pixelscript

@pixelscript@lemmy.ml

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

pixelscript ,

I like VIM as a casual user.

I barely know any of the fancy shortcuts, never successfully used a macro in my life, can't remember how to open more than one edit buffer and have to look it up every single time, and I still constantly wrongfoot copy and paste regularly to the point where I consider it a waste of my time to try and I just type things out the long way. I totally get why people feel very defeated by this editor.

But I do feel very slick darting around with hjkl, occasionally throwing in a gg or a G or a $ to leap around. Yeah, there are faster ways to get where I want if I'd only learn them, and I may some day, but this gets me around. If you can build up just the basic movements, that's enough to at least begin to appreciate the editor.

Not having to touch my mouse to edit text is a massive game changer that is worth it on its own. Not that vim is the only one that offers this benefit, of course. But what it does well that I haven't experienced in editors I've tried is how beautifully it flows if you happen to already know how to touch-type. Y'know, hands on the homerow, certain fingers hit certain keys, building up the muscle memory so you don't have to look at the keyboard to type, all that. It's why vim uses hjkl to move the cursor--it's where the right hand rests in a touch-typist position.

If you don't use keyboards this way, vim will probably ruin you. I know a lot of people who are proficient typists who never learned standard touch typing, instead home-rolling their own cursed setup that works for them, and god bless them, but they would be hard-pressed to negotiate vim. If this is you, vim may not be the editor for you.

pixelscript ,

I can never reliably cut/copy and paste what I want in Vim. I'm always either picking up or leaving behind stray characters at the edges of my visual selection, because I find the end cursor so counterintuitive.

Especially true when newlines are involved, it's always a mystery how many newlines I'll paste into my document when I hit p to put.

This is not Vim's fault, it's just skill issue.

Oh, and it's also a mystery whether the system clipboard will work properly with Vim out of the box or not. There's some voodoo setting you have to tweak if it doesn't.

pixelscript ,

Yeah, the notion that "cut" and "delete" are the same operation was an interesting hurdle. It's quite elegant, honestly.

The only thing it disrupts is the situation where you want to copy something, delete a second thing, then paste the first thing. Oops! Too bad! It's gone now!

I'm aware we do have access to multiple registers in Vim, effectively giving us many clipboards to bypass this, but I don't know the commands to utilize them. Without that knowledge, this little quirk remains an occasional irritation. Just not irritating enough to motivate me enough to knuckle down and learn it.

pixelscript ,

Man, I haven't seen a pony in the wild in ages.

pixelscript ,

/)

pixelscript ,

I don't understand why anyone would ever get onto a new commercial social media platform again now the Fediverse exists.

Lots of reasons:

  • It's bigger and less fragmented. More content, more diversity, more activity, and it's all in one easy place.
  • No extra conceptual hurdles to overcome like "what is an instance" or "which instance do I join".
  • Network effect. See point 1. Unless you are some kind of FOSS enthusiast or a refugee of every other social media platform due to your vulgar, sexual, illegal, and/or politically extreme interests, your friends, followed creators, and other people of interest have a far higher chance of being on BlueSky than the Fediverse.
  • An actual algorithm. Many people who jump to the Fediverse hate it, but a silent majority of casual users actively want it. Meticulously curating your own feed is not a boon to them, it is a chore.

A lot of the crap that the Fediverse did not inherit from its commercial counterparts is precisely what a lot of users are there for. And a lot of the expanded tooling and control the Fediverse alternatives offer are pearls before swine with most of these folks. Overall it just makes the Fediverse appear flakey, underbaked, and devoid of content.

pixelscript ,

step 2 of this process involves making a backup. whether they understand how they did so or not.

pixelscript ,

Back when I was still using Ubuntu MATE about half a year ago or so, I started having this really odd problem where signing into my account after a reboot would bring me to a blank screen with only my desktop background and nothing else. No taskbar, no panels, not even the cursor if I recall correctly.

Some furious Googling brought me to a serverfault thread that suggested that switching to tty7 with CTRL + ALT + F7 followed by ALT + F1 to switch back would alleviate it... and it did! But the problem returned on every login.

So for about six months I just had that as part of my routine on any reboot. Log it, switch to tty7, switch back to tty1. It was stupid and I hated it. Mostly because I didn't understand what I was doing or why it fixed anything.

On a tangent, this is precisely the thing that makes people intimidated by Linux, I think... it's not so much the inability to do things. Rather, even when you are given a way on a silver platter, you don't feel like you're really in control because you don't know what the black magic incantation really does. It's a truly horrible feeling.

I never did resolve the problem. I eventually nuked that OS and paved over its ashes with Debian Testing + KDE Plasma 5, and I haven't looked back.

pixelscript ,

My household growing up was drowning in thermoses and water bottles. In large part due to having two kids in competitive high school sports and one in competitive highschool arts and sciences.

It's one thing to have a bunch of kids who need and use water bottles on the regular, but it's entirely another thing when all these institutions simultaneously declared, "Trophies? Ribbons? Placards? Those utter wastes of space? We should be giving these kids useful prizes for winning their events!" Cue racking up four or five cheap, flimsy water bottles and other assorted crap per kid per year...

pixelscript ,

This question reads a bit to me like someone asking, "Why do trapeze artists perform above nets? If they were good at what they did they shouldn't fall off and need to be caught."

Do you really need a firewall? Well, are you intimately familiar with every smidgeon of software on your machine, not just userland ones but also system ones, and you understand perfectly under which and only which circumstances any of them open any ports, and have declared that only the specific ports you want open actually are at every moment in time? Yes? You're that much of a sysadmin god? Then no, I guess you don't need a firewall.

If instead you happen to be mortal like the rest of us who don't read and internalize the behaviors of every piddly program that runs or will ever possibly run on our systems, you can always do what we do for every other problem that is too intensive to do manually: script that shit. Tell the computer explicitly which ports it can and cannot open.

Luckily, you don't even have to start from scratch with a solution like that. There are prefab programs that are ready to do this for you. They're called firewalls.

pixelscript ,

The point of the firewall is not to make your computer an impenetrable fortress. It's to block any implicit port openings you didn't explicitly ask for.

Say you install a piece of software that, without your knowledge, decides to spin up an SSH server and start listening on port 22. Now you have that port open as a vector for malware to get in, and you are implicitly relying on that software to fend it off. If you instead have a firewall, and port 22 is not one of your allowed ports, the rogue software will hopefully take the hint and not spin up that server.

Generally you only want to open ports for specific processes that you want to transmit or listen on them. Once a port is bound to a process, it's taken. Malware can't just latch on without hijacking the program that already has it bound. And if that's your fear, then you probably have a lot of way scarier theoretical attack vectors to sweat over in addition to this.

Yes, if you just leave a port wide open with nothing bound to it, either via actually having the port reserved or by linking the process to the port with a firewall rule, and you happened to get a piece of actual malware that scanned every port looking for an opening to sneak through, sure, it could. To my understanding, that's not typically what you're trying to stop with a firewall.

In some regards a firewall is like a padlock. It keeps out honest criminals. A determined criminal who really wants in will probably circumvent it. But many opportunistic criminals just looking for stuff not nailed down will probably leave it alone. Is the fact that people who know how to pick locks exist an excuse to stop locking things because "it's all pointless anyway"?

pixelscript ,

Is this because the kernel assigns that port to that specific process, so that all traffic at that port is associated with only that process?

Yes, that's what ports do. They split your IP connection into 65,536 separate communication lines, that's the main thing, but that is specifically 65,536 1-on-1 lines, not party lines. When a process on your PC reserves port 80, that's it. It's taken. Short of hacking the kernel itself, it cannot be reassigned or stolen until the bound process frees it.

The SO answer you found it interesting, I was not aware that the Linux kernel had a feature that allowed two or more processes to willingly share a single port. But the answer explains that this is an opt-in parameter that the first binding process has to explicitly allow. And even then, traffic is not duplicated to all listening processes. It sounds like it's more of a "first come first serve" to whichever of the processes are free to read the incoming message at the time it arrives, making it more of a load balancing feature that isn't a useful vector for eavesdropping.

pixelscript ,

The way I understand it is like this:

The grand theory of classic package managers is the idea that lots of programs all need the same core libraries to function. An analogy would be like noticing most construction jobs need nails. So instead of making everyone bring their own copy of nails, resulting in dozens of redundant copies of it lying around, they have a single nails package that everyone can use.

But there are different versions of nails out there. Each version picks up unique new features, and drops legacy ones. Recent builds may incorporate and thus require the new features, making them incompatible with old versions of nails that don't have them. On the other hand, some builds may still use and rely on legacy features of nails, and are thus incompatible with the new versions. You may run into a scenario where you want Software A that needs nails version 14+, but also Software B that can only run on nails v <13, and you just can't, because they don't overlap.

Additionally, there may just be a totally different competing package out there, screws, that does largely the same job as nails, but in a completely different way that is totally incompatible with projects that expect nails. So if you need Software C that relies on nails, but also Software D that relies on screws, you might cause problems by installing both.

What a distro is is essentially a group of devs declaring that they are putting together some specific list of libraries (like, say, nails v14), and then sculpting up a bundle of software around those specific libraries. Can't cope with nails v14? That sucks. No package for you, then.

In that sense, distros are differentiated by what libraries and other low-level system softwares are available to the programs you wish to install on them. If you want your program to be available natively on every distro, it needs to be compatible with every competing set of libraries each distro has elected to use.

It is possible to just say "fuck it" to the distro's built-in libraries, and instead bundling the specific version of nails or screws or whatever you project needs directly with it. Build your own with blackjack and hookers, as it were. That's exactly what Flatpak does, among others. But it's trading flexibility for redundancy. In the age of cheap and plentiful storage memory, many people think this trade is well worth it. But it makes many formalists cringe.

pixelscript ,

imagine if every application on your desktop reacted differently depending on how many times you clicked a spot

yeah, wow, imagine. different applications using different design patterns for different contexts. perish the thought!

Is that also OK just because one browser started doing it and every other browser copied that function?

one browser did an arguably useful thing, every other browser agreed it was arguably useful, and it became a widely adopted feature? sounds ok to me. gee, it's almost like this is how standard patterns come to be, or something...

pixelscript ,

I admire the respect you have for those who ask questions like this, but I think I disagree.

If there is something egregiously wrong with the premise of what a person is seeking to do, and there are no qualifying statements in their query about why they do in fact need to do this specifiic thing in this specific way, chances are high that they are uneducated about why the premise of what they're trying to do is flawed, and they are best served by being course corrected. Giving them the answer they're looking for to continue the bad thing while hiding your suggestion of what they should be doing instead in a footnote is just enabling them to double down on the short term path of least resistance that will probably come back to bite them again later.

If they really did know what they were doing with regards to doing an otherwise unsafe and/or unsupported thing, or if the restrictions tied their hands from using the obvious replacement solution, it either should have appeared in their question prompt, or it should be in the first replies to the first round of answers.

I say, withhold outdated advice unless the context of the conversation makes it explicitly clear that the old advice is genuinely required and not substitutable with current advice. But also don't be smug, rude, dismissive, or standoffish about it. Don't argue with someone who says they really do need a specific solution.

That said, this only applies in really cut and dry cases like this one, where there very clearly is an indisputable thing you shouldn't be doing, and a drop-in replacement you should be using. The ones I hate are moreso those you may see on StackOverflow where the question is like, "how do I do <X> in JavaScript?" and five of the seven responses including the accepted answer offer a solution in some big dumb framework or lib that they apparently expect you to just incorporate into your project.

pixelscript ,

I don't really mind either way whether these posts are allowed to remain or should be culled.

If you keep them around, they will just keep shitting up the feed. The overall browsing quality of the community goes down, hindering the user experience. I don't think it's uncontroversial to say these posts have next to no value; they're essentially equivalent to birthday notifications or "I voted" stickers. Like... congrats! You and everyone else! Now what? Where's the discussion here?

On the other hand, I do want to think thrice about controlling this with moderation. All too often on Reddit I've see the trope of a sub that appears to be crawling, and you get the idea to join in with an enthusiastic post, only to get removedsmacked by automod because you posted this on the wrong day of the week, or this post type is outright banned because the community is sick of seeing it. It's sensible, yes. But ugh, what a demoralizing filter for newcomers. Overly curated subs/communities are not public forums, they are increasingly impenetrable cliques. That may not necessarily be a bad thing if we think the tradeoff is worth it. But we have to keep in mind what we become when we make that trade.

The one thing I will say willl absolutely not help anything at all is making a designated containment community for this specific kind of post. The whole complaint here is rooted in there being no discussion value for these types of posts. You think a community comprised entirely of those would be a community anyone would want to post in? It'd largely be the Lemmy equivalent of a donotreply@ email address. A dumping ground where unwanted posts go to die. And I don't know about anyone else, but somehow I find being directed to a designated dead-end forum by mods is an even bigger slap to the face than simply having my post removed.

pixelscript ,

Supposedly a deeply unprofitable one. Which is a huge chunk of why no real competition has surfaced.

It's one thing to set up a proverbial store with prices so low you choke out the competition. It's another thing to essentially pay your customers to come in, either by literally paying them or by providing a service that they pay below actual cost for.

pixelscript ,

I appreciate the gusto, but I find rally posts like this to be extremely irritating.

Do you really think the people who are saying he'll just get away with it all don't think all of these things? Do you think people dropped their morals on the issue and now think "this is fine" because it's the status quo?

Pray tell -- what can I do, today, as a drop in the fucking ocean, to ensure this specific white collar criminal gets summarily apprehended, convicted, and meaningfully punished for his crimes on a reasonable timescale? What reasonable, concrete action am I supposed to take that will do a damn thing about it that I'm not already doing by dutifully casting my ballots and boycotting support for people and causes I don't believe in at every opportunity?

I am convinced there is no such action. The dominos that matter in this specific case were already set long ago. All we can do at this point is make logical predictions about how they will fall. And from my point of view, "Donald Trump will not be meaningfully punished" is looking inevitable. I have no faith in the current stacking of the judicial system to declare an outcome I'd be content with. I and others like me are not happy about it. But we aren't deluding ourselves either. The train for proles like us doing anything about this now is long gone.

Now, I don't think it's hopeless on the grand scale. We can and should work to claw progress on the general form of this issue over time. There's lots we can still do about that. Activism, protesting, dragging people to polls, etc. But that will likely be a "plant a tree whose shade you will never sit in" kind of thing.

Regarding this specific man today, I think we are powerless to meaningfully affect the trajectories of these cases. Anything short of rioting in the streets, casting aside legal process, and marching on the courthouse demanding his head on a pike (in other words, stooping to the level of Jan 6th insurrectionists) is too slow and/or only theoretical. And I am very tired of cheerleaders trying to tell me otherwise when they offer no substantive plan of action.

pixelscript ,

I believe in the adage of, "If it sits between you and the ground, don't skimp".

Shoes, socks, desk chairs, lounge chairs, sofas, car( seat)s, mattresses...

You spend too much time in or on all of these things to be uncomfortable.

I also see posted here the Adam Savage advice of buying cheap tools first, and then upgrade after you better understand your needs. I also think that's great advice you can apply to most things. Just not the above things.

pixelscript ,

I use a few apps from the SimpleMobileTools suite. They aren't full FOSS, they have basic and pro versions where the basic version is GPL3 and the proprietary extended features cost a few bucks. The basic FOSS tools are still decent, if barebones.

The suite includes:

  • a calculator
  • a phone dialer
  • a music player
  • a calendar
  • a photo gallery (with basic editor)
  • an audio recorder
  • a flashlight
  • a clock
  • an app launcher
  • an SMS messenger
  • a camera
  • a keyboard
  • a note taker
  • a file manager
  • a contact book
  • a simple painting canvas

I use the gallery and file manager the most. Though admittedly I threw a couple bucks their way for the proprietary extensions. It's not FOSS, but if it was going to be proprietary, I think it's one of the fairest deals in software these days. Better than another bloody subscription model, or holding the ad-free experience hostage behind a paywall.

pixelscript ,

Thank you for letting me know about this.

Ending support for Windows 10 could send 240 million computers to the landfill. Why not install Linux on them? ( gadgettendency.com )

With support ending for Windows 10, the most popular desktop operating system in the world currently, possibly 240 million pcs may be sent to the landfill. This is mostly due to Windows 11’s exorbitant requirements. This will most likely result in many pcs being immediately outdated, and prone to viruses. GNU/Linux may be...

pixelscript ,

Theoretically, when it's up and running. How do you intend to get to that state, though? One has to install it first. And I think that alone is a massive filter.

inb4 someone says:

I did it, and I found it extremely straightforward.

I'm sure you did, Mr. "I hate how much Reddit is pandering to the braindead to the point that I joined an experimental social media platform", I'm sure you did. Clearly, you are a qualitative sample of people who use Windows computers.

Sarcasm aside, look at how railroaded and coddling the Windows 10 installer is. I am certain a large plurality of Windows users' initiative would completely evaporate having to navigate that. And now we want to throw a Linux installation at them?

Factor on top how the vast majority of computer users in all forms that computers take simply take for granted that the OS the computer comes with is a part of the computer. Normal people don't upgrade OSes unless the OS itself railroads them into it (which Win10 already does aggressively whenable), or they buy a new PC that happens to come with it pre-installed. The knowledge required to negotiate an OS wipe and reinstall is not something most people possess, and I expect presenting that knowledge to them on a silver platter is something they'd hastily recoil from.

We're in a catch-22 here. Even if all the pieces for the fabled Linux Desktop are arguably here, actually getting it into the hands of those who would benefit from it most remains prohibitive.

This is also ignoring the elephant in the room: A massive swath of these Windows PCs (Maybe even most of them? I have no backing figures, just a hunch.) are not personal computers, but office PCs that belong to a company fleet. There's a reason Windows utterly dominates the office--Windows rules the IT sphere, at least where personal devices given to employees are concerned. Active Directory? Group Policy? Come on, guys. None of the companies who depend on these management tools are pivoting to Linux anytime soon, and you know it. And if their cheap, bulk order desk PCs don't support Windows 11, they are absolutely getting landfilled.

The only effective mitigation I could think of would be to start a charity that takes obselesced office PCs, refurbishes them to Linux, and provides them at low or no cost to those who need a low cost or free PC. It would get Linux into more hands, but it would also strengthen a stigma that Linux is nothing more than the poor man's OS. The Dr Thunder to Window's Mountain Dew.

qkall , to Unixporn
@qkall@mastodon.social avatar

can we talk about kde and tiling? i love it...

@unixporn

image/png

pixelscript ,

Rambox, apparently.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •