donnachaidh

joined 1 year ago
[–] donnachaidh@lemmy.dcmrobertson.com 63 points 11 months ago (6 children)

alias v=vim. There, just saved you two keystrokes.

That could break some peoples' dotfile management, e.g. symlinks or git repos. I'd say deprecation notice and reading from both, at least for a while, is better.

The DEs listed for a distro will be ones you can get out of the box, i.e. you install the distro and it already has the DE. However, you can then install pretty much any DE/WM on pretty much any distro. Most of the time, you'll also get a login screen where you can choose between different DEs, so you can try multiple on the same distro to see how you like them.

Most of the 'random desktops' will be window managers, there are just a few main DEs, which each have a window manager bundled in. If you take one of the separate window managers (which can be tiling, stacking, or a mix) you'll just have a bit more work to do to make it like you want, but they can have more customisation than full DEs. You can make most window managers look like pretty much any DE, but not necessarily the other way around. If you look at !unixporn, most of those are window managers. Saying they're confusing to understand and you don't want to have to customise them to make them look nice and add any separate programs you need for a full system is fair, but saying they're ugly is kinda nonsensical, since you can make them look however you like.

As for why some distros' Plasmas look different, that's just because it is itself quite customisable (from what I hear, the most customisable of the mainstream DEs). So if you install XeroLinux, you could customise it to look like stock Plasma, and vice versa.

Long story short, don't choose a distro based on their default DE or vice versa, don't disregard window managers out of hand (but do if you just want a full out-of-the-box environment), and look at different distros' customisations, as well as !unixporn and similar, to see what DEs can look like you want, but again you don't have to decide distro based on that.

You can't style options, as they're browser-dependent and there isn't an agreed standard. You'd have to use a replacement, which provides the functionality with other components.

Then, to keep it open, you should be able to toggle classes and states in the inspector. I'm Firefox, it's above the style inspector, labelled as .cls and :hov, I believe (I'm on mobile at the moment).

Seems like it. The article also mentioned that there are only 73 pairs available, so it sounds like Mozilla has to explicitly define what Chrome extensions corresponds to what Firefox extension.

[–] donnachaidh@lemmy.dcmrobertson.com 55 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Instead of importing the Chrome extension directly, Firefox is installing the Firefox version of the extension from Mozilla's own extension store.

Seems like it's just for making the switch from Chrome smoother, rather than being useful for long-time Firefox users.

I haven't used tomb and I don't think I really have a usecase for this, but I respect the on-brand command aliases.

Eh, if you vote Republican, complain about things getting worse, then vote Democrat, that's changing your mind. If I saw someone with that sticker, I'd assume they regret the decision and won't be getting another one. Being able to change your opinion with new information really shouldn't be discouraged.

Yep, that was it. Thanks for the reminder.

[–] donnachaidh@lemmy.dcmrobertson.com 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It works great for me on Arch with Hyprland, even though that really isn't designed with touch in mind. I think there are some programs that provide touch gestures generically (egg something comes to mind?), but I've never needed them. I'm sure if you go with Gnome or something it would work great, so long as the touchscreen is recognised properly (I've never had issues, but that doesn't say much about if you would). I'd just get a live USB with whatever you would install, and see if it physically works. If it does, I'm sure there's a DE/WM that fits the workflow you want.

[–] donnachaidh@lemmy.dcmrobertson.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not quite what you're asking for, but Dalinor in The Way of Kings is at the very least distruted by his peers and hated/feared by the non-Alethi. He's not hated by most of the other main characters though, so not quite a loner that everyone hates. We don't really know why at first, but it ends up being for quite a good reason, and definitely leads to drama and conflict, as well as character development.

[–] donnachaidh@lemmy.dcmrobertson.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for the reply. I've only had to use Django solo, so haven't had that issue since I know my own configuration, but I can see that would be problematic. What you say about the community though is certainly not what I would expect. Quite interesting, I suppose I'll have to have a better look now... Or, rather, add it to the list of things to have a look at.

 

I'm probably late to thinking this, and plenty of smarter people will have seen this, but I was just watching a video on Google's proposal which read out Mozilla's position on it, and noticed something that I haven't heard mentioned. As it says, it's designed to help detect and prevent 'non-human traffic', which would likely harm assistive technologies, testing, archiving and search engines. All of which Google is involved in.

If they're an attesting body, which presumably they would be, they could just say that their indexing crawler is legitimate traffic and get all the data, while other search engines not accepted (yet) by an attesting body wouldn't be able to. So search engines will be locked down to only what exists now. And AI training currently requires scraping large amounts of the internet, which they won't be able to do. So this could also help create a moat for Google Bard, that their earlier memo said didn't exist, to outstrip open-source models, just due to access to data.

I've heard people complain that this is an attempt to monopolise the browser market, but they practically already have done that, and I haven't heard anyone mention this. If all I've said is accurate and I haven't misunderstood something, this could allow them to monopolise (or at least oligopolise) everything that requires access to widespread internet data - basically everything they do.

view more: next ›