• 23 Posts
  • 307 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle



  • If you want to do a Bash like management and programming, that is not dramatically different but fixes some irritations, then Fish is an alternative. Obviously it will not fix all issues, but there is no paradigm shift in handling streams. nushell is dramatically different and at that point, I would rather use a programming language to do the stuff. Speaking of programming language, there is also Xonsh (basically Python+Bash like combination as a system shell).

    All these alternatives have a singular big flaw to me: they are not the standard tools on the system, which defeats the purpose of a system shell to me. In the end, without changing the core system that these shells are built on, I don’t think its possible to make a really well made language that interoperates on system level like a shell does at the moment.

    That’s the reason why I got a bit more into Bash to understand some flaws, to understand how to use regexes inside Bash and variable substitutions and a few other concepts that are very useful to know. But man… there are so many traps… like looping over a wildcard for files (such as for file in *.txt) and if the wildcard does not match, then the loop consists of the wildcard as a literal word as if “*.txt” was a filename. What a stupid idea. There is an option to change that, but that’s the issue. The language is filled with traps and optional options and you have to know all of them.

    Edit: Added example code why default behavior sucks:

    $ for file in *.ABCD; do echo "${file}"; done
    *.ABCD
    shopt -s nullglob
    $ for file in *.ABCD; do echo "${file}"; done
    




  • The quoted image does not say so, they do not say the native packaging from your distribution is borderline unusable. That judgement was added by YOU. The devs just state the package on Archlinux is not officially supported, without making a judgement (at least in the quoted image).

    As for the Fedora issue, that is a completely different thing. That is also Flatpak, so its not the package format itself the issue. Fedora did package the application in Flatpak their own way and presented it as the official product. That is a complete different issue! That has nothing to do with Archlinux packaging their own native format. Archlinux never said or presented it as the official package either and it does not look like the official Flatpak version.

    So where does the developers say that anything that is not their official Flatpak package is “borderline unusable”?


  • And then there is software like OBS, which is known for being borderline unusable when not using the only officially supported way to use it on Linux outside of Ubuntu – which is Flatpak.

    But why is that? I mean just because it is packaged by someone else does not mean its unusable. So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right? In installed the Flatpak version, because they developers recommended it to me. I’m not sure why the Archlinux package should be unusable (and I don’t want to mess around with it, because I don’t know what part is unusable).


  • Those mystical average people would probably stay on Windows, if they don’t care or cannot learn basics of other systems. Its really not hard to explain and understand, even for “average person” that there is an universal source for applications and there are packages designed and managed by your operating system. I think its important for people to learn basics and we should teach them, not dumb them down like on Windows. Soon people won’t be able to eat themselves anymore…


  • Flatpak have their own set of issues. One thing is, that Flatpak applications do not integrate that easily and perfect like a native package. Either rights are to given, you need to know what rights are needed and how to set it up. Theming can be an issue, because it uses its own libraries in the Flatpak eco system instead your current distributions theme and desktop environment.

    But on the other hand, they have actually a permission system and are a little bit sandbox compared to normal applications. Packages often are distributed quickly and are up to date directly from the developers, and usually are not installed with root rights.

    I’m pretty much a CLI guy as well and prefer native packages (Arch based, plus the AUR). But I also use Flatpaks for various reasons, alongside with AppImages.




  • Beyond raw horsepower, 7-Zip quietly tightens its handling of several legacy formats. Support for ZIP, CcPIO, and FAT archives has been refined, smoothing edge-case extractions that previously required third-party tools.

    Over the years there was a few .zip archives that 7z could not handle for whatever reason. For these cases I had to use another application, but don’t know the reason. And my bad to not keeping copies of these files for future testing.



  • You mean alignment of arguments or multiline strings in example? If they are not on their own line, then it does not matter to me. If they start on their own line, then mixing spaces and tabs isn’t a good idea to me. In example for function calls with a bit more complex calls and multiple arguments, I put them in their own line each. They are indented and therefore indentation level plays. If they are on the same line, I never align them and if I would, it would be spaces. In general:

    function() {
    ....var = 1
    ....another_var = 2
    ....indented(arg, arg2, arg3)
    ....indented(arg, 
    .............arg2, 
    .............arg3)
    }