IRC channel logs


back to list of logs

<nalaginrut>morning guilers~
<janneke>moin wingo!
<wingo>morning janneke :)
<nalaginrut>CodePlex of M$ has GPLv3 now, but M$ claimed GPL is evil in 2007, interesting
<wingo>the bourgeoisie is not a unified front ;)
*add^_ goes to look that up
<civodul>Hello Guilers!
<wingo>heya civodul :)
<nalaginrut>how to avoid " fport_fill_input: Interrupted system call" ?
<nalaginrut>I'm using SIGALRM to do some work periodically
<nalaginrut>but each time it prints this
<civodul>nalaginrut: this is a bug fixed recently
<civodul>lemme see
<nalaginrut>oh,so it's a common bug?
<civodul>see commit fe51c7b3e0a1e93be3bb81dd2d4b18936fe2df3a
<nalaginrut>I added SA_RESTART, but it's delayed to show
<nalaginrut>dunno why
<civodul>there's another bug about SA_RESTART in debbugs ;-)
<civodul>nalaginrut: the fix above is *not* in 2.0.9
<nalaginrut>thanks ;-)
<wingo>hoo, i hope eval compiled with the new compiler will be faster
<wingo>as-is, bootstrap is getting more and more painful
<wingo>really we need a different eval, and i am surprised no one has done that
*wingo has had all cores pegged for the last 8 minutes compiling the first files
<civodul>wingo: i once read a paper by Serrano et al. that had good ideas about improving eval
<civodul>i thought i'd do something about it, but never got around to
<wingo>simply using a ribbed environment would be enough...
<davexunit>gnu make 4.0 now has guile support.
<davexunit>I wonder what kind of cool things can be done with that.
<civodul>oh, is it out already?
<dsmith>Oh wow
<davexunit>so could I write my makefiles with guile instead?
<davexunit>I haven't had the chance to read the manual about it
<civodul>davexunit: no, currently it's just a $(guile ...) make function
<civodul>which means you can put Scheme snippets in makefiles
<ijp>presumably this is optional in make?
<civodul>why are you asking this? :-)
<dsmith>Looks like it supports guile 1.8 as well as 2.0
<ArneBab>did already someone prod the Make people to update their docs?
<ArneBab>last updated July 28, 2010 →
<add^_>davexunit: Hey, do you recommend Thinkpad X220 ? I just saw your blogpost about it and I was wondering..
<add^_>You seem to like it in the blogpost, but I figured I might ask as some time have gone and you might have refined your opinion of it
<add^_>Actually, the hackish solution to get passed the whitelist seems.. well hackish.
<davexunit>add^_: I like it a lot!
<add^_>Maybe it's worth the work?
<add^_>Meh, can't find it..
<add^_>I can find one called Thinkpad X230 but that's about it
<davexunit>they don't sell them new anymore.
<add^_>Ah, that explains a lot
<davexunit>the x230 is the current X series model.
<add^_>They got pretty bad score though, the x230 one
<davexunit>I prefer the x220
*add^_ sighs
<add^_>What class is the computer? Pro, ultrabook, entertaining, standard or something?
<add^_>Maybe I should search for a computer where I can use an entirely free system..
<davexunit>add^_: your choice there would be a lemote yeelong
<add^_>lemote yeelong?
<davexunit>add^_: I bought my x220 off of ebay for $400
<add^_>that sounds like a joke :-P
<davexunit>it's not. it's chinese.
<add^_>you mean lemote yeeloong
<davexunit>I can never type it right.
<davexunit>it's the machine that rms uses. oh and mark_weaver, too.
<add^_>I've never heard about it, but I typed what you said and it autocorrected me
<davexunit>it's a weak machine, but it's the only one that runs fully free software.
<davexunit>including the BIOS and stuff.
<add^_>The notebook I suppose
<davexunit>although, their most recent iteration requires nonfree software, I think.
<add^_>How can they advertise it as "fully free software" if it's not :-P
<davexunit>perhaps you are looking at the right model. I don't know.
<davexunit>I don't know a lot about them so I'm bound to be wrong about something.
<add^_>I need to figure out who sells them :-/
<add^_>I wonder if I can have one with a Swedish keyboard or if I'm bound to get an American one..
<ijp>if you can touch type, it doesn't matter
<add^_>I still would have to get used to the keyboard so..
<ijp>yeah, I have a new keyboard that's lying on the shelf next to me because I haven't gotten used to the smaller keys
<ijp>mostly backspace and the spacebar
<add^_>Ah, one thing I really would need though, a Swedish power-adapter or whatever it's called
<add^_>Hum, maybe I wont get used to the ultrasmall keyboard it seems to be now that I look at it..
<add^_>I think I'll look at something else :-/
<davexunit>add^_: thinkpad :)
<add^_>This one might be promising?
<add^_>Nah, I guess thinkpads are what it's at..
<davexunit>add^_: thinkpenguin is cool
<add^_>It is?
<davexunit>I didn't buy a laptop from them, but I bought a freedom-compatible wireless chip
<add^_>Yeah, I know, that's how I found their store
<davexunit>I think they're a bit pricey for what you get, so I preferred the thinkpad.
<add^_>1500 USD is... For me OK, but I'm not sure what I get out of it compared to other computers. :-/
<davexunit>add^_: a computer that runs on fully free software (sans BIOS) and supporting a business that cares about your freedom. :()
<add^_>what about it?
<add^_>You made it sounds like you didn't finish the sentence, that's why I'm asking.
<add^_>ijp: what computer do you have? Or did you build your own?
<dsmith>One sweet thing about thinkpads is they have (or used to) a 3 button mouse.
<davexunit>dsmith: yeah that is sweet.
<davexunit>my x220 has 3 buttons.
<davexunit>and the little thinknub mouse
<dsmith>I don't think any other laptop has that.
<dsmith>We used to call that thing a "pinkthad"
<davexunit>clitmouse (tm)
<add^_>I wonder what graphicscard the thinkpenguin have..
<add^_>davexunit: which distro do you use? Trisquel?
<davexunit>add^_: debian testing
<ijp>add^_: the computer I am at is a pentium 4
<add^_>Oh well..
<add^_>Choosing a computer is really annoying it seems..
<add^_>Ugh, I'll let go for a while, don't *really* need a new computer yet.
*add^_ sighs
<ijp>hmm, that's a weird example mr Bogatov has chosen in his email
<ijp>(define foo #((+ 1 2) 2)) (eq? foo (eval foo (current-module)))
<ijp>why are bytevectors in the simple data types section, but bit vectors in the compound data type section
<mark_weaver>the distinction between "simple" and "compound" data types in our manual seems quite bogus to me.
<ijp>well, afaict compounds means "may contain as a component an arbitrary scheme value"
<mark_weaver>I guess that fits except for bitvectors.
<mark_weaver>well, also the "Other Types" don't fit into the "simple" category by that criterion.
<mark_weaver>but I guess those aren't really _in_ the simple section. they just refer to other sections.
<ijp>it would be nice to sit down and hash out a new organisation for the manual
<mark_weaver>yes, definitely!
<mark_weaver>it's one of the more important jobs to be done.