|
pseudorandom name posted:pointer barriers should make it Just Work™ in multi-monitor configurations That's what that action is called? "Pointer barriers"? I thought it was cursor hotspots or mouse ticklers or ... I hope the computer industry agrees on a common nomenclature for this stuff... Does anyone know how to turn it off?
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
nah, it's called the hot corner pointer barriers are an X feature where apps can declare horizontal or vertical lines on the screen that the mouse cursor can't be moved across from one or both directions
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:nah, it's called the hot corner this works pretty well, i added an extension to make the dock stick around like in OSX and it became like a wall to my mouse. funny part is u cant set which edge to have it on so it was a bit inconvenient
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
eschaton posted:i see, you're intentionally conflating clang and Xcode to appeal to the GNU/Linux crowd by bringing up the bogeyman of "closed source" clang is very nice, and the open source version is both useful and usable and other platforms apple's clang is proprietary. they have a tree of their own patches. if i want to compile things against apple's sdk i need apple's proprietary compiler and its dumbfuck installation procedure and its separate licensing Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand2686.htm the fact that osx can pass unix certification without actually being worth a drat is proof of the worthlessness of the open group's specifications. other horrible examples: sco openserver (aka opensewer) and compaq tru64 (the only thing that can touch osx performance)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
keep going
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
the reason the open group specifications are dead is that commercial unix is dying linux is the de facto standard for everything. solaris, hp-ux, and aix all have linux compatibility layers. there is no standards process because the standard is "do what linux does or else nobody's software works on your system" back when unix had three major vendors, a dozen minor ones, and hundreds of small shops, the standards processes kinda/sorta mattered every vendor wanted other guys software to work great on his system, while making his customers software hard to port out, so every standardization was this weird dance around the real issues. this is how we got non-standard "standards" where aix and sco opensewer can both pass the same certification suites but still be a nightmare to port between Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
i'm cumming
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:i'm cumming i unironically enjoy reading bsd's rants. unrelated, kde5 is a shitheap right now idk why i expected it to be anything else
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:the reason the open group specifications are dead is that commercial unix is dying And when UNIX was alive, the process was "do what UNIX does". Please let me know what OpenGroup standard the KDGKBMODE ioctl comes from, yet it's in every popular UNIX (incompatibly so!) and Linux had to adopt it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
read that as KRUNKMODE
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
ii oh el posted:i unironically enjoy reading bsd's rants. same, he's like the crazy old guy at the bus stop of yospos
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:read that as KRUNKMODE I do too. I still can't decipher any part of that name.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:same, he's like the crazy old guy at the bus stop of yospos
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
well yeah didn't you hear, the government really was spying on us all along
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:And when UNIX was alive, the process was "do what UNIX does". Please let me know what OpenGroup standard the KDGKBMODE ioctl comes from, yet it's in every popular UNIX (incompatibly so!) and Linux had to adopt it. yeah I think this is a SCO-ism. in the 80s and early 90s SCO dominated x86 UNIX, like 90% of the commercial market on PC-compatibles. it could conceivably have come from SysV x86 but most VT stuff comes from SCO vttys (what you get when you hit alt f1, f2, f3, etc) are also a SCO thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
i thought vttys were a plastic surgery thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:the fact that osx can pass unix certification without actually being worth a drat is proof of the worthlessness of the open group's specifications.  your posts are like a swap storm of an idiot's idea of cutting remarks. whoops that ridiculous lie didn't work? nothing to see here, no room in core, evicted! too bad all the witticisms in backing store are poo poo too. no forward progress is made, system is halted, fix with sledgehammer
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
for real though I don't think I've ever heard anyone other than an Apple fanboy reference the "certified unix!" thing as though it mattered meanwhile all the not-linuxes (except OSX!) have linux-compatibility layers. OSX meanwhile has 9 year old versions of Bash because they're afraid someone might use their distribution of GPL3 software to attack their patents that are so vague they also cover 9 year old versions of Bash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:for real though I don't think I've ever heard anyone other than an Apple fanboy reference the "certified unix!" thing as though it mattered they ship a version of zsh from this year, that's all I cares about
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:
i am pretty sure a sledgehammer is the only thing that could fix a man who believes SUS is a worthwhile standard it's kind of a groucho marx thing: if osx and sco osr can both pass it, it's not a certification of anything important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:i am pretty sure a sledgehammer is the only thing that could fix a man who believes SUS is a worthwhile standard lol that u think i give a poo poo about sus the point was that despite your lunacy osx is a more modern unix than irix. sus and unixYY are poo poo but nevertheless there's enough api coverage in the certs to definitively state that you are full of poo poo, you are going to have much worse problems making modern unix software run on irix than on os x also just lol because last irix major release was in 1998 and sgi didn't even bother certifying it for unix98. it probably wouldn't have passed unix98 since it was already EOL bugfix only status i know all this has to be trolling but jfc your trolling is so dumb step up ur game
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:for real though I don't think I've ever heard anyone other than an Apple fanboy reference the "certified unix!" thing as though it mattered
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:least of all since apple stopped giving a poo poo about the dedicated server market. who exactly is running unix software on os x, except a minority of people who just want a desktop linux that also runs non-unix software? just find out how many people DL http://xquartz.macosforge.org/landing/ and you'd have your answer
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:system is halted, fix with sledgehammer This is really, really satisfying, hope everyone gets to do it at least once
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
raruler posted:just find out how many people DL http://xquartz.macosforge.org/landing/ and you'd have your answer I use this for wireshark
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:also just lol because last irix major release was in 1998 and sgi didn't even bother certifying it for unix98. it probably wouldn't have passed unix98 since it was already EOL bugfix only status yeah this should be a sign to you how bad osx is a second rate vendor who stopped regularly updating their OS in 2003 still has a less broken, better performing kernel because it's not a bizarro 1980s fuckup
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:a bizarro 1980s fuckup mods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:yeah this should be a sign to you how bad osx is sure bsd stymie why don't you go hang out on nekochan with your compatriots
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:yeah I think this is a SCO-ism. in the 80s and early 90s SCO dominated x86 UNIX, like 90% of the commercial market on PC-compatibles. it could conceivably have come from SysV x86 but most VT stuff comes from SCO jstpierre@jstpierre-snappy ~/Source/sysvr4 $ grep -r KDGKBMODE svr4/uts/i386/sys/kd.h:#define KDGKBMODE (KIOC|6) /* get keyboard translation mode */ svr4/uts/i386/io/char.c: case KDGKBMODE: { svr4/uts/i386/io/char.c: case KDGKBMODE: It's in sysvr4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
That's fine, I'm sure you'll move the goalposts again by saying how SysVR4 was garbage and that the only true UNIX that was the poster child for standardization was IRIX or HP-UX.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:jstpierre@jstpierre-snappy ~/Source/sysvr4 $ grep -r KDGKBMODE sysV wasn't ported to x86 until five? six? years after sco
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:That's fine, I'm sure you'll move the goalposts again by saying how SysVR4 was garbage and that the only true UNIX that was the poster child for standardization was IRIX or HP-UX. nah svr4 changed the industry for the better and swept away lots of bad unix
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Yet still it adapted a completely unstandardized and undocumented API for compatibility with some other dominating OS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
For reference, I got my sysvr4 dump from here: https://archive.org/details/ATTUNIXSystemVRelease4Version2 https://ia601805.us.archive.org/29/items/ATTUNIXSystemVRelease4Version2/ I have no idea how old the system is or where the dumps were gotten from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:For reference, I got my sysvr4 dump from here: svr2 is 1984 or 1985. i know there is code for x86 support in svr2, but i don't know of any vendors who actually sold an x86 svr2 distribution. maybe isc/interactive? svr4 is early 90s, and it tastes like solaris. lots of x86 ports of this, some of which will still run in virtualbox/qemu. in fact i think the floppy images in this archive will probably work the reason that sysV on x86 was not all that successful is sco sco "xenix" (the microsoft port of sysIII to x86. yes system III, not to be confused with SysV R3) really had a death grip on the pc market in the 80s. they tried to keep up to date with sysV with limited success. it was not a very good unix. for some reason you can still buy it quote:New Processor and Chip Set Support Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:solaris is poo poo, tcl/tk is poo poo, SunCC is double dog dare hypershit, working with all three every day is poo poo, kill me please I received a bug report update yesterday that a Solaris 9 bug I logged about ELFCLASS32 was fixed 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:I received a bug report update yesterday that a Solaris 9 bug I logged about ELFCLASS32 was fixed solaris 9 is still supported
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:I received a bug report update yesterday that a Solaris 9 bug I logged about ELFCLASS32 was fixed For certain projects with out-of-control bugtrackers (eg Gnome) though, it's far more common that component will be replaced and all the bugs will be closed as obsolete en masse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:gently caress motif forever. no one misses that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:38
|
|
