[sf-lug] resolver problem

[Bobbie Sellers]

On 04/08/2016 01:54 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):
>
>> 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.
> I'm delighted to hear that, and wish your fingers all the best.
>
> I started using GUI tools on 1980s OSes, and outgrew them.
>
>>> 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.
> Oh, if you seriously allege that a 'GUI file manager' is a more
> efficient way to do Unix file operations, I'll be glad to do a small
> wager and competition with you.  Michael can be the judge and guy with a
> stopwatch, and we can each specify a few relatively complex operations
> like 'find and delete all files inside a subtree bearing filename
> extension .bak', 'find all files owned by www-data that are
> world-writeable and remove the world-writeable permission', and 'find
> all files inside a subtree containing the text string '2015 income tax'.
>
> Fastest execution on the majority of operations tested, one of us buys
> the other a cup of coffee at Cafe Enchante.  Sound good?

         Let make it simpler.  Show up at the Cafe on a meeting date and 
I will
buy you cup of coffee.
     I make no claims as to gui efficiency but merely point out that I am
a rotten typist.
>
> I predict I can do those using simple bash operations before you can
> even do more than get started with your 'GUI file manager'.  And both of
> those are very practical, non-contrived file operations that are
> important in the real world.  (If you doubt this, I can detail why.)

     Oh I am sure you can,  I would not contest the matter.
>
> Separately and in addition, unlike file operations with a 'GUI file
> manager', operations conducted using standard Unix tools (bash and
> friends) can be prototyped, edited, debugged, stored, and scripted --
> and will work the same, first time, every time, exactly the same without
> worrying about finger-fumbling.
>
> But I'm glad you like your 'GUI' thing.  I'm sure it's cute and draws
> pretty pictures, and gives soothing visual feedback.
         Not particularly cute and it gives little visual feedback.
     You miss the point that the fast I try to type the more mistakes
I make and I only successfully copied one Commodore 64 program
from printed BASIC source to another machine.  That was when there
was an office shop around 9th and Mission.  They had a portable
Commodore 64 sitting there with the cursor blinking and I took a few
minutes with the manager's indulgence and typed in a kaleioscope
program.  It made the machine look more capable than it was in
reality.
>
>
>> And though it is branded Iceweasel it is still a Firefox with a
>> winter coat.
> Yes.  Is there a point?
>
>> I rather like it but don't want to go to the problems I would have in
>> setting it up on other distributions.
> As in all matters, I'm delighted you are able to implement your own
> opinions on your own machines.
>
>>> 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.
> By contrast, I do my best to be in charge of what I use.  I guess each
> of us gets his or her wishes.  Happy ending!
>
> Is there a point?
>
>> It seems to be the rationale for a lot of modern GNU/Linux desktops.
> Dotfiles were created a very long time before modern Linux desktops.  I
> just told you the rationale for their creation, based on knowledge of
> Unix history.  You wish to doubt me about that based on what you think
> 'modern GNU/Linux desktops' are doing?  Well, good luck with that.

         You miss my point,  I was not talking about dot files but about
user interfaces that hide the structure of the file systems.  Such
as Unity and a couple of others.

     Unity a distribution by the way was a Mandriva fork but is sort of 
moribund
at this time so the obfuscatory desktop might as well use the name.

     Bobbie Sellers