Re: [dev] [dwm] devilspie doesn't work

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:39 PM, <mjm_AT_factoryprime.net> wrote:
> "I am an intergalactic species from the planet <insert stupid name here>.
> Your super-clusters and storage clusters pale in comparison to my <insert
> ridiculious banter here>"

If you're too stupid to use google to verify my credentials -- well, I
can't say I'm surprised.

> See, I can play the "I do this" game on the internet too.  Isn't it nice
> knowing you'll never have to back that up?

I don't have to, since it's so easily verifiable.

> I don't believe  you do any such thing, to be honest.  Your words prove
> you're too narrow-minded.  And it's sad how you have fall back on grammar
> as your only defense.  Do you really expect anyone to believe you have
> never mis-typed anything?  Moron.

I expect people to believe that messages I send to a public list
receive at least a modicum of proofreading, as opposed to furious
thrashing on a keyboard. I understand that you're angry and offended
because I insulted some stupid ideas you have. That's no excuse for
ranting. In addition, grammar is hardly 'my only defense.' In fact,
those corrections were a form of offense. If you insist on your
ridiculous car/house analogy, you're probably the sort of person who
puts turbochargers on Civics and crystal chandeliers in camping tents.
 Transparent terminals exist. If you want transparent terminals, you
know where to find them. There's no reason to shit up a utilitarian
program with your stupid garbage. I know that idea (among many, many
others) is hard for you to grasp.

> This string is /dev/null-ed.  I can't handle this person's stupidity anymore.

You're a liar; squirrelmail has no such feature. The most you can
promise is sieve filtering. Furthermore, you don't really seem secure
enough to actually ignore messages that might contest your idiotic
decisions.

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:48 PM, errno <errno_AT_cox.net> wrote:
> Maybe that sounds like limp nonsense to you, but I think it's a fairly
> decent human protocol to standardize on.

Sorry, but the RFC was already ratified back in Eternal September.
It's insults and swearing all the way down.

> Why are people still emulating physical video terminal hardware devices
> from the 70's, and why is that a good thing? Personal aesthetic opinions
> wrt transparency seem like small shit in contrast to the bigger issue
> surrounding the continued and woefully antiquated baggage of emulating
> a freaking DEC VT102 on our personal computers.

I agree. I don't think a serial console is really the goal. In st's
specific case it is, but the whole idea was to get rid of shit that
e.g. xterm and rxvt do -- emulate a wide range of outmoded crap.
Anselm specified reasonable xterm support because the reality is that
a ton of stuff assumes such compatibility, and we don't have suckless
replacements for everything ... yet. Transparency is a stupid, stupid
waste of time, and that's part of the reason I hate it. st barely
works, and already the ricer crowd has a massive erection at the
thought of fucking it up.

> I could of course make some really opinionated and abrasive statements
> about people like you who choose to continue to use hardware terminal
> emulators in lieu of, say, 9term - but that'd be uncool.

It would be cooler than whining about transparency. 9term is a step
in the right direction, but it still dumps stderr and stdout into the
same buffer, which is retarded, and it has many other problems, most
of which stem from an assumption that the rest of plan 9's interface
isn't complete crap. Which is an invalid assumption.

> Everyone has their reasons for using and/or preferring
> whatever it is they're using.

True, stipulating that those reasons are usually stupid.

> And it certainly doesn't hurt to try things out to form one's own opinions about
> any given software interface versus being insulted or ridiculed for exploring
> -- in fact such behavior ought to be encouraged rather than ridiculed.

Sure, uriel encouraged it. There are *tons* of transparent terminals
out there. But that's not enough for these assholes. I don't know if
they want the suckless 'brand' or what, but it's completely asinine to
gibber about patching such shit into st when it clearly exists, and
they clearly want it because they've clearly used that functionality
in other software. Why the hell port it to a project whose stated
goal is minimizing bullshit? The answer is: they're morons.

> For whatever it's worth to you, no hard feelings.

None at all. This is what the internet is for. Some people
incorrectly assume otherwise, but I'm not one of them.

-- 
# Kurt H Maier