Or they avoid the need for that solution by avoiding that problem in the first place?.

I don’t even now how anyone keeps track of them and finds the ones they want. And how can you possibly do that quicker than just going to the page afresh.

Part of working on a project for me is assembling links to important pages. It may be days, weeks or months later that I want to come back and there are the links. And of course, anything generically or regularly useful is just a bookmark as you say.

It really seems like people keep tabs open just to keep a list of useful pages. There are much easier and more effective ways to do that.

No, it’s a shell feature. Terminal emulators don’t even know what shell are running typically, and I haven’t heard of them adding shell features. That would require the terminal emulator knowing you’re using bash, knowing how to interrogate history etc…

From man bash:

       yank-last-arg (M-., M-_)
              Insert  the last argument to the previous command (the last word
              of the previous history entry).  With a numeric argument, behave
              exactly  like  yank-nth-arg.   Successive calls to yank-last-arg
              move back through the history list, inserting the last word  (or
              the  word  specified  by the argument to the first call) of each
              line in turn.  Any numeric argument supplied to these successive
              calls  determines  the direction to move through the history.  A
              negative argument switches the  direction  through  the  history
              (back or forward).  The history expansion facilities are used to
              extract the last word, as if the "!$" history expansion had been
              specified.

Funny, in the US I just saw a car that was an “SS” model and I thought “Huh, apparently SS doesn’t immediately scream Nazis to Americans” (SS => Super Sport apparently, to Chevrolet)

Fewer keystrokes, more features, and the ability to see what you’re about to do explicitly. How does that make it the poor man’s option?

it always entertains me when a vim aficionado regurgitates the “just missing a good editor” joke, given that one of the editors Emacs offers is a pretty comprehensive clone of vim.

(personally, I never had any problem with the default editor when I migrated to it from vi, though I was using a keyboard that already had ctrl next to a.)

I really f’ing love Emacs, and… this is true. I’m still constantly learning, 3 decades in.

But that’s part of its appeal - it’s a constantly evolving, you tweak and modify it for your needs, and you grow and change together.

Sorry it’s not a very direct answer but this is one of the many things that make Emacs such a comfortable environment once you’re used to it, which takes … a while.

There is a man command and then of course it’s just more text displayed so you can search and narrow and highlight etc. in the same way you do with any other text. Plus of course there are a few trivial bonuses like links to other man pages being clickable.

It’s all text and Emacs is a text manipulation framework (that naturally includes some editors).

You don’t execute C source files. They have to be compiled.

First point as someone else commented, that driver is already present in any mainstream kernel. It’s very unlikely you have any need to build it.

But if you really want to build it the command will be make that will get instructions from Makefile on how to build the driver. But there will be other tools and libraries needed.

Same. I’m a little embarrassed that I have little idea what it’s like. Last one I used daily was Windows 7. But then I wonder

how convenient it all was and how was missing so many things

What are these things I’m missing?

I feel like this is well named (run as user 0) so then I’m wondering what else you dislike and what you think would be improvements?

What about a lightweight variant like Lubuntu or Xubuntu? 4Gb should be usable for a lot of things.

We can’t imagine anything but unfettered capitalism, so onward we go to our own destruction!

But our ignorant misconceptions are ubiquitous so they have become truth!

What problems with AMD Ryzen? I’ve been happy with them, except one that had excessive power drain on suspend.

Well on Reddit, programmerhumor was mostly populated by people weirdly proud of how bad they are at their job, so I don’t see how Lemmy was going to be different.

I’ve worked in a few startups, and it always annoys me when people say they don’t have time to do it right. You don’t have time not to do it right - code structure and clarity is needed even as a solo dev, as you say, for future you. Barfing out code on the basis of “it works, so ship it” you’ll be tied up in your own spaghetti in a few months. Hence the traditional clean-sheet rewrite that comes along after 18-24 months that really brings progress to its knees.

Ironically I just left the startup world for a larger more established company and the code is some of the worst I’ve seen in a decade. e.g. core interface definitions without even have a sentence explaining the purpose of required functions. Think “you’re required to provide a function called “performControl()”, but to work out its responsibilities you’re going to have to reverse-engineer the codebase”. Worst of all this unprofessional crap is part of that ground-up 2nd attempt rewrite.

What do you think comments are?

These are arguments talking past each other. Sure 1 useful comment and 9 redundant ones can be better than zero, but comments are not reliable and often get overlooked in code changes and become misleading, sometimes critically misleading. So often the choice is between not enough comments versus many comments that you cannot trust and will sometimes tell you flat-out lies and overall just add to the difficulty of reading the code.

There’s no virtue in the number of comments, high or low. The virtue is in the presence of quality comments. If we try to argue about how many there should be we can talk past each other forever.

My guess at the stance is I’d imagine it’s that switching away from snaps is switching away from Ubuntu’s support and security monitoring and updates to some less known/reliable/diligent third party?

Popey (Alan Pope) used to work for Canonical / Ubuntu, so he’s presumably not inclined to jump on the bandwagon of Canonical/Ubuntu/snap hate since he knows a lot of Canonical and Ubuntu people and their motivations and work. Not that there aren’t good reasons to criticize snap or other Canonical decisions, but it’s also plain that a lot of people just join a hate bandwagon and don’t even know what about it they object to. There is masses of wrong-headed criticism of Canonical out there e.g. I’ve frequently seen people criticize creating Upstart, saying Canonical should have used systemd, or bzr vs git! Presumably these people were annoyed at Canonical for not inventing a time machine.