1. 11

    Finally a proper use of the caps lock key:

    Press caps lock to switch to a command line interface; here’s the debug screen.

    1. 8

      Well, I’d rather use it for Control. But maybe if keyboards would put Control where it belongs, next to Space (it should go Super Alt Control Space Control Alt Super), then it wouldn’t be necessary to have Control where most keyboards have Caps Lock.

      1. 5

        I always map Caps Locks to Ctrl, so whenever I’m on someone else’s laptop I keep flipping into caps when I mean to copy/paste/break/etc.

        1. 3

          it should go Super Alt Control Space Control Alt Super

          What’s the premise for “should” here?

          1. 1

            Because of the frequency of use. Control is used almost all the time, in Windows, Linux & emacs. As such, it should go into the easiest-to-strike location, right next to the spacebar where the thumb can strike it in conjunction with other keys.

            Alt/Meta is used less often, so it should receive the less-convenient spot. Alt should be used for less-frequently used functionality, and to modify Control (e.g. C-f moves forward one character; C-M-f moves forward one word).

            Super should be used least of the three, and ideally would be reserved for OS-, desktop-environment– or window-manager–specific tasks, e.g. for switching windows are accessing an app chooser. Since it’s used less than either Alt or Control, it belongs in the least-convenient spot, far from the spacebar.

            If we were really going to do things right, there’d be a pair of Hyper keys outboard of super, reserved for individual user assignment. But we don’t live in a perfect world.

        2. 4

          as a vi user, i would have said “use escape” but then remembered my caps-lock key is remapped to escape.

        1. 6

          Maybe I should add, that I’ve came to this link via. a @CopperheadOS posting. The twitter thread also shares some little more details about gcc/clang and Android in general.

          1. 6

            I like the strace output…

            $ strace  -f -e execve git git git git git git git git status 2>&1 | grep bin\/sh
            [pid 27778] execve("/bin/sh", ["/bin/sh", "-c", "exec git \"$@\"", "exec git", "git", "git", "git", "git", "git", "git", "status"], [/* 55 vars */]) = 0
            [pid 27780] execve("/bin/sh", ["/bin/sh", "-c", "exec git \"$@\"", "exec git", "git", "git", "git", "git", "git", "status"], [/* 55 vars */]) = 0
            [pid 27782] execve("/bin/sh", ["/bin/sh", "-c", "exec git \"$@\"", "exec git", "git", "git", "git", "git", "status"], [/* 55 vars */]) = 0
            [pid 27784] execve("/bin/sh", ["/bin/sh", "-c", "exec git \"$@\"", "exec git", "git", "git", "git", "status"], [/* 55 vars */]) = 0
            [pid 27786] execve("/bin/sh", ["/bin/sh", "-c", "exec git \"$@\"", "exec git", "git", "git", "status"], [/* 55 vars */]) = 0
            [pid 27788] execve("/bin/sh", ["/bin/sh", "-c", "exec git \"$@\"", "exec git", "git", "status"], [/* 55 vars */]) = 0
            [pid 27790] execve("/bin/sh", ["/bin/sh", "-c", "exec git \"$@\"", "exec git", "status"], [/* 55 vars */]) = 0
            1. 1

              I’m glad someone else had the same thought, it pleased me no end to see it laid out in system calls!

            1. 11

              Which points again out how important projects such as me_cleaner or libreboot are. It’s also impressive how little me_cleaner.py needs.

              1. 3

                Somewhat random aside: turning on disqus comments for your docs site is a terrible idea. If you make it possible for people to abuse random pages as a support forum… it’s going to happen.

                1. 2

                  I agree, having issues/support questions fragmented, can be a huge big deal breaker. Just imagine you’re running into an issue so you:

                  search via. web search engines, check out the project’s issue tracker, look for recent tweets mentioning the project, skimm through comment sections of the blog, link aggregators, reddit, mailinglist archives, IRC logs, …

                  So it’s in reality not only a comment section only issue, but a problem of information spreading across multiple sources. And how could you mitigate this? Create a “Support Statement”. Link to this support statement in all of your communication channels, kindly point out the statement if ignored and start moderating in worst case.

                  Why I don’t want to have comment sections removed?

                  Projects often provide some outdated information on their blogs. Including a comment section can encourage others to contribute with more up to date details. This then can help people on a lost track to figure out where to continue searching, reducing their effort and used time for each problem. Other side, if I run into an issue, thing something can done be differently or want to add something helpful - I comment and hope, someone will find my informations usable.

                  In general, comment sections often provide helpful additional details. The scope of a single blogposting is always limited. Comments are a way of expanding such scope and this without having many trade offs.

                  Side note: Gitlab is also having a comment section below their release notes and before upgrading I, more than once, found some helpful informations in there.

                  Final thoughts

                  I think as long as you stay with this ‘specific traditional way’ of providing informations, a comment section can be a good thing and should not just be shut down. It’s hard to come up with a different solutions that other people will actually use. I’d really like to see different approaches, but I don’t think you’ll suddenly figure out different ones, just by reducing the quality of status quo.

                  Maybe it would be cool to have an auto-generated list of issues, summarizing all issues introduced with each release. Thank’s for reading.

                  Edit: Rephrasing Gitlb sentence a bit (still not perfect).

                1. 8

                  Great summary. I can recommend reading EFF’s “The Problem with Mobile Phones” writeup, especially the section regarding “Phones off”. There is also a good paper summarizing baseband exploitation.

                  1. Edit: Typo and rephrasing
                  1. 2

                    Out of curiosity, does this impact the ability for macOS to run on hardware other than Apple hardware?

                    1. 3

                      Reasonable chunks of the macOS (née OS X) kernel are open source - see Apple Open Source, in particular XNU.

                      It’s an interesting decision by Apple not to encrypt the kernel, but I’m not convinced it’s security related like so many have suggested. Also, the quote from Apple spokesperson mentions “kernel cache”, which is a little different from the kernel itself. I’m no Apple kernel hacker so I’ve not investigated this any further (nor do I know much about the macOS kernel), but there seem to be some discrepancies in these reports

                      1. 1

                        (née OS X)

                        née Mac OS X, née NextSTEP, née Darwin, née XNU, née Mach.

                        The Operating System of a Thousand Names, especially if we’re naming operating systems by their kernels, like Linux.

                      2. 1

                        Why do you think this?
                        There is already OSx86/Hackintosh so you can run Mac OS X on non Apple hardware. I guess if someone is going to dig a little bit into macOS, it will also become available for OSx86. Short ‘research’ also reveals some people having already success with macOS on their PC hardware (this might need some verification).
                        If you wonder it will be possible to install iOS on non Apple hardware, I can’t tell you. First step would be, I guess, running iBoot on QEMU. Searching a bit I found iBoot running in QEMU, and then some git repo and this dead linking site

                      1. 1

                        This article hasn’t aged well, and for some reason the formatting is terrible. (I read it a few years ago, and it wasn’t as bad.)

                        I’ve reached the point where I refuse to talk about languages as being fast or slow. What seems to be true may not be– there may be someone who can use language features that I don’t know about– and what is true now will not be, 10 years from now.

                        I think that there was a much stronger C++ bias in 2006. Back then, there were a lot of people using C++ “because it’s fast” for web programming projects where it was inappropriate. And I agree that the quality of the programmers has always mattered more than traits of the language, whether we’re talking about performance or aesthetics. That will always be true. I’ve seen dozens of businesses fail because they hired bad programmers, and none fail because they chose a language that “wasn’t fast enough” (if you have good engineers, they can rewrite performance-critical stuff in other languages; it’s not a big deal.) That being said, I find it a bit audacious to claim that “C and C++ suck rocks as languages for numerical computing”. To my knowledge, that is not true. In fact, most of the scientific programmers whom I know use Numpy/Scipy, which use a lot of C libraries (and probably some Fortran).

                        1. 2

                          This article hasn’t aged well, and for some reason the formatting is terrible. (I read it a few years ago, and it wasn’t as bad.)

                          Thank you for your comment.
                          Seems they have changed their site at some point (even link-scheme), I could still figure out the old link which is far better styled.