[sf-lug] resolver problem

[Bobbie Sellers]

On 04/08/2016 01:13 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):
>
>> Most of the better GUI file manager like Dolphin on KDE have a
>> place to turn on the view of the dot files usually marked "Show
>> Hidden files".
> So they do.  And, if you want to waste your time macdinking your files,
> and getting carpal tunnel just to do basic file operations in the least
> efficient possible way, you can use those.
     I started using gui tools on the Amiga and my carpal tunnels seem 
to be
fine after about 30 years.  I do get cramps at times in my forearms but 
believe
it to be a side-effect of muscle weakening due to my S.E.I.D.
>
> When people ask me to suggest a 'GUI file manager', my cheerful top
> recommendation is running bash in an xterm.  ;->

     If I could type reasonable well I might agree but I cannot so I will
not.
>
>>> Programs often update dotfile conffiles and directories on the user's
>>> behalf, e.g., if you store a bookmark in Firefox, it will get written to
>>> a bookmarks.html file inside directory tree ~/.firefox or ~/.mozilla or
>>> somewhere like that.
>> Not really.  Firefox uses another format to store its bookmarks.
> Maybe _your_ Firefox version does.  I wouldn't doubt that they changed.
> Let me guess:  Some XML lunacy?  (Ah, JSON lunacy.)
>
> My version (of Iceweasel, the Debian unbranded fork) still writes
> bookmarks to the very same bookmarks.html file invented by its Netscape
> Navigator predecessor in dinosaur days.
     And though it is branded Iceweasel it is still a Firefox with a 
winter coat.
     I rather like it but don't want to go to the problems I would have 
in setting
it up on other distributions.
>
> Not everyone leaps on the insane Firefox upgrade treadmill, Bobbie.
         No choice in jumping on or off.  And it is Mozilla doing the insane
upgrade treadmill.  I just use what the distribution has with a few 
additions.
>
>> It is very hard to figure the places Firefox hides its bookmarks
>> but once you start using the .html export/backup the backup-bookmarks
>> directory is created and soon has a lot of backups in it.
> Personally, I'm glad I've not followed the upgrade treadmill to that.
> Mozilla Corporation recent policies have in many cases been pretty
> seriously unlikeable, in my opinion.

     I am not too happy either about some of the "streamlining" of 
interfaces.
>
>> I think the hidden dot directories/files are fine.
> Well, they exist irrespective of whether people like them, so I'm
> unclear on whether it's useful posting opinions.
>
>> I fail to see why anyone would expose the naive user to more
>> information than he needs right away.
> FWIW, that is not the primary rationale for 'hidden' files/directories.
> It is:
     It seems to be the rationale for a lot of modern GNU/Linux desktops.
>> Plus if someone can see a file with configuration information they can
>> easily mess it up by simply loading a file with the wrong tool.
> _That_ rationale.
>
>
     Is more powerful, indeed.

     bliss