mina86 @ mina86 @lemmy.wtf

Posts

1

Comments

31

Joined

3 wk. ago

Also, nano may not always be installed.

mcedit, gedit, pico. For majority of people lack of any simple non-vi-based text editor is a corner case not worth worrying about. Definitely not enough of a problem to start ‘How to learn Emacs’ tutorial with ‘Learn Vim’.

Why is 0th step of learning Emacs, learning Vim? The whole premiss that you need to know Vim or you’re unable to work on other people’s computers is ludicrous. Nano is perfectly capable editor for the times I need to use computers without Emacs.

Admittedly, I’m probably not the best person to ask for recommendation of a noob-friendly distro, but I feel people are overthinking this. If someone produces a list which includes distros I’ve never heard of, I think they spent too much time on ‘Top 10 Noob Friendly Distros in 2025’ websites.

If you really care about my recommendation, just start with Mint.

PS. I should also add, this isn’t criticism of you or any other new user who does search online for recommendation. This is more a comment on state of the Internet where there are so many websites which seem to pad their list with obscure distros where really all such articles should give recommendation for one of the same three distributions. Which three I don’t exactly know.

Have you looked at Bitlbee? Not a client for Emacs as such, but an IRC gateway to various protocols. It lets you use your IRC client to talk to XMPP.

What others wrote except don’t use dd. Use rsync or make a backup with tar. dd will waste time reading unallocated regions of the disk.

I meant what’s the link to use since the same Lemmy post can be viewed through different instances and on each it has a different URL. It’s a bit user-hostile that the link gets you out of your instance (unless you’re on the same instance as author of the post).

Yeah, my bad. I should have linked to the previous post: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/32637183 (not entirely sure what’s the etiquette for linking to posts on Lemmy is).

Yeah, it’s a bit philosophical.

• In graphical applications, Ctrl+M, Ctrl+J and Return/Enter are all different things.
• In a terminal in raw mode, Ctrl+M and Return/Enter are the same thing but Ctrl+J is something different. You can for example run bind -x '"\C-j":"echo a"' in bash and Ctrl+J will do something different.
• In a terminal in canonical mode, they are all the same thing. There probably are some stty options which can change that though.

Yes. So is Ctrl+J actually. Ctrl+J corresponds to line feed (LF) and Ctrl+M corresponds to carriage return (CR) ASCII characters. They are typically treated the same way.

Yes, I agree. But the dispute is what ‘sends EOF’ actually means. The article I respond to claims Ctrl+D doesn’t send EOF but is like Enter except that new line character is not sent. This is, in some sense true, but as I explain also misleading.

You could pass $1 and $got through $(realpath -P -- ...) to make sure all the path are in canonical form. Though now that I’m thinking about it, stat is probably a better option anyway:

 shell

    
want=/path/to/target/dir
pattern=$(stat -c^%d:%i: -- "$want")
find "$HOME" -type l -exec stat -Lc%d:%i:%n {} + | grep "$pattern"


  

You want readlink -f rather than ls -l. ++OK, actually not exactly. readlink won’t print path to the symlink so it’s not as straightforward.++

Also, you want + in find ... -exec ... + rather than ;.

At this point I feel committed to making readlink work. ;) Here’s the script you want:

    
#!/bin/sh

want=$1
shift
readlink -f -- "$@" | while read got; do
    if [ "$got" = "$want" ]; then
        echo "$1"
    fi
    shift
done

  

and execute it as:

    
find ~ -type l -exec /bin/sh /path/to/the/script /path/to/target/dir {} +


  

I’ve Pulse 14 with plain Debian installation and so far didn’t notice any issues. Though admittedly, I’m not a heavy laptop user. Your mileage may vary I guess.

Tuxedo

I used Claws Mail at some point in the past. Now notmuch+Emacs.

Everything you’re describing is further speculation and unfalsifiable statements for events which already have a simpler explanation. That’s a tell-tale sign of a conspiracy theory.

Google buying the company as some kind of plot to get spies into Google requires more assumptions than Google buying the company for the technology (as it has done with plethora of other companies). If Google is somehow complicit in it, they could just hire those people directly. And if it’s all covert operation, Israel is capable of training and coaching their spies to pass Google’s interviews. Google interviews aren’t trivial, but it’s also not some super-elite company which hires only the top 0.01% of software engineers.

If you want to convince me otherwise, you need to demonstrate why your explanation is more likely than the obvious one.

Nothing you wrote contradicts the observation that it’s easier to apply for a job and get it than to construct a full blown company which needs to be acquired. If there are already 99 ‘spies’ at Google, there’s hardly need for such elaborate schemes.

Why do you think it would affect performance?

It’s easier to get operatives to apply for a job and get hired than build a company which ends up being bought. This sounds like conspiracy theory to me. Any large US corporation likely has operatives of various countries working for it.

• Short, single sentence paragraphs.
• Ends article with ‘Sad’ as its own paragraph.

What kind of BS website is this?