. Removing xterm would be quite unfortunate, as it breaks people's expectations of how the system works. Okay, jeez... I think only

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-31 Thread Andres Perera
when st or a similarly small project passes a test for vim, emacs, mutt, other popular ncurses clients, then it's worth thinking about replacing xterm in absence of such test, settle for vttest, which also tests for features that aren't as widely used something like an xterm replacement needs to

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-30 Thread Jiri B
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:03:42AM +0400, h...@riseup.net wrote: [...] Like Clang for i386/amd64 guys with all the new and fancy and then make a balanced transition slowly phasing out aging architectures? First you do not get project's goals, see the website. jirib

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-30 Thread Zoran Kolic
For clang just see freebsd lists. I will not say more, since those posts speak for themself. Anyway, it is the future, for sure. Regarding st, I use suckless browser named surf from time to time, but I found both luakit and conkeror better suiting me. That post to mean that people like different

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-30 Thread hub
Thanks for your answer, Zoran. Apparently it's true that everyone will want their own set of prefered applications, especially when it comes to something like a web browser. And as for me, I didn't like neither surf, nor luakit, nor conkeror as well. But after all, I think it's been pointed

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-30 Thread Alexandre Ratchov
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:48:11PM +0400, h...@riseup.net wrote: I realize that everything has its pros and cons (like URXVT is GPL-licensed, st is pretty much hackish for an ordinary user and Clang is not, well, mature yet). But ain't pros of the programs above not enough to actually make

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-30 Thread Martin Schröder
2013/7/30 h...@riseup.net: than the Apple+Google co-owned Clang stuff. Source for that claim? All I can find is Copyright (c) 2007-2013 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/LICENSE.TXT?revision=171342view=markup Best Martin

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-30 Thread STeve Andre'
On 07/30/13 18:15, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:48:11PM +0400, h...@riseup.net wrote: I realize that everything has its pros and cons (like URXVT is GPL-licensed, st is pretty much hackish for an ordinary user and Clang is not, well, mature yet). But ain't pros of the

Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread hub
Hello @misc, I am yet another interested in provided OpenBSD defaults. More specifically the XTerm and GCC. Apparently there are better alternatives like: URXVT * The code base is half the size of XTerm's * Consumes 25% less memory * Can be daemonized * Much better handling of different fonts

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread Chris Cappuccio
h...@riseup.net [h...@riseup.net] wrote: On the other hand XTerm is an old code and memory hog that relies on X toolkit and supports features you'll find nowhere thus will never need (like Tektronix). Xenocara is the classic X tree, as much as possible. Any replacement for xterm needs to

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread Andres Perera
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM, h...@riseup.net wrote: Hello @misc, I am yet another interested in provided OpenBSD defaults. More specifically the XTerm and GCC. Apparently there are better alternatives like: URXVT * The code base is half the size of XTerm's * Consumes 25% less memory

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread Pascal Stumpf
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:57:42 -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote: h...@riseup.net [h...@riseup.net] wrote: On the other hand XTerm is an old code and memory hog that relies on X toolkit and supports features you'll find nowhere thus will never need (like Tektronix). Xenocara is the

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread Chris Cappuccio
Pascal Stumpf [pascal.stu...@cubes.de] wrote: Replacing GCC is no trivial task, but Bitrig already did it. Did it aka now rely on packages to build base, some of them with a non-free license. Well they are working on a BSD-licensed toolchain, with mcpp, elftoolchain, libc++ and

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread hub
both of which are more or less crappy xterm (not vt100, not vt220) emulators The fact that they consume less, work faster, have clean and actually readable code which you can hack through without symptoms of nausea -- all these make tham crappier than the xterm?! All the cars in the world more

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread Theo de Raadt
both of which are more or less crappy xterm (not vt100, not vt220) emulators The fact that they consume less, work faster, have clean and actually readable code which you can hack through without symptoms of nausea -- all these make tham crappier than the xterm?! All the cars in the world

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread hub
Theo, I do NOT even try to recommend you or any other OpenBSD devs or actually anyone reading this mail the one true way of solving the problems. Don't do any advocacy, even though it may look like that I do. And of course you are perfectly right that there are no diffs in mail. The sole

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread deoxyt2
El 29-07-2013 14:57, Chris Cappuccio escribió: h...@riseup.net [h...@riseup.net] wrote: LLVM/Clang Replacing GCC is no trivial task, but Bitrig already did it. And they don't support most of the platforms that OpenBSD does. LLVM doesn't either. Frankly, if you want to play with OpenBSD

Re: Default software in the base

2013-07-29 Thread Matthew Dempsky
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, deoxyt2 deox...@lacamaradegas.cl wrote: Respect to replace GCC by LLVM/Clang, I think there is already something advanced with PCC project. PCC was advanced into the attic over a year ago: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvsm=133423160431049w=2