Although he won't win any awards for his vocal skills, this was the song that drove me in my early years in college as I learned what a hacker really was and learnt more about GNU at a time when everyone miss-pronounced it as Linux.
Well yes I thought you were using emulators. When I was a kid I would frequently break X11 so I spent much of my time on the console framebuffer. All I needed it to to is let me watch TV and videos till I was bothered to fix the config file for X
None.
Why? Erm, living by myself I don't need to lock myself out ;)
Look up chroot
Mplayer can render to the terminal using aalib
Yes I have used that in the past but it's way to finniky in operation as it sometimes registers a left or right click instead.
Dar
Tar = Tape ARchive
DAR = Disk Archive
It is supposed to replace tar when storing on random access media as tar isn't random access. Compression and encryption options.
Put your aliases in .bash_aliases
Make sure your .bashrc sources .bash_aliases like this:
if [ -f ~/.bash_aliases ]; then . ~/.bash_aliases fi
I've tried hard to get libreoffice and dvddisaster to render in a terminal but for some reason it never works... 😏
This is not the first time I've seen news of this. AFAIK there was a federation issue at kbin
Middle click in chrome...
If you want to use ctrl-v you need to the newer method of ctrl-shift-c first. It uses shift for the same reason windows does in a command prompt, ctrl-c is a reserved combination.
Not a Linux issue. Two different paradigms one older than the other, chose which is best to use.
On my laptop's I use ctrl-shift-c and ctrl-shift-v due to not having a middle click. With a mouse I middle click instinctively.
Language models hallucinate
I have moved from the left side (tech normie) only it was DOS 6.22 and Win 3.1 (apple was something you ate back then in the UK) to Tech Paranoid today with aspirations to fully become an FSF member
Well if we think about the chronology, If GNU/Linux never existed I'd be using Windows still.
If however tomorrow it somehow became impossible to run Linux then I would probably switch to one of the BSD's, as well as Risc OS Open. However, the method it becomes impossible to run Linux is important:
If it is merely illegal, I'll just run GNU/Linux. If it is blocked by the TPM, I'll just use old hardware which has no TPM or one that can be disabled. If it's just the Linux kernel that the TPM stops running, I'll finally install GNU/Hurd, or use the older hardware (seeing as my laptops were made in 2014 and my PC was built in 2016 I'm already there).
If I absolutely had to I would have no problems using much older hardware. I started on a 486 and can easily build that again, I have a few pentiums too. Obviously these systems won't be doing web browsing but they can do everything else, document writing, email, IRC, and of course programming.
If I'm pushed hard enough I'd revert back to using my Risc PC and 8 bit computers.
So as far as your question is concerned, I was converted to the Free Software ideals when I found this "Linux thing" back in 1997. Nothing is stopping me from computing that way. Mac OS is obviously out of the question, even if I hadn't discovered Linux it's (MacOS) interface is terrible, the company is terrible, the hardware is overpriced and underpowered and unreliable. I also wouldn't go back to windows for anything other than gaming which I do once in a while.
You are in explorer. Try other apps. You'll find they are very different, Outlook for example. Firefox, chrome all break the rules, Firefox looks inactive all the time unless you enable the menu bar and notice the boldness of the text.
The apps themselves are not helping by doing their own thing. As I use mostly Office and Firefox during the working day this may be where the problem actually lies so maybe it's a case of Windows 10 not enforcing the UI look and behaviour onto other apps?
What? This crazyness is coming over from Windows?
All colours are and should be under the full control of the user, as it always has been so. So called "accent colours" removed critical functionality from Windows as well as breaking the UI since windows 8.
As a software tester of 10 years and a CS Degree holder, I certainly would have never passed software that didn't meet these usability tests.
I'm colourblind. I must have full and unhindered colour modification options, the GUI will look the way I decide based on what I want and how my eyes perceive it. This especially means I must have full control over titlebar colours and any other colours that used to differ based on window focus.
At work in Win 10 I have chosen an "accent colour" which seems to me a massive limitation, having had used superior GUI's since Win 3.1 where the user is able to chose and adjust anything from the colour of title bars when focused or unfocused to the font used on numerous UI elements and widgets.
The problem is simple. Windows 10 grants (I say that in a sarcastic way) the user have the option to chose a so called "accent colour". This however fails to do two things. Firstly it forces the design choices of the development team onto every user, something that is clearly wrong for Linux as history shows it was a plus over windows. Secondly, the accent colour fails to address several UI modal changes, completely obliterating them yet the modal elements remain part of the UI!!!
How in windows 10 can I tell if a window has focus or not? In Win 3.1 to 7 and anything running on Linux it was easy: the title bar colour was different. But since Win 8 that was dropped, windows still have focus and modal dialogs but you, the user, can not determine which has what and when.
Now, like I said I'm colour blind which means maybe there is a difference but I can't see it. So what do I do? Well I randomly start typing commands into the wrong powershell window, or I want to control the browser using the keyboard only to discover that Outlook has focus and has started doing things in response to me banging keys. I have two monitors at work and focus moves between them and windows gives me no indication what has focus at all. Nothing I can see, out of the corner of my eye that is.
Thing is there is just one difference, the focused window might have a bold titlebar text or not. Note I bolded that. But I can't see this difference without pixel peeping.
Every day I have to put up with this in the windows world and it annoys the hell out of me because the essential functionality was always there and has been removed because someone tossed a coin*. Maybe GNOME won't fall into the trap of preventing full customisation of the UI, I hope so, user accessibility needs require it. I moved away from GNOME when they moved away from the desktop metaphor as I thought the alternative was terrible, and it still is, so this won't affect me but it will affect loads of new colourblind users from the start.
The user has the last say and should be able to override anything.
HCI (Human Computer Interaction) rules exist for a good reason, stop chucking them away and make them options if needed.
And finally, take it from an actual colourblind computer users and electronics geek. Colour blindness accessibility filters DO NOT WORK. They simply don't because everyone has a different kind/degree/combination of colour blindness. Normal visioned people are easy to demonstrate to as all we have to do is apply such a filter in reverse and they are like "Whoa what the hell" yet they fail to see (pun intended) that it's a simulation that barely represents our individual colour ranges. Windows 10 has a colourblind mode, does nothing. Android has one, which has me try and sort colours to determine my specific adjustments, works better but still barely is used by myself.
The only fix is to give the user full control over all colours because then they, they can adjust the UI for the way they see the universe.
Here is an example from the linked blog. See this GUI. Which window has focus? The one on top? Well if GNOME prevents windows from always remaining above others regardless of focus, yes that would be the case. But if GNOME does allow focus to windows beneath others, well, which has focus? I cant tell.
I had intended on uploading images but that seems to not be working with this post/lemmy instance at the moment. Basically if you look at the blog there are examples. First of all the "pink" example, well that shades of grey to my eyes as pink rarely is a colour I can notice, most pinks are grey. Further down are examples of a stop clock application. Looking at the image I see most of the clocks digits are disabled, thats what grey means, disabled elements. However it turns out that they may be pink? Only the seconds are enabled, this is highly confusing as why would anyone be allowed to think a clock has digits disabled? It makes no sense and has me figure out the answer, which is bad UI design from the start. All the digits should be the same colour. It's basic HCI rules there.
Further down you see the screenshots of the entire desktop with a window above another. In none of those examples can I tell which has focus. I can not assume its the one on top, plenty of UI's have "keep on top" functionality, if I'm coming from something else why would I assume GNOME to be different?
Accent colours are bad. They force users to use static themes and UI choices made by other people, that is bad UI design, really bad. Windows 10 is lambasted for it often. If you are going to do it, do it right. The "accent" feature should be part of a simple customisation mode, but it all gets overridden by the advanced tickbox.
I see so many confused here. Unsurprising considering so many have no idea what the GPL is, what Free Software is, why it's different, very different from "Open Source" software due to copyleft.
Everyone should go read the GPL, read version 2 as it reads very well, version 3 just beefs up version 2 to handle certain situations but its a bit less of a nicer read.
Learn what Free Software is: https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software
And listen to a few of Richard Stallmans speeches which he has to continue giving because of this "Open Source" thing that confused everything. Note that the FSF, Richard Stallman and the GPL have nothing to do with Open Source at all. It is the Open Source Initiative that accepts the GPL as a "Open Source" license but not all Open SOurce licenses are Free Software licenses.
Below is a link to the Software Freedom Conservancy who have been talking to Redhat / IBM for years about this very issue before RH/IBM turned tail and stabbed everyone in the back:
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/
Redhat dont have a legal leg to stand on however it will cost you to prove it. You should win, but it will cost you. I am happy to purge any RH software from my systems at work, I was doing that anyway due to what happened to Centos.
Redhat have become the new SCO in essence.