rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote at 02:44 this Friday (GMT):
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:52:29 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:
>
>> That will almost
>> certainly be Linux, depending on how important MS Flight Simulator ends
>> up in the equation.
>
> Is that still around? I messed around with it in the early '80s. I was
> also learning how to fly real planes. All I can say is if I was as bad at
> flying a Lark (sort of a Cessna 180 by Rockwell) as I was with the
> simulator I wouldn't be bugging COLA today.

Yeah, there was a modern remake of MS Flight Sim "recently".
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-03-22, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote at 22:56 this Wednesday (GMT):
>> vallor wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, what hh really wants in a Linux system is something
>>>running ChromeOS. You telling me he can't find a Chromebook?
>>
>> Obviously, a Chromebook is also far from optimal for most people,
>> despite the "larger marketshare" that gives the "full time UI
>> professionals" the "greatest amount of user UI feedback to optimize
>> from".
>>
>> -highhorse's anti-choice idiocy continues to astonish me.
>>
>> You only have to look around you, to see that he's wrong. Pick a
>> market. Any healthy, competitive market will do.
>
>
> Chromebooks are pretty bad, yeah.

I tried out Chromebooks. I agree. You can run Linux on them, but working
around the ChromeOS is a pain.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:20:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Chromebooks are pretty bad, yeah.

We bought one for testing. It handled the web app reasonably well which
was a surprise.

-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> I read it and I wholeheartedly agree. I'll try to remember to elaborate
> more on that thread, but the jist of it is that the "go it alone" aspect
> of Linux is a barrier to marketplace adoption for new customers, which
> would be referred to as a point of "friction". Similarly, what you
> reference as 'lock in' would also be referred to as how customer
> retention to a product is (or isn't) "sticky". For maximized success,
> one wants one's product to be low friction and sticky ... easy for
> people to adopt, and once they do, they never leave. That takes work to
> be able to accomplish in the marketplace.

This falls under the rubric of "no shit, Sherlock".

--
"...The name of the song is called 'Haddocks' Eyes'!"
"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is
"A-sitting on a Gate": and the tune's my own invention."
-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-03-22, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote at 22:56 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>> vallor wrote:
>>>
>>>>BTW, what hh really wants in a Linux system is something
>>>>running ChromeOS. You telling me he can't find a Chromebook?
>>>
>>> Obviously, a Chromebook is also far from optimal for most people,
>>> despite the "larger marketshare" that gives the "full time UI
>>> professionals" the "greatest amount of user UI feedback to optimize
>>> from".
>>>
>>> -highhorse's anti-choice idiocy continues to astonish me.
>>>
>>> You only have to look around you, to see that he's wrong. Pick a
>>> market. Any healthy, competitive market will do.
>>
>> Chromebooks are pretty bad, yeah.
>
> I tried out Chromebooks. I agree. You can run Linux on them, but working
> around the ChromeOS is a pain.

Nonsense! School kids everywhere use them! :-)

--
At once it struck me what quality went to form a man of achievement, especially
in literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously -- I mean negative
capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties,
mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.
-- John Keats

-hh wrote:

>>> Let's not forget how DFS has frequently ribbed chrisv about how chrisv
>>> had refused to show spending the time to optimize a build on NewEgg
>>> because it would take too many hours...think it was part of the "more
>>> choices are always better" which backfired on chrisv due to it being a
>>> clear example of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do.
>>
>> And how is this related to the price of tea in China?
>
>chrisv is merely illustrating just how determined some fanboys can be to
>try to deny even simple stuff. Here, it is of their time investments.

Your dishonesty, ridiculous claims of past "victory" and made-up false
attacks aside... Kook. People are quite capable of deciding what
time investments are appropriate and maximally efficient, without
lamers like you asserting that they're making the wrong decisions.

Once installed, Linux takes much less time to "get ready" than Windows
does, in my experience. Only a ridiculous person would complain about
the small amount of time needed to install and configure a new
installation.

Enjoy your "my way or the highway" Apple experience, lamer.

--
"In practice, though, Linux users are just as controlled by the distro
makers and FOSS app developers as commercial users are by Microsoft
and closed-source app developers." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly

Le 18-03-2024, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> I'm pretty sure Russell is just plain wrong,

It's not a difficult guess.

> on this one.

Why only on this one?

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 19-03-2024, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> a écrit :
> On 3/18/24 11:59 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 3/12/24 5:29 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> My gawd, GIMP on Linux is a second or two for the launch. On Windows it
>>>> is that time just to know that your click worked.
>>>
>>> Except for when it isn't. Launch time really doesn't mean all that much
>>> anymore IMO, as its not an all that frequently repeated of an activity
>>> (especially with adequate RAM), ...
>>
>> I prefer a faster launch time when I am eager to edit a PNG.
>
> Most people prefer faster launches. That's why it eventually became a
> metric for focusing on.

So the launch time means something. For me, it depends on what I'll do.
If I plan to do something which will takes hours, I can wait for a few
seconds launch. If I want to do something fast, I don't want to wait.
For example, my terminal must be fast to open and to close.

For Gimp, it takes too long time to open and I launch it only when I
have no choice.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 22-03-2024, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> a écrit :
>
> But if you grossly mess up and the recovery partition's been destroyed
> too so as to truly need to do a bare metal install, the good news is
> that all Macs for the past decade support having the OS reinstalled over
> the Internet.

It's really the useless part. I can effortlessly reinstall my OS any
time I want. My concern in case of destruction is not about my OS but
about my personal data.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 3/22/24 2:11 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> I read it and I wholeheartedly agree. I'll try to remember to elaborate
>> more on that thread, but the jist of it is that the "go it alone" aspect
>> of Linux is a barrier to marketplace adoption for new customers, which
>> would be referred to as a point of "friction". Similarly, what you
>> reference as 'lock in' would also be referred to as how customer
>> retention to a product is (or isn't) "sticky". For maximized success,
>> one wants one's product to be low friction and sticky ... easy for
>> people to adopt, and once they do, they never leave. That takes work to
>> be able to accomplish in the marketplace.
>
> This falls under the rubric of "no shit, Sherlock".
>

Indeed it does, yet there's so many Linux fanboys that fail to
comprehend just how much friction Linux has which therefore limits its
appeal to perspective adopters/buyers. It seems that they believe that
just because they've crawled across a mile of sharp glass, others should
too.

And FYI, if you don't like the industry term of friction, perhaps you
could envision it as a 'moat' that keeps new customers out, although
that's actually a different industry term: it commonly refers to
elements which keep competitors from poaching your customers.

-hh

Le 19-03-2024, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> a écrit :
> Plus you're implying that the work done by full time UI professionals is
> bad

I'm not implying anything. It's clear.

> ... but do you have any credible citations for that? Cite, please.

Why should I cite anyone? When I'm using my computer, I not asking
anyone how he feels about it. I can see by myself that the GUI designed
by UI professionals are slowing me. So they're bad and it needs to be
changed. I have nobody to cite and I really see no reason why I should.

>> And
>> finely, you can use the time spend by others to start from something
>> almost ready to adapt it easily to your own needs.
>
> That's an argument to go with whoever has the larger marketshare, as
> they've had the greatest amount of user UI feedback to optimize from.

No. When I want a theme, I can find a few even with a limited market
share. I don't find the exact one that I want, but I can find easily a
close enough one. When I want a way to do something, I can find someone
who needed it before me or something close. Without need of market
share.

>> There's a lot of
>> configuration files and ideas to help you improve your configuration
>> effortlessly.
>
> Still isn't a zero amount of time ... which adds up the more you tweak.

Yes, but the amount of time added is less than the time I would loose by
using a default done by a bad UI designer.

>> So yes, I value my time and my confort. And you didn't gave me anything
>> to mow because your way would make me lost a lot of time and comfort.
>
> Precisely the reason to trust professionals to be closer to offering a
> more optimal UI.

Nope. I know tools designed by professionals. They are not mean to be
efficient but to be beautiful and use by someone who don't want to learn.

>> When I do something it's useful for a really long time. For example,
>> When I started to learn about tilling Windows Managers, it was with
>> wmii. Then I was able to use a lot of its configuration to switch to
>> i3wm. And then, it was the same with swaywm. So with the lot of
>> similarities between the WM, I used the same shortcuts and I didn't need
>> to learn anything new. For a very few time invested during the years.
>> Unlike Windows, which changed everything with each upgrade and I needed
>> a few months to find my way out each time.
>
> Which for users who don't need to know how to program tiling, but just
> use the UI, this is relevant...how?

That's exactly my point. Thanks a lot for your support. You really
dismissed my points because you consider they are irrelevant when you
don't understand them.

I'll rephrase it.
You say: "If you value your time, do my way."
I say: "I value my time and your way will slow me and make me lose my
time."
You say: "Your arguments are irrelevant for people who don't like your
way."

And that's where your arguments are garbage. I don't care about the way
the others are using their computers. I care about the way I'm using
mine.

So, when you say: "Do my way because others don't like your way, it's
better for you.", it's just shit.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 2024-03-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-03-22, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote at 22:56 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>>> vallor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>BTW, what hh really wants in a Linux system is something
>>>>>running ChromeOS. You telling me he can't find a Chromebook?
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, a Chromebook is also far from optimal for most people,
>>>> despite the "larger marketshare" that gives the "full time UI
>>>> professionals" the "greatest amount of user UI feedback to optimize
>>>> from".
>>>>
>>>> -highhorse's anti-choice idiocy continues to astonish me.
>>>>
>>>> You only have to look around you, to see that he's wrong. Pick a
>>>> market. Any healthy, competitive market will do.
>>>
>>> Chromebooks are pretty bad, yeah.
>>
>> I tried out Chromebooks. I agree. You can run Linux on them, but working
>> around the ChromeOS is a pain.
>
> Nonsense! School kids everywhere use them! :-)

I pity the kids.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:43:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Once installed, Linux takes much less time to "get ready" than Windows
> does, in my experience. Only a ridiculous person would complain about
> the small amount of time needed to install and configure a new
> installation.

I think the 'get ready' time is equivalent. I've got my catalog of stuff I
install most of which are cross platform.

Full disclosure: I've never installed Windows since I upgraded a 3.1
laptop to 3.11 Workgroup. At work IT drops off the new Windows box or I
buy something with Windows pre-installed. My builds have all went straight
to Linux.

When IT drops off a bare metal box they leave rapidly. Linux is strictly
'don't ask, don't tell' for them.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:53:54 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I pity the kids.

Beats the hell out of what I had as a kid:

https://picclick.com/1950s-Vintage-Yellow-Sterling-Multiplier-Pencil-Box-
Case-313543772142.html

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote at 17:58 this Friday (GMT):
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:20:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Chromebooks are pretty bad, yeah.
>
> We bought one for testing. It handled the web app reasonably well which
> was a surprise.

Having a "web-only" computer isn't really useful though..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote at 22:53 this Friday (GMT):
> On 2024-03-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-03-22, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote at 22:56 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>>>> vallor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, what hh really wants in a Linux system is something
>>>>>>running ChromeOS. You telling me he can't find a Chromebook?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, a Chromebook is also far from optimal for most people,
>>>>> despite the "larger marketshare" that gives the "full time UI
>>>>> professionals" the "greatest amount of user UI feedback to optimize
>>>>> from".
>>>>>
>>>>> -highhorse's anti-choice idiocy continues to astonish me.
>>>>>
>>>>> You only have to look around you, to see that he's wrong. Pick a
>>>>> market. Any healthy, competitive market will do.
>>>>
>>>> Chromebooks are pretty bad, yeah.
>>>
>>> I tried out Chromebooks. I agree. You can run Linux on them, but working
>>> around the ChromeOS is a pain.
>>
>> Nonsense! School kids everywhere use them! :-)
>
> I pity the kids.

Yeah, the school ones are especially bad, probably from buying in bulk.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote at 04:18 this Friday (GMT):
> On 22 Mar 2024 02:29:21 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in
><l648o1F2m1hU9@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 10:37:02 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> That was 2010, and it was based on the data found on this site, which
>>> at the time indicated 50% of Linux users ran Ubuntu.
>>
>> You spend too much time in Marty McFly's Delorean. Back in 1993 50% of
>> all Linux users ran Slackware.*
>>
>> Another statistic pulled from my butt which is as good as any.
>
> The reason so many people are running Ubuntu is that was most
> vendors install, such as Dell.
>
> System76 does have Pop!_OS, which I would have tried if the name
> wasn't so cutesy.
>
> One reason I prefer Mint is that snaps are turned off by default.
> Snaps aren't good for the Linux ecosystem, because you can't
> build your own "snap store" -- it's all Canonical's baby.

Snaps have a lot of issues, especially being propriatary.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote at 02:25 this Friday (GMT):
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 07:15:29 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:
>
>> On 21 Mar 2024 07:00:34 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in
>> <l6248iFn16lU12@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 19:56:52 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Theory" says Linux users update the code to make their apps and
>>>> desktops look and behave the way they want.
>>>>
>>>> "Observed reality" PROVES they don't.
>>>
>>> Speaking personally I have to agree. Unless it's something hideous like
>>> dark mode I use whatever comes out of the box.
>>
>> It took me weeks and weeks to get my spinny desktop cube running!
>
> Spinny desktop cubes give me vertigo as do shaky windows and all the rest
> of that crap. I had a friend who would spend hours messing with the
> special effects. otoh I've spent hours trying to figure out how to prevent
> a window from suddenly resizing itself when it gets too close to an edge.

I'm somewhere in the middle, I enjoy stuff like aero but the over the
top stuff does feel too much.

> Maybe not hours but it did take me longer than it should have to figure
> out what the hell I was doing that would suddenly display all the active
> apps on the desktop and drive a stake through its heart.
>
> Several distros became dead to me when they insisted on following
> Microsoft down the Aero rabbit hole. Truth is some days I'd like to go
> back to a 100 column amber monitor.

I do like the asthetic of amber monitors..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 3/22/2024 10:04 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:53:54 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> I pity the kids.
>
> Beats the hell out of what I had as a kid:
>
> https://picclick.com/1950s-Vintage-Yellow-Sterling-Multiplier-Pencil-Box-
> Case-313543772142.html
>

You used a table to see the multiplication results? We memorized them in
third grade.

And we didn't memorize the logic about them or any rule to follow in our
minds to get the results, but to memorize the sound they made as we read
them fast (in Persian of course) in our minds. I still do that!

For instance, for me 7 times 9 isn't 63 because it would be 7 less than
7 times 10 which is 70, but it would be 63 because I have that sound
recorded in my mind since the third grade, saying "hafnohta, shastoseta"
which in English translates to "seventimesnine, sixtythree". And so on
for all the 81 different multiplications of 1 to 9 by 1 to 9.

I still have all those 81 sounds in my mind :) And use them too to get
the results, like:

hashtshishta, chelohashta (eighttimessix, fortyeight)

as well as,

shishashta, chelohashta (sixtimeseitht, fortyeight)

both!

When I say the first part in my mind, my mind gives me the second part
of the sound that the two terms make.

I thought it was so everywhere around the world. We never used any
multiplication table. If numbers were greater than 9 we either logically
solved them in mind or did the actual multiplication with pen and paper
to get the results.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2024-03-23, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:53:54 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> I pity the kids.
>
> Beats the hell out of what I had as a kid:
>
> https://picclick.com/1950s-Vintage-Yellow-Sterling-Multiplier-Pencil-Box-
> Case-313543772142.html

I'm guessing you probably had a slide rule as well. I did — although I never
really used it. I think we were luckier, we actually did things outside.

I do remember when relatively inexpensive portable calculators first came to
Value-Mart in the early 70s. Of course I had to get one. That's when they
still used LEDs instead of LCDs — and sometimes even different colored LEDs,
like blue or green instead of red.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-03-23, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote at 17:58 this Friday (GMT):
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:20:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Chromebooks are pretty bad, yeah.
>>
>> We bought one for testing. It handled the web app reasonably well which
>> was a surprise.
>
>
> Having a "web-only" computer isn't really useful though..

That depends. Some people live on the web. But those people usually get
their "fix" fulfilled using smartphones these days.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 06:52:13 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <fm7ovittinum1tf83bm32gau4c46v6ms6h@4ax.com>:

> vallor wrote:
>
>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's not forget how DFS has frequently ribbed chrisv about how chrisv
>>> had refused to show spending the time to optimize a build on NewEgg
>>> because it would take too many hours...think it was part of the "more
>>> choices are always better" which backfired on chrisv due to it being a
>>> clear example of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do.
>>
>> And how is this related to the price of tea in China?
>
> Well, it was "proven" that there can be "too much choice", you see.
> (rolling eyes)

...and then debunked, which he conveniently ignored.

--
-v

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:30:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote in
<utk861$30dru$2@dont-email.me>:

> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote at 02:44 this Friday (GMT):
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:52:29 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:
>>
>>> That will almost
>>> certainly be Linux, depending on how important MS Flight Simulator
>>> ends up in the equation.
>>
>> Is that still around? I messed around with it in the early '80s. I was
>> also learning how to fly real planes. All I can say is if I was as bad
>> at flying a Lark (sort of a Cessna 180 by Rockwell) as I was with the
>> simulator I wouldn't be bugging COLA today.
>
>
> Yeah, there was a modern remake of MS Flight Sim "recently".

It has a lot going for it:

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/microsoft-flight-simulator-2024

I flew a bit in an earlier version (2020, I think), which had plenty of
planes and scenarios to choose from.

I agree that flying a real aircraft is easier than a simulator. Back
around 2000, we owned a Piper Archer III -- loved that thing,
wish we still had it. (It even had air conditioning. :) )

--
-v

Le 19-03-2024, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> a écrit :
> On 3/17/24 5:24 AM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> Le 17-03-2024, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> a écrit :
>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:49:44 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>>> wrote in <ut4t4o$32464$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>
>>>> And for those who want to defend their hours & hours spent twaddling
>>>> around with their gear to finally get something to work,
>>>
>>> So who is doing that?
>>
>> FR/LP/NV/DG/whatever. He's the only one. He's not a representative Linux
>> user. He's a Windows advocate trying to make Linux users passing for
>> fools. It looks like some take the bait.
>>
>
> Nah, feeb's not the only one, because there's others who have taken
> exception to my comment. Feel free to review every direct reply,
> especially your own.

I replied to the parts which interested me, as I said, you changed the
subject. You answered to something else.

I don't pass hours and hours to just have something barely working. I
pass minutes to have something really better in the long run. Which is
not the same as what you said, so it doesn't apply to me even if you
disagree. Which means that save me hours on the long run, because the
time is adding in both ways.

It's the same for your links about the processes. I didn't read the
content because I have better things to to. I read the abstract and it's
clear you compare the way some processes are harmonised in companies
with the way some tools are adapted on personal computers. Two
different things. You believe it's the same, good for you: it's not and
I don't care what you believe when you change the subjects.

For your need of a citation, I really don't see how some citation can
support my claim that I'm able to adapt my tools better than the
defaults. I can see it by myself, it's easy.

For example, if I want to open a pdf file.

My way: I press [Windows]+[z], my pdf files are displayed in wofi. I
type some letters of its name, when it's selected I press [Enter] and my
pdf file is opened in zathura.

Microsoft/Apple way: I need to open the file manager. I need to find the
directory in which my file is stored. I need to find the file in the
directory. I need to open it. I need to close the file manager.

I can see by myself that I'm faster with my way than with the way
provided by Apple/Microsoft. I never tried Apple but it's the same way
as the Microsoft way, so I know I would be slower using a Mac.

In my way, the information comes to me. In Microsoft/Apple way, I need
to look for the information. That's a huge difference. I saves me a few
seconds each time I'm opening a pdf file, and that's a lot of times. So
the few seconds add up very fast. At least one or two minutes each
day. So, in years, it's really hours saved. For a few minutes
configuration. Really, only one line in my config file:

bindsym $mod+z exec find ~ \( -path ~/Download\* -o -path ~/divers\* -o -path ~/Lecture/Pdf/ALire/\* \) -a \( -name "*.pdf" -o -name "*.ps" -o -name "*.epub" \) 2>/dev/null | wofi -d | xargs -r -I % zathura "%"

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 19-03-2024, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> a écrit :
> On 3/16/24 5:49 AM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> Le 12-03-2024, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>> The funny thing about 'bloat' is that it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
>>
>> It is. By definition. If it's a bloated application, it means it has
>> useless complexities. For some tasks you need complexity. It's not
>> bloated in those cases.
>>
>> They are two issues with the bloated applications. First they waste
>> resources. Second, they are more difficult to maintain than necessary.
>
> Oh, I agree for *real* bloat.

There is not such thing as real or false bloat. Either it's bloated or
it's necessary complexity.

> Problem is that Feeb is wrong

Yes, he's always wrong, it's well known.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io