Instead of dmenu and emacs I use rofi and spacemacs. Great alternatives. I can also recommend i3blocks for status bar. It’s a status bar for i3 with a collection of great scripts.
it’s interesting to see somebody moving from vanilla emacs to spacemacs, what is the most interesting point that impressed you? have you used evil mode before? did the loading time bothered you?
So my SO wanted to learn to build webpages, and insisted on using the same editor I use …
We ran “emacs &” on their system, spacemacs came up, and wow it was so easy to do the things I’ve spent decades learning how to load and configure.
My laptop is unreasonably powerful, loading time is not an issue. Their laptop is meh (spinning drive!) but spacemacs still loads quickly. We opened an html file and spacemacs offered to download and turn on the html modes, click yes and instant functionality!
Most interesting point is how much configuration is done for me, I don’t need to know the name of a mode, just open a file with that extension and the correct mode is setup for you.
Lots of “do you want this option turned on? it does this thing for you” clicky things when you start up spacemacs, it’s really friendly!
yeah that automation part is awesome, it’s also what caught my attention when I first moved to emacs, after a while, it just slow down everything haha.
I know several long time emacs users who switched to spacemacs for the convenience.
I suspect it’s related to why I use byobu instead of maintaining my own tmux/screen config. I have a limited config (time) budget and I’d rather spend that where I want (emacs!).
Further development on my app called “My Leaf” for Android and iOS. It’s a third party alternative to the official NissanConnect EV app. Basically an app to for the Nissan Leaf. It’s free and open source of course ;)
Written using Flutter.
Besides that I will be outdoor in the woods. Also playing through Valkyria Chronicles 4 on Switch late at night.
I’ve used passwordstore (https://www.passwordstore.org/) together with Keybase (https://keybase.io/) for a long time now. My ~/.password-store is symlinked to /keybase/private/my-user. Pretty happy with that setup.
I’d imagine that the reason for GNU cat not using splice is because of portability (POSIX). Remember GNU cat wants to support different OS’es. Splice being a Linux specific feature would break this portability.
Great keyboard without doubt. I bought a keyboard from Unicomp. These keyboard are not made by IBM/Lexmark anymore, but I found a company called Unicomp, they are located in the states. Turns out Unicomp bought the rights/patents and tools for building the Model M keyboard; a.k.a buckling spring technology.
What a bad article. The author seems illinformed on the subject. The very reason to why Bitcoin (core) has failed are not mentioned at all.
Here is the deal: Bitcoin is currently not what Bitcoin was when it was created. Slow peer-to-peer transactions and high processing fees. The current blocksize limit of 1MiB or thereabouts is the sole reason for this. The system can’t handle enough transactions… and when that happens the fees rise fast and the while system become boggled and slow. Currently the fees are much lower than they were in December 2017. Why? Because people have moved to other better alternatives and some have completely stopped using any crypto. It as a bad experience and I don’t blame them for having that stance.
I think there is a real possibility of a “death spiral of the blockchain”. Fees will increase and it will become impossible to move coins on the blockchain besides the upper 10% of bitcoin holders. For traders on exchanges bitcoin seems fast; because no transactions are taking place. When you actually decide to move your bitcoins to a wallet you own you’ll pay high fees… if not your transaction could take months to clear or never actually clear.
The fork that occurred on 1st August created Bitcoin Cash. This fork is much closer to what the Bitcoin was. Bitcoin Cash is this today. Removal of the segwit code (which hasn’t solved anything), disabling of RBF (replace-by-fee) enabling 0-confirmation transactions again. A new DAA (difficulty adjustment algorithm). Finally increase the block size to 8MiB.
The Bitcoin has been crippled on purpose by Blockstream deep in the pockets of bankers and insurance companies. Blockstream is the main contributor to the Bitcoin development. Look at the sponsors; https://www.blockstream.com/about/#investors
Now all of this has led to a complete divide and clusterfuck of the community. It is an very ugly and toxic environment and is sad to look at. On top of that we now have thousands of alternative coins and blockchains. It’s a mess and it will take time to recover (if ever).
The current version of bitcoin is crippled and completely unusable as a currency as is.
Author has literally written a book on the subject.
The linked article doesn’t address all the arguments about Bitcoin (the book takes a stab at it). It addresses one very specific “meme” prevalent in the Bitcoin booster community - that the technology is akin to the early days of the internet and that it will therefore automatically become as world-changing as the internet is.
This is a dumb argument for the reasons listed in the linked article and I will be happy to link to it if I ever have the misfortune to discuss Bitcoin with someone who brings it up.
Why do you see it as a misfortune to talk about Bitcoin? The topic is extremely interesting because of its history of events and the technology. That’s at least my take on it.
The linked article doesn’t address all the arguments about Bitcoin (the book takes a stab at it). It addresses one very specific “meme” prevalent in the Bitcoin booster community - that the technology is akin to the early days of the internet and that it will therefore automatically become as world-changing as the internet is.
Now I feel really bad about my comment. Was not intended as spam for Bitcoin Cash. I just stated what has actually happened. Banks or not someone has purposefully crippled the Bitcoin. This is hard to deny. There are many alternatives to Bitcoin Cash. Cash is just interesting because it has the original blockchain from before it split 1. August and has many active developers split on many different teams. No Ill-natured attempts like other forks (Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond to name a few).
Banks or not someone has purposefully crippled the Bitcoin.
I don’t agree with this premise. I don’t believe any one entity or entities colluded in crippling Bitcoin. The effects we are observing now (Bitcoin Core under centralized development, Bitcoin Cash under centralized mining) are simply the natural effects of an open source project with purposefully weak governance.
Most open source projects don’t make money directly off their work however. The potential effect on the price of the tokens leads to an even more poisonous atmosphere and debate.
simply the natural effects of an open source project with purposefully weak governance.
Yep. Ethereum has at least as many technical crises - but it holds together because the community more or less trusts the dev team to keep pulling rabbits out of the hat. (Ethereum Classic notwithstanding.) And I think they understand that, and know they need some spectacular new achievements in computer science before Ethereum clogs the way Bitcoin did.
Fair enough. We are all entitled to our own opinion. I’d look more carefully into the whole history of events. I’m not sure how involved you are in this matter. I’ve been following Bitcoin development since early 2011 and my view is that something did happen to the original idea that is Bitcoin. Conspiracy or not I’m convinced that foul play has diverted or detailed the project. Look at segwit, lightning and re-enabled RBF… it hasn’t really solved anything; only introduced new overly complicated code. Lightning network is a mess currently and it actually makes it harder to do transactions. You have to be online to receive and send payments. You also have to pay for payments. All of this already works without lightning or segwit. In early stages there was not even a blocksize limit. It was later introduced by Satoshi and his view was that the blocksize should increase with usage. Now Bitcoin Cash has 8MiB blocks and it works (blocks are very small today though, but 8MiB blocks have been mined). Why go so far to re-enable RBF, introduce segwit (essentially just changing what counts as space in blocks) and then introduce a whole new transaction paradigm (lightning network; a old-school mesh-network which we know are not got at scaling). All of this instead of changing a hardcoded blocksize limit. It all makes very little sense to me. Look at Satoshi explaning the limit and how easy it would be to change it if needed; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366.
There is a great talk about 1GiB blocks by Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone on why it is feasible to have very large blocks; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M&t=805s
What is your take on segwit and lightning network?
Frankly, I lost the plot back when Bitcoin XT was proposed…. that’s when /u/Theymos instituted the infamous “altcoin ban”. After that most of the “discussion” on Reddit has been obscured by namecalling and kvetching about who censors who.
As to whether the blocksize should be raised… it’s clear that even if the blocksize were raised across the board, the same issue would only occur a few months or years later. The number of transactions in a block is an inherently limited resource. LN and segwit are attempts to address this reality - by treating Bitcoin itself a bit like gold reserves, that are not easily moved, and adding a network on top of it that can handle the day to day transactions but still being 100% covered by the underlying BTC asset reserves.
Conceptually the idea makes sense, but in practice it’s yet another UI/UX layer on top of a system that’s already fairly user hostile. It’s not clear whether the routing will work, and it seems pretty clear that the end result will be a bunch of “supernodes” that will act a lot like traditional banks, and which will extract fees.
That said, I don’t see why there couldn’t have been a compromise raise of the blocksize while LN was being worked on (the “New York agreement”). This is where the conspiracy theories come in (segwit required removing the configuration that allowed ASICBOOST, Blockstream was in the hands of Big Fees), and, given the generally very opaque nature of the Bitcoin community it’s inevitable that they appear.
And despite all of this, most shells have true and false as built-in commands anyway…
$ type true
true is a shell builtin
which, imo, gives another twist to the whole debate, since useless changes are made to a “useless” (since to my knowledge the binary itself isn’t used) program. The most it can offer us, is a self-reflective lesson in the Unix ideals and their betrayals.
Shell builtins aren’t used for exec calls and their ilk, no? So if you want to use false as the login shell for a an account, you’d need the “real” /bin/false?
Fair enough, that’s true (pardon the pun). I was only thinking about a shell scripting environment.
On the other hand, who knows how long it will take until systemd or some other do it all system totally takes over account management, making false and true superfluous in that department too.
They’re built-ins on most fully featured interactive shells (bash, zsh, etc.), but on many systems the default shell-script interpreter /bin/sh is a more minimalist shell where they aren’t built-ins. That’s the case on at least Debian (dash) and FreeBSD (ash). So the default for shell scripts on such systems is that true actually does run /bin/true.
The dash on my system (void, and another one running ubuntu and a server running debian(!)) claims that true was a built in command. Before writing my comment, I checked bash, where I already knew it was true, ksh on an OpenBSD system and dash on my laptop. Even the shell on my android phone (I belive the default one in /system/bin/sh) has the two program as built in components.
I haven’t tried ash, but it seems to me that it’s becoming ever rarer, even if a more minimalist shell might theoretically use the binaries directly.
Oops, my mistake, sorry. I had checked before posting that comment, but checked incorrectly. I did this (starting in a zsh shell):
mjn@mjn:~% which true
true: shell built-in command
mjn@mjn:~% ls -l /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jun 28 2017 /bin/sh -> dash
mjn@mjn:~% sh
$ which true
/bin/true
But I didn’t realize that the difference here is due to which, rather than true, going from builtin in zsh to not builtin in dash. Seems that making which a builtin is zsh-specific behavior, and the POSIX way to get info on how a command will be executed is command -V.
It is also very interesting that Flutter has native support for Fuchsia. I really love this framework and it is currently my favorite way of developing apps for Android. Granted it is still early days for the framework.
I’m gonna mention qutebrowser which I love. It has vim-ish bindings and is a completely keyboard-driven browser. Just recently they switched the default backend to QtWebEngine which greatly increased performance and stability.
https://www.qutebrowser.org/
Thank-you for the link to QuteBrowser.org. It’s wonderful, so far. I’m planning to try nEXT also, but need to spend a bit more time getting it to run on Solus. QuteBrowser was already in the package repository.
I’ve tried to use Darktable (and Rawtherapee) for a few times without success. Both have tremendous count of features but compared to Lightroom they lack of simple UI. I wish there will be option for only one panel with reasonable set of settings available. I feel that amount of features there for casual photographer like me is too much.
BTW, I loved how old Google Picasa worked - Darktable/Rawtherapee could think about that tool.
Oh, I can fully recommended giving it one afternoon with some video tutorials. After that, you should be comfortable with the basics functionality. If I remember correctly, you can customize the interface to show the panels that you like.
I switched to Lightroom a while a go, mostly, because my most powerful machine was a Mac with Mac OS. I had trouble finding things in lightroom for a while and thought that darkroom is organized more logically.
I’ve used Darktable for many years now and I find the UI to be really great. It is preciously what you need without being too complicated. It is geared towards professional use. Use a couple of hours with Darktable and you’ll be right at home. It is easy to configure a set of features and only use those.
That depends a lot on your needs. For some people spinning up a Jenkins is far too heavyweight. Having experienced the joy of having to debug an awful Jenkins plugin to make it do basic things, I can tell you that Jenkins is not a sure fire win for everyone.
I agree. and they have in the past year or so gone to a much better security posture, and are much more proactive around security issues. They are still releasing security patches/updates regularly, but I imagine over time they will finally get most of that sorted out, and security updates/patches can become a dull-roar instead of a constant. They are very good about letting you know however, and they provide packages for most OS’s so it’s not difficult to apply, it’s basically just a restart. Overall very happy with them. I think there is a reason most large OSS projects use them (Debian, FreeBSD, etc.)
Instead of dmenu and emacs I use rofi and spacemacs. Great alternatives. I can also recommend i3blocks for status bar. It’s a status bar for i3 with a collection of great scripts.
Spacemacs is not “not emacs” though, it’s just a config for emacs
Using Spacemacs is like staying at home with your parent. Eventually, you’ll be 18 and you’ll move out.
So I tried spacemacs yesterday, I’ve been using emacs almost every day for twenty years.
Spacemacs is REALLY COOL! I bet you’ll find some cool stuff you didn’t know you could do in emacs! Try it!
it’s interesting to see somebody moving from vanilla emacs to spacemacs, what is the most interesting point that impressed you? have you used evil mode before? did the loading time bothered you?
So my SO wanted to learn to build webpages, and insisted on using the same editor I use …
We ran “emacs &” on their system, spacemacs came up, and wow it was so easy to do the things I’ve spent decades learning how to load and configure.
My laptop is unreasonably powerful, loading time is not an issue. Their laptop is meh (spinning drive!) but spacemacs still loads quickly. We opened an html file and spacemacs offered to download and turn on the html modes, click yes and instant functionality!
Most interesting point is how much configuration is done for me, I don’t need to know the name of a mode, just open a file with that extension and the correct mode is setup for you. Lots of “do you want this option turned on? it does this thing for you” clicky things when you start up spacemacs, it’s really friendly!
yeah that automation part is awesome, it’s also what caught my attention when I first moved to emacs, after a while, it just slow down everything haha.
Yes, but it’s a very nice tool for converting Vim users to emacs users. Source: was converted
I know several long time emacs users who switched to spacemacs for the convenience.
I suspect it’s related to why I use byobu instead of maintaining my own tmux/screen config. I have a limited config (time) budget and I’d rather spend that where I want (emacs!).
I wasn’t irritated enough.
Further development on my app called “My Leaf” for Android and iOS. It’s a third party alternative to the official NissanConnect EV app. Basically an app to for the Nissan Leaf. It’s free and open source of course ;) Written using Flutter.
Besides that I will be outdoor in the woods. Also playing through Valkyria Chronicles 4 on Switch late at night.
Have a nice weekend! ;)
I’ve used passwordstore (https://www.passwordstore.org/) together with Keybase (https://keybase.io/) for a long time now. My ~/.password-store is symlinked to /keybase/private/my-user. Pretty happy with that setup.
I’d imagine that the reason for GNU
catnot using splice is because of portability (POSIX). Remember GNUcatwants to support different OS’es. Splice being a Linux specific feature would break this portability.Not really. GNU
cptakes advantage of Linux-onlyFICLONE(copy-on-write file cloning) feature when available. GNUcatcould do the same.Great keyboard without doubt. I bought a keyboard from Unicomp. These keyboard are not made by IBM/Lexmark anymore, but I found a company called Unicomp, they are located in the states. Turns out Unicomp bought the rights/patents and tools for building the Model M keyboard; a.k.a buckling spring technology.
A little writeup about the keyboard; https://tobis.dk/blog/my-new-keyboard-unicomp/
I don’t use it anymore. It is too loud if you have others around you. Pretty good keyboard.
What a bad article. The author seems illinformed on the subject. The very reason to why Bitcoin (core) has failed are not mentioned at all. Here is the deal: Bitcoin is currently not what Bitcoin was when it was created. Slow peer-to-peer transactions and high processing fees. The current blocksize limit of 1MiB or thereabouts is the sole reason for this. The system can’t handle enough transactions… and when that happens the fees rise fast and the while system become boggled and slow. Currently the fees are much lower than they were in December 2017. Why? Because people have moved to other better alternatives and some have completely stopped using any crypto. It as a bad experience and I don’t blame them for having that stance. I think there is a real possibility of a “death spiral of the blockchain”. Fees will increase and it will become impossible to move coins on the blockchain besides the upper 10% of bitcoin holders. For traders on exchanges bitcoin seems fast; because no transactions are taking place. When you actually decide to move your bitcoins to a wallet you own you’ll pay high fees… if not your transaction could take months to clear or never actually clear.
The fork that occurred on 1st August created Bitcoin Cash. This fork is much closer to what the Bitcoin was. Bitcoin Cash is this today. Removal of the segwit code (which hasn’t solved anything), disabling of RBF (replace-by-fee) enabling 0-confirmation transactions again. A new DAA (difficulty adjustment algorithm). Finally increase the block size to 8MiB.
The Bitcoin has been crippled on purpose by Blockstream deep in the pockets of bankers and insurance companies. Blockstream is the main contributor to the Bitcoin development. Look at the sponsors; https://www.blockstream.com/about/#investors
Before the bankers, and their followers, got indirectly involved in Bitcoin development there never was any discussion about limiting the block size to 1MiB; in fact the opposite was discussed. See; https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312?lang=e https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1314.msg15143#msg151… https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/71h884/pieter_wuille_im_in_favor_of_increasing_the_block/
Now all of this has led to a complete divide and clusterfuck of the community. It is an very ugly and toxic environment and is sad to look at. On top of that we now have thousands of alternative coins and blockchains. It’s a mess and it will take time to recover (if ever).
The current version of bitcoin is crippled and completely unusable as a currency as is.
Author has literally written a book on the subject.
The linked article doesn’t address all the arguments about Bitcoin (the book takes a stab at it). It addresses one very specific “meme” prevalent in the Bitcoin booster community - that the technology is akin to the early days of the internet and that it will therefore automatically become as world-changing as the internet is.
This is a dumb argument for the reasons listed in the linked article and I will be happy to link to it if I ever have the misfortune to discuss Bitcoin with someone who brings it up.
Why do you see it as a misfortune to talk about Bitcoin? The topic is extremely interesting because of its history of events and the technology. That’s at least my take on it.
I should have qualified “discussing online, and not here” ;)
That comment is literally spam for Bitcoin Cash, with added banker conspiracy theories.
Now I feel really bad about my comment. Was not intended as spam for Bitcoin Cash. I just stated what has actually happened. Banks or not someone has purposefully crippled the Bitcoin. This is hard to deny. There are many alternatives to Bitcoin Cash. Cash is just interesting because it has the original blockchain from before it split 1. August and has many active developers split on many different teams. No Ill-natured attempts like other forks (Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond to name a few).
Have a nice weekend!
I don’t agree with this premise. I don’t believe any one entity or entities colluded in crippling Bitcoin. The effects we are observing now (Bitcoin Core under centralized development, Bitcoin Cash under centralized mining) are simply the natural effects of an open source project with purposefully weak governance.
Most open source projects don’t make money directly off their work however. The potential effect on the price of the tokens leads to an even more poisonous atmosphere and debate.
Yep. Ethereum has at least as many technical crises - but it holds together because the community more or less trusts the dev team to keep pulling rabbits out of the hat. (Ethereum Classic notwithstanding.) And I think they understand that, and know they need some spectacular new achievements in computer science before Ethereum clogs the way Bitcoin did.
Fair enough. We are all entitled to our own opinion. I’d look more carefully into the whole history of events. I’m not sure how involved you are in this matter. I’ve been following Bitcoin development since early 2011 and my view is that something did happen to the original idea that is Bitcoin. Conspiracy or not I’m convinced that foul play has diverted or detailed the project. Look at segwit, lightning and re-enabled RBF… it hasn’t really solved anything; only introduced new overly complicated code. Lightning network is a mess currently and it actually makes it harder to do transactions. You have to be online to receive and send payments. You also have to pay for payments. All of this already works without lightning or segwit. In early stages there was not even a blocksize limit. It was later introduced by Satoshi and his view was that the blocksize should increase with usage. Now Bitcoin Cash has 8MiB blocks and it works (blocks are very small today though, but 8MiB blocks have been mined). Why go so far to re-enable RBF, introduce segwit (essentially just changing what counts as space in blocks) and then introduce a whole new transaction paradigm (lightning network; a old-school mesh-network which we know are not got at scaling). All of this instead of changing a hardcoded blocksize limit. It all makes very little sense to me. Look at Satoshi explaning the limit and how easy it would be to change it if needed; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366. There is a great talk about 1GiB blocks by Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone on why it is feasible to have very large blocks; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M&t=805s
What is your take on segwit and lightning network?
Frankly, I lost the plot back when Bitcoin XT was proposed…. that’s when /u/Theymos instituted the infamous “altcoin ban”. After that most of the “discussion” on Reddit has been obscured by namecalling and kvetching about who censors who.
As to whether the blocksize should be raised… it’s clear that even if the blocksize were raised across the board, the same issue would only occur a few months or years later. The number of transactions in a block is an inherently limited resource. LN and segwit are attempts to address this reality - by treating Bitcoin itself a bit like gold reserves, that are not easily moved, and adding a network on top of it that can handle the day to day transactions but still being 100% covered by the underlying BTC asset reserves.
Conceptually the idea makes sense, but in practice it’s yet another UI/UX layer on top of a system that’s already fairly user hostile. It’s not clear whether the routing will work, and it seems pretty clear that the end result will be a bunch of “supernodes” that will act a lot like traditional banks, and which will extract fees.
That said, I don’t see why there couldn’t have been a compromise raise of the blocksize while LN was being worked on (the “New York agreement”). This is where the conspiracy theories come in (segwit required removing the configuration that allowed ASICBOOST, Blockstream was in the hands of Big Fees), and, given the generally very opaque nature of the Bitcoin community it’s inevitable that they appear.
Edit: wording
BTC fees are about $0.04 at the moment. Plus the lightning network is in beta.
Yes. I stated why that is and how easy it can increase to a very high fee again.
I actually like the OpenBSD version; http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/usr.bin/true/true.c?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain&only_with_tag=MAIN
vs the GNU version; https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/src/true.c
The GNU version also contains –help and –version handling.
And despite all of this, most shells have
trueandfalseas built-in commands anyway…which, imo, gives another twist to the whole debate, since useless changes are made to a “useless” (since to my knowledge the binary itself isn’t used) program. The most it can offer us, is a self-reflective lesson in the Unix ideals and their betrayals.
Shell builtins aren’t used for
execcalls and their ilk, no? So if you want to usefalseas the login shell for a an account, you’d need the “real”/bin/false?Fair enough, that’s true (pardon the pun). I was only thinking about a shell scripting environment.
On the other hand, who knows how long it will take until systemd or some other do it all system totally takes over account management, making
falseandtruesuperfluous in that department too.They’re built-ins on most fully featured interactive shells (bash, zsh, etc.), but on many systems the default shell-script interpreter
/bin/shis a more minimalist shell where they aren’t built-ins. That’s the case on at least Debian (dash) and FreeBSD (ash). So the default for shell scripts on such systems is thattrueactually does run/bin/true.The dash on my system (void, and another one running ubuntu and a server running debian(!)) claims that
truewas a built in command. Before writing my comment, I checked bash, where I already knew it was true, ksh on an OpenBSD system and dash on my laptop. Even the shell on my android phone (I belive the default one in/system/bin/sh) has the two program as built in components.I haven’t tried ash, but it seems to me that it’s becoming ever rarer, even if a more minimalist shell might theoretically use the binaries directly.
Oops, my mistake, sorry. I had checked before posting that comment, but checked incorrectly. I did this (starting in a zsh shell):
But I didn’t realize that the difference here is due to
which, rather thantrue, going from builtin in zsh to not builtin in dash. Seems that makingwhicha builtin is zsh-specific behavior, and the POSIX way to get info on how a command will be executed iscommand -V.It is also very interesting that Flutter has native support for Fuchsia. I really love this framework and it is currently my favorite way of developing apps for Android. Granted it is still early days for the framework.
I’m gonna mention qutebrowser which I love. It has vim-ish bindings and is a completely keyboard-driven browser. Just recently they switched the default backend to QtWebEngine which greatly increased performance and stability. https://www.qutebrowser.org/
Thank-you for the link to QuteBrowser.org. It’s wonderful, so far. I’m planning to try nEXT also, but need to spend a bit more time getting it to run on Solus. QuteBrowser was already in the package repository.
I’ve tried to use Darktable (and Rawtherapee) for a few times without success. Both have tremendous count of features but compared to Lightroom they lack of simple UI. I wish there will be option for only one panel with reasonable set of settings available. I feel that amount of features there for casual photographer like me is too much. BTW, I loved how old Google Picasa worked - Darktable/Rawtherapee could think about that tool.
Oh, I can fully recommended giving it one afternoon with some video tutorials. After that, you should be comfortable with the basics functionality. If I remember correctly, you can customize the interface to show the panels that you like.
I switched to Lightroom a while a go, mostly, because my most powerful machine was a Mac with Mac OS. I had trouble finding things in lightroom for a while and thought that darkroom is organized more logically.
I’ve used Darktable for many years now and I find the UI to be really great. It is preciously what you need without being too complicated. It is geared towards professional use. Use a couple of hours with Darktable and you’ll be right at home. It is easy to configure a set of features and only use those.
If you’re on unix you can use
tc- show / manipulate traffic control settings.Some examples;
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root netem delay 100msAdds a fixed amount of delay to all packets going out of the local Ethernet.
tc qdisc change dev eth0 root netem delay 100ms 10msRandom variation.
tc qdisc change dev eth0 root netem delay 100ms 10ms 25%With correlation.
tc qdisc change dev eth0 root netem loss 0.1%packet lossPacket loss.
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root tbf rate 1024kbit latency 50ms burst 1540egress rate of 1024kbit at a latency of 50ms and a burst rate of 1540.
I actually think the most sane solution at the moment is to use a self-hosted solution like Jenkins. It’s open and can do just about anything.
That depends a lot on your needs. For some people spinning up a Jenkins is far too heavyweight. Having experienced the joy of having to debug an awful Jenkins plugin to make it do basic things, I can tell you that Jenkins is not a sure fire win for everyone.
I agree. and they have in the past year or so gone to a much better security posture, and are much more proactive around security issues. They are still releasing security patches/updates regularly, but I imagine over time they will finally get most of that sorted out, and security updates/patches can become a dull-roar instead of a constant. They are very good about letting you know however, and they provide packages for most OS’s so it’s not difficult to apply, it’s basically just a restart. Overall very happy with them. I think there is a reason most large OSS projects use them (Debian, FreeBSD, etc.)