[HN Gopher] Cool Desktops Don't Change ___________________________________________________________________ Cool Desktops Don't Change Author : thcipriani Score : 163 points Date : 2022-06-16 18:55 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (tylercipriani.com) (TXT) w3m dump (tylercipriani.com) | jmclnx wrote: | Well I have three older objects, Slackware, xterm and fvwm, but | who's counting :) | ChuckMcM wrote: | This is very true, you get more out of honing a small set of | useful tools that continue to operate year after year, than you | do chasing the next cool thing in UX. | _dave wrote: | What's with the repost the day after you submitted it? | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31761636 | rbanffy wrote: | HN ignores dupes when the original got little traction. | arm wrote: | It may not even necessarily be the submitter themselves that | has resubmitted it -- I've had posts I've submitted that have | gotten low traction get resubmitted (not by me) hours later | (but still with me listed as the submitter). Guessing it's | something the moderation team does when they feel a submission | didn't get enough traction the first time. | | Edit: Never mind, I see that's not the case here after looking | at their submission history! | [deleted] | leephillips wrote: | I learned from this that there's a Debian package that gives me | definitions from the justly renowned 1913 Websters, and installed | it right away! (The comment on the OA is correct: it's `dict- | gcide`. This is great. | dredmorbius wrote: | jwz has a comment that addresses this: | | _Look, in the case of all other software, I believe strongly in | "release early, release often". Hell, I damned near invented it. | But I think history has proven that UI is different than | software. The Firefox crew believe otherwise. Good for them, and | we'll see._ | | HN-safe archive link: | https://web.archive.org/web/20120511115213/https://www.jwz.o... | | Software performance improvements tend to come from hardware | (Moore's Law, still-ish), and software algorithm (in the old- | school sense of how information is actually processed) | improvements. Leaning on the UI for massive performance | enhancement is a bit like expecting order-of-magnitude income | improvements by increasing your working hours. There's only so | much time in a day, and there is only a limited rate at which | humans can interact with digitised information --- generally | text, images, video, audio, and data. | | The Mother of All Demos was _fifty years ago_ ... four years ago: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31676445 | | And yet, it incorporated very nearly all the _basic human- | computer interface principles still used today_. | | Apple's Macintosh has seen _two_ principle variants of its | desktop UI in the 38 years of its existence. And the second, OSX | / Aqua, is now older than Mac Classic was when OSX was introduced | _by eight years_. Apple are _highly_ conservative in UI changes. | | I'm not principally an Apple user, or fan. But for my _desktop_ , | I use an environment inspired by the Mac's predecessor, NeXT, | namely Windowmaker. There's been very little development in | years, but the product is stable, and still works even on retina- | class displays. The fact that I _don 't_ have to go hunting down | new interactions every few months or years is a tremendous | advantage. And if you want, twm is _still_ a serviceable window | manager. | | My own tools collection strongly resembles Cipriani's. | Applications and tools learned _decades_ ago still provide me | regular use. I can _do what I intended_ when I want _without_ | being buffetted by constant winds of change and shifting | fashions. And quite frankly, it 's awesome and a bit of a | superpower. | limpbizkitfan wrote: | The Lindy effect is horseshit. Things that are good tend to be | old because of infant death. | | There are plenty of old tools in consistent/present use that are | cumbersome wrecks, too. Curating good things and calling them | some buzzword is silly. | pdonis wrote: | _> The Lindy effect is horseshit. Things that are good tend to | be old because of infant death._ | | The Lindy effect doesn't say that the things that have been | around a long time have to be good. It just says that their | expected lifespan is longer. | | _> There are plenty of old tools in consistent /present use_ | | ...that are examples of the Lindy effect even though they are | cumbersome wrecks. The point is that they are still in | consistent/present use. | jrm4 wrote: | It's a heuristic, not a _rule._ | superkuh wrote: | My strategy is to keep the software for a desktop computer stable | and of it's era forever. If it gets so old that I'm having | trouble compiling things because my glib and gcc are so old then | I'll build an entirely new desktop with up to date OS and | software. Then set it up and use it till it can't do new software | again. This happens every 5 to 10 years. I never lose ability. I | only gain it. | | There are many things my 2010 era Core2Duo running Ubuntu 10.04 | can do that my fancy new Ryzen desktop with Debian 11 can't and | won't ever be able to do. Things I cannot give up because they're | too important for my daily life. | | >And when Wayland finally happens? Well. I guess I'll have no | choice but to stop using computers forever -\\_(tsu)_/ | | Wayland isn't going to happen. | https://dudemanguy.github.io/blog/posts/2022-06-10-wayland-x... | stinkytaco wrote: | > Wayland isn't going to happen. | | I'd be very disappointed by this because I'm in a mixed DPI | environment and I need its support. | | Seriously though, I find hostility toward Wayland so weird. I | could kind of understand it with systemd, but X seems | perpetually stuck in 2005. | snerbles wrote: | > Seriously though, I find hostility toward Wayland so weird. | | I felt the same way until I tried to get Chromium working | without turning into a blurry pixelated XWayland mess. I | still run Sway, but the hours I've spent pouring over smug | "It's working as intended! X is soooo 2005 anyway" posts | while troubleshooting my Wayland config has been absolutely | infuriating. | | I've also had to pause updates from Visual Studio Code, while | they have contributed a lot to Wayland support in Electron | they sure do break it with regularity. | smoldesu wrote: | > Seriously though, I find hostility toward Wayland so weird. | | I think the hostility towards Wayland is pretty justified. | It's a backdoor power-grab by the GNOME foundation and Red | Hat, much like Flatpak, Libadwaita, and to a limited extent, | systemd. I, like many others, am totally exhausted of GNOME | trying to be the center of the desktop universe. Every couple | years, they decide to redouble their development efforts on | some useless, stopgap tool that ultimately ends up being | underdeveloped and redundant. Making matters worse, they | announce $PROGRAM to be the next big feature of Linux, and | anyone who's refusing to embrace it is a luddite. In reality, | most people can't switch to these alternatives because | they're niche, and don't provide the same degree of | functionality as their favorite Window Manager. | | Furthermore, people don't hate the idea of something | replacing X, people hate the fact that Wayland has been in | development for more than a decade and is still considerably | worse than Xorg with objectively less features and | functionality. Adding insult to injury, a majority of these | omissions are _deliberately removed_ by the maintainers | because the GNOME desktop doesn 't need it, therefore | everyone else doesn't. Take AppIndicator support, for | example. Everyone has statusbar icons: Mac and Windows users | alike deal with them daily. When developing Wayland though, | AppIndicators were deliberately removed because GNOME didn't | intend to use them. Worse yet, the maintainers refused to | even support it in wlroots, their pittance of a cross- | platform desktop library. | | > I could kind of understand it with systemd, but X seems | perpetually stuck in 2005. | | X is indeed terrible software, and it's functionality is | stuck not just in 2005, but rather the mid-90s. I really hate | Xorg, which makes it even more infuriating that Wayland: | | a. Doesn't support my hardware | | b. Doesn't support my desktop environment | | c. Makes it harder for me to stream my display, take | screengrabs, and use my webcam | | d. Deliberately removed functionality that I use on a daily | basis, forcing _everyone adopting Wayland_ to write their own | implementation of a basic feature. | | If I didn't know any better, I'd accuse Wayland of being a | project deliberately designed to sabotage desktop Linux. It's | a project with less ambition than Quartz, and less | hardware/software support than x11. It has a weaker security | model than the compositor in MacOS, and manages to have less | features than even the compositor in Windows. How is that | closer to "the future" than a feature-complete desktop from | 30 years ago? | | The only truly excellent thing to come out of Wayland was | PipeWire. But PipeWire works just fine on Xorg machines too, | so I guess we're at an impasse. Wayland fractured the Linux | desktop for good, there is no "way forward" anymore. | stinkytaco wrote: | Yet... it's still the only way I can use mixed DPI | displays. I'm sure all of these concerns are justified in | one way or the other, but no one's really given me a lot of | other options. A quick environmental scan reveals two | serious contenders: Xorg and Wayland. Open source precludes | the idea of a grand conspiracy, so I'm not sure _why_ no | one 's working on an alternative if it's as bad as you say. | | It's a bit like complaining about factory conditions in | China. I'd sure like to buy a computer from somewhere else, | but I'm sort of left without a bunch of options so I shrug | my shoulders and hold my nose and hope the market sorts it | out. Ironically, this is one of the issues that puts me off | upgrading to another HiDPI display, thus necessitating my | need for Wayland... | syntheweave wrote: | I don't think Wayland, or even GNOME is much of a | conspiracy. The people who spearhead these kinds of | consolidating efforts(udev, systemd were similar stories) | are always going to fall more into the empire-builder | category than most people. But it's open-source: to win | the category you have to make a public good. So at the | end of the process, you have working software and a | standard. The standard has to be at least somewhat better | for most people, or it falls into the bucket of dead | standards. | | But Wayland's definitely a big one, touching really old | assumptions around Linux desktops. There is plenty to | start fights over. I still can't quite use it for all my | apps because some stylus apps behave poorly. So I think | I'll be in the latecomer camp. This is not a bad thing | for me: it just means I've organized my life around using | the tech to get a good result now, rather than putting my | energy into developing the tech. I was on Windows for the | longest time for the same reason. | smoldesu wrote: | I'm not taking away any options from you, you're welcome | to use whatever tools work for you. You shouldn't take it | as a personal attack when someone suggests that one of | your tools could use improvement, and by reaching | consensus that Wayland needs more features and hardware | support we can send a message to the community that work | is far from done. | | Linux display servers need a lot of work. HDR content is | right around the corner, and _nobody_ in the Linux video | stack is prepared. Wayland spends too much time twiddling | their thumbs and making life hard on the rest of the | Linux community, and Xorg 's maintainers are gone. If | you're going to use Linux, then by all means, use what | works for _you_. That 's the benefit of modular OSes! But | we still need to push for more active development in this | space. If Xorg is dead, then a lot of work needs to be | done on Wayland to get them up to speed. If Xorg is _not_ | dead, then we need to find someone to fix it 's | longstanding issues. | | > It's a bit like complaining about factory conditions in | China. | | Not really. It's more like complaining about a missing | feature, say, thumbnails in the filepicker. At first it | seems like such an egregious omission that it had to be a | bug. But then people defend it, saying "it's not that big | of a deal!" When you try to get people to corroborate | your claims, people label it as hate speech. When users | contribute code, fixes, patches and solutions, you see | them all get turned down. | | The goals of commercial interests, Linux software | developers and Linux desktop users have never been more | at-odds. Without a clear path forwards, we can't expect | _anything_ to get done. I think it 's okay to beat a drum | about this stuff online, because it's completely germane | on a subject like this. | ews wrote: | My desktop has been Wayland/sway for years and years, and it's | incredibly stable (I am using Arch btw) | horsawlarway wrote: | lawl - wayland has _already_ happened. | | Also, and more seriously - I think I'm not going to take you at | your word on this one: | | There are many things my 2010 era Core2Duo running Ubuntu 10.04 | can do that my fancy new Ryzen desktop with Debian 11 can't and | won't ever be able to do. Things I cannot give up because | they're too important for my daily life. | | I'd love to see a real example instead of this pithy line. My | strong (STRONG) suspicion is that anything you can do on that | old machine can be done on the new one just fine - although | _you_ might have to adjust a bit or learn a new tool, and that | can be painful and annoying. | akagusu wrote: | Wayland is at best a work in progress. | | And if you consider that they made Wayland default on GNOME | to force adoption and users usually go to Internet seeking | for advice on how to switch back to X11 on GNOME, we will | probably wait a long time for Wayland happen. | christophilus wrote: | I've been using it happily for over a year with no real | issues. But I do share your concern. I like the variety and | choice of WMs on Linux and the Gnome / Wayland crowd do | seem to add friction to the other contenders. | hyperion2010 wrote: | I love the point in there that it isn't actually xorg vs | wayland, it is xorg vs dbus. Wayland is so deficient that | basically everything has to depend on dbus if it doesn't want | to use X. This framing clarifies the issue substantially, | because whatever people think about wayland, they might have | some slightly different opinions about dbus. | rrix2 wrote: | > slightly different opinions about dbus | | Recently i updated my machine and it would fail to boot | because NetworkManager-wait-online.service's invocation of | `nm-online -s` would fail even when NM was connected, even | when `nm-online` _actual liveness check_ would succeed. | | I spent hours reading NM code, wading through auto-generated | GObject introspections and their XML bullshit to try to | figure out why org.freedesktop.NetworkManager.startup was | true, what the magic numbers in | org.freedesktop.NetworkManager.Connection.Active.StateFlags | meant, _why my desktop wouldn 't boot_ and couldn't even find | what could _could_ cause the state to change before I finally | gave up and patched nm-wait-online to just invoke the | codepath which did an actual liveness check rather than | bumble through a bunch of dbus interfaces. | | Gotta say I was missing the old KDE3 dcop after that... IPC | is still such a PITA on linux. | saati wrote: | What do you mean Wayland isn't going to happen, I've been using | it without major problems for years. | cowtools wrote: | Wayland doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to an | improvement over Xorg, which is hampered by its complexity and | reverse compatibility. | uecker wrote: | I do not think the criticism of Xorg is really correct. At | its core, it is actually a nice and well-designed protocol. | It is also rock-solid, works without any problem in all my | configurations, and supports remote desktop. | MarioMan wrote: | >There are many things my 2010 era Core2Duo running Ubuntu | 10.04 can do that my fancy new Ryzen desktop with Debian 11 | can't and won't ever be able to do. Things I cannot give up | because they're too important for my daily life. | | This has me curious: What sorts of tasks are you doing that | only work on a machine like this? I love finding new things to | do with old hardware, so I'm interested in your insights. | youngNed wrote: | i'm going to guess its a Thinkpad, x200? t410? maybe even an | x61. People (myself included) still use those, not because | they _do_ anything more in particular, but they feel great to | use, nicely weighted and a stunning[1] keyboard | | [1]ymmv, but personally the keyboard on an x61 is perfection, | the screen however is very very very far from perfection | chi42 wrote: | Man I loved my x61. It was like the duracell bunny. It was | in my apartment in 2011 when the building burned down. The | roof collapsed on it and the only thing I had to fix was | the screen backlight. I used that laptop until 2020. | digitallyfree wrote: | If it's the feeling of the hardware alone then the Thinkpad | could be used as a thin client to access a modern, more | powerful system. Personally I'm curious about the "many | things" the C2D with Ubuntu 10 can do that the new one | can't - is it some legacy software that can't run on a | newer os, or something else? | dsr_ wrote: | Have you considered pulling your Ubuntu desktop into a VM | running on the Ryzen? Let it transcend the mortal shell in | which it was born. | robotresearcher wrote: | Your now-immortal VM could run faster while using less power, | even with the virtualization overhead. | ntoskrnl wrote: | Most of the bigger distros have already switched to wayland. | It's pretty much inevitable that the rest follow eventually. | | https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2021/10/distros-which-adopted-way... | w4rh4wk5 wrote: | Well, most distros also ship X and allow you to choose at | login. I'd imagine quite a lot of people are still running X | since there's always something that does not play nice with | Wayland. | | My favorite: drag-and-drop from file-roller into nautilus. | [1] | | [1]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/file-roller/-/issues/4 | corrral wrote: | Drag & Drop is an action I had to consciously work to start | using when I switched to macOS, a little over a decade ago. | Windows and Linux had trained me never to use it, aside | from moving files around in Explorer or whatever, because | it so often caused crashes, did the wrong thing, or made | programs glitch out in weird ways (that last one was mostly | Linux). Sure enough, I found a repeatable drag & drop | application crash in KDE in my first few minutes of use, | last time I poked my head into the desktop Linux world | (Ubuntu, in this case) again, a couple years back. | swayvil wrote: | Debian with Mate. As familiar as the back of my hand. Dog simple. | Can't recall the last time it broke (without me doing something | dumb anyway). | | (But "pluma"? "Caja"? Wtf names?) | | And none of this "eternal improvements" bs. At least nothing | visible in the ui or anything. For all intents and purposes it is | evolutionarily flat. Which is exactly the way I like it. | | (Except, maybe there is something cleverer than just slapping | windows on top of each other willy nilly. I know there are | alternatives. I have not been driven to explore there much.) | | (Also, the Windows OS is flaming garbage. Possibly literally | malicious. I don't know how they stay in business.) | Ygg2 wrote: | > Also, the Windows OS is flaming garbage. Possibly literally | malicious. I don't know how they stay in business. | | You don't have to be best, just better than the alternative. | | MacOS comes with specialized set of hardware. So good luck | tailoring Mac, without it costing like an average Ferrari. | | Linux is just worse for average user. Not average HN user, mind | you. But people who struggle to figure out print screen. | | I fought with Linux in the past. It's death by thousand gremlin | bites. | | Big part of that is lack of drivers, but there are also major | fractures in the space: Gnome vs KDE, X.org vs Wayland, etc. | pram wrote: | IMO he should be using Xaw or Motif applications, the stuff on | his desktop is a little too new and pretty. Your desktop should | at least be an authentic recreation of the late-80s. Not a | convincing act for performative oldness. | dredmorbius wrote: | WindowMaker enters the chat. | sbf501 wrote: | I've been using MWM and the same .mwmrc since AIX in 1991. Same | palette, same decor, same .Xdefaults. | | I've yet to see a GUI (FVWM, KDE, Gnome) that offers something | X/Athena/Motif didn't nail 30+ years ago. | cyberpunk wrote: | Got a screenie? | muhammadusman wrote: | I would love to see more guides on how to make vim more like a | knowledge/mind notes app like Notion/Roam. I've been on and off | looking for something like that. | wardedVibe wrote: | Look into org-roam, which embeds roam in emacs org mode, and | evil, which uses vim keybindings and modal editing in Emacs. | | Doom emacs has extremely easy ways of installing both of these | packages in the setup. | arnaudsm wrote: | When Notion had a lot of outages in 2020, my entire | 200-employee company stopped working hours at a time. | | I didn't even notice, happily using my markdown notes. | machrider wrote: | I'm liking vimwiki, for what it's worth. It feels like a pretty | small set of changes to vim that make the wiki stuff "just | work", and otherwise it's my regular ass plaintext world that I | love. | eternityforest wrote: | The Lindy effect is a predictive tool. Whether something is good | or not is much more complicated. | | For one thing, switching GUI tools has almost no cost, if that | tool doesn't have a significant amount of non-ephemeral user | content. | | It may be different for people with a strong muscle memory, but I | can switch calculators or dictionary apps at any time. Basic GUI | apps aren't skills you learn, they're things you get vaguely | familiar with, the discoverable UIs guide you even if you don't | know what you're doing. The learning time is minutes to days at | most. | | If I have to learn a new app in 3 years, that's fine. It won't | take me much more effort than it probably would to maintain the | config for enough Vim plugins to get it to act somewhat like I | want it to. | | I could probably even switch away from something as big as | LibreOffice without trouble, if they used the same file formats | and actually gave a reason I might want to switch. | | Plus, Android itself is still new, and for most things, Mobile is | what really matters to me. Note taking is worthless if I can't | access or write down the notes when I think of them or want to | check them. | | Perhaps if I was doing more advanced programming, more of my | notes would be taken at a keyboard? | | These simple old tools seem really use case specific. Like, speed | of text editing is less critical if most of what you do is | interact with modern frameworks, where things might change too | fast and the projects might be too big to memorize, and you're | relying much more on IDE features to help you, and spending 2x as | much time researching as actually coding. | AdmiralAsshat wrote: | The KDE enthusiast would probably note that KDE was originally | called the "Kool Desktop Environment". But even the most ardent | KDE enthusiast wouldn't argue that it does not change. | rbanffy wrote: | Shame on the OP. Emacs is 46 this year. As is vi (which is not | Vim), but we all know Emacs is much better. | | OTOH, ed is 3 years older (Wow! 3 years between ed and Emacs!), | and I'm very happy I don't use it today. | alpaca128 wrote: | Interesting how you only see Vim as Vim but then treat all | Emacs implementations as one unit. Emacs back then was probably | very different from today's GNU Emacs too, considering it was | originally just a set of macros for another editor. | rbanffy wrote: | GNU Emacs 1.0 was released in early 1985. Multics Emacs is | from 1978 and, as a standalone editor written in Lisp, it can | be called an ancestor of GNU Emacs and hints towards what its | most illustrious descendant would be. You are right in that | there are many Emacsen, the same way there is more than one | Unix. | agumonkey wrote: | I love ed unsarcastically. | rbanffy wrote: | After all, ed is the standard text editor. | xupybd wrote: | I like this but find I'm more productive in Windows. For one | reason Microsoft Office. I have to use to work with others and | systems that rely on it. For years I struggled with work arounds. | The amount of time and effort I wasted is insane. | NonNefarious wrote: | This article proposes that the user set up (and remember) a bunch | of alternative utilities that are no better, or at least no less | laborious, than a Web search. | | "I've combined XMonad and Chrome to get little floating web apps | all over my desktop" | | WTF, that is the last thing I'd want. The world (even the Mac | world) has finally moved away from the asinine floating-window | fad. | Zababa wrote: | The correlary to that is that unless you go out of your way to | create a "cool" desktop for yourself, the desktop you use will | change every few years, usually breaking your habits and becoming | less and less usable. For example, I've been using Pop!_OS for a | while. It has the terrible GNOME flaw that you can't see | thumbnails in the filepicker, you can only see a preview of the | image you currently select. Or you could, a few months ago. Ever | since a relatively recent update, I can't even see the preview | anymore. They made something that was bad for years even worse. | Same thing with Windows. I can't find my ways in the new options | or settings or whatever that is. | | I'm trying to slowly move towards using software. I'm still | relatively young, but I don't want to spend my whole life | adjusting my habits to new random changes. | throwaway787544 wrote: | The best desktop is the one I can customize however I want, and | then run anywhere, without jumping through hoops. If I can untar | some config files in my home dir and install a couple binaries, | and have my desktop just appear the way I want it, that is the | best desktop. It's not only portable and easier to set up, it's | more likely to be both backwards and forwards compatible. | | If, on the other hand, a given desktop depends on some bizarro | set of 20 different services, interfaces, libraries and apps | which can only work in one way on one platform, and it's near- | impossible to move the settings somewhere else, and most apps | can't even use it, that desktop sucks. | | I don't want a cool desktop, I want a desktop that doesn't suck. | zwieback wrote: | I've been using PCs since before GUIs so some of my habits are | probably too crusty at this point. However, I don't really mind | so much how the graphical shell changes, the command shell in | Windows 11 feels like the MS-DOS of my youth, the Linux shell | feels like the old HP-UX or Xenix shells from my youth so I can | get all the basics done quickly. | | Having said that, I do think that there's mostly improvement in | our GUIs as well, bad ideas that crop up now and then usually | disappear quickly. | jeromenerf wrote: | Haaa, the sweet comfort of having everything set up and humming. | The sweet Debian stable way of nothing ever changing. | | It may not last forever, as kids, or new jobs or new hobbies come | to disrupt the harmony, so enjoy your sweet time. | swayvil wrote: | Why would it change? | | The only reason I can see is if they outlaw general computing | (including linux) and we're all stuck running Patriot Windows | 3000. | | And even then it's gonna be underground. | Etheryte wrote: | The author makes a common statistical error in interpreting the | Lindy effect. The Lindy effect proposes, simplified, that the | longer something has been around, the longer it will probably | stay around still. The author then makes a quick jump and posits | that the opposite is also true, which it is not. Just because | something has been around for a short time does not mean that its | expected lifespan is somehow short. In other words, A implies B | does not mean B implies A as well. All things that have been | around for a long time had at one point only been around for a | short time. | Barrin92 wrote: | That's not right. The Lindy argument holds in that case as | well, it's just a different version of the doomsday argument. | | The basis for this kind of reasoning is essentially that, if | you can assume that you are an 'average user' (and you don't | have reason to believe you're especially late or early), the | chance that your prediction about the longevity of the project | is correct is most likely to be true if you 1/3 - 3x[1] the | lifespan of the project currently. | | That is because if say, you predicted VsCode existed a hundred | times longer than it currently did, that prediction is only | true if you are indeed among the first 1%. 99% of VsCode users | making that prediction will be wrong. | | [1]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/2VfpAbtj- | yOq5gHhYIdgrAIdBuw=... | jackpirate wrote: | I believe you are incorrect. According to wikipedia: | | > The Lindy effect is a theorized phenomenon by which the | future life expectancy of some non-perishable things, like a | technology or an idea, is proportional to their current age. | | This implies that things that have been around for a short | period of time do in fact have a short expected lifespan. | You're correct that "A implies B does not mean B implies A as | well", but that assumption is not needed. | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | I think the Lindy effect can work in reverse. Like if you had a | collection 1000 things that are all just invented, then the | likelihood would be only a small percentage of them will be | around and in use in 50 years. Compared with a collection of | 1000 things that have all be in use for 100 years, the | percentage of them that will be around in 50 years will be much | greater. | toss1 wrote: | Yup, it seems that this 'effect' is simply extrapolating from | randomness and averages. | | Take any random thing and random time (with zero knowledge of | actual lifespan), and on average, you are in the middle of | it's lifespan. Therefore, if Thing-A has existed for 28 | years, it is likely to last for another 28, if Thing-B has | existed for 6 years, it's likely to exist for another 6, and | so on. | | It may be somewhat informative for comparisons but not in | real life. | | You are hiking away from a disaster with all your possessions | and life's savings in your backpack, and are now at a muddy | riverbank needing to cross. You ask me how deep the river is | and I tell you the average depth is 6 inches. That sounds | great, but I have most definitely NOT told you that you'll be | able to get across without finding a deep spot and having to | drop your backpack to survive. | | Using this effect to make judgements about product lifetime | is similarly uninformative. It is a hint leading to only a | possible inference, not data leading to a valid prediction. | syntheweave wrote: | With respect to software objects, the most likely reasons | for their life to end are: | | 1. Not sufficiently useful relative to involved costs for | most applications(data formats, configuration maintenance, | etc.) | | 2. Disrupted by something that is "10x better" for the | purpose(e.g. using a spreadsheet instead of a text editor | for 2D, cell-oriented data) | | 3. Outside forces invading the ecosystem and obsoleting | dependencies(new OS, hardware, etc.) | | So what the Lindy effect describes in long-lived software | is just the software that is relatively cheap to keep | around, is hard to greatly surpass and resists invasion - | which describes a lot of "worse-is-better" software, where | the UX kinda sucks, and it's actually a bit too | unstructured for any particular application, but not enough | of these things that anyone cares to address it in the | relevant professional scenarios where it comes up: instead | the user just girds themselves to fight it into submission | because they can spend six hours fighting it and one week | debugging it or two weeks making a Right Thing that is much | less compatible. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | It's not reversible, inasmuch as your first statement is | correct, but cannot identify _the things_ that will be | around. | jinwoo68 wrote: | A "logical" error rather than a statistical one :) | feral wrote: | Disagree: even in your formulation, no 'quick jump' is needed. | | Your statement A:"The longer something has been around, the | longer it will be around" is not the opposite of B:"the shorter | something has been around, the shorter it will be around". | | Rather they mean the same thing. 'longer' and 'shorter' here | are just English language ways of referring to the same time t | that an object has been around. | | If someone tells you "the longer a distance is, the more time | it takes to walk it", that is exactly the same as "the shorter | a distance is, the less time it takes to walk it"; there's no | logical leap there. | | I could conceive a rule that says "archeological artefacts are | likely to be around for a long time" and it'd be a mistake to | conclude that this means that non-archelogical artefacts will | only be around for a short time. | | But that doesn't seem to be how the Lindy effect is formulated, | either on Wikipedia or on your post, so there doesn't seem to | be an error in applying it to new things. | jgtrosh wrote: | The logical contrapositive to A is A' "if something dies off | soon, there's a good chance it was a recent fad". A makes | sense, and A' makes equal sense, but B is claiming stuff | about new tools for which we have no way of guessing the | future. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | The real meaning of the Lindy effect is: the | more something has been continued to be around due to be | continuously and repeatedly selected from a pool of similar | other somethings, the longer it will likely continue to be | so. | | Because this is a statistical effect (longer lived things are | drawn from a pool of things, some of which are not long | lived), you cannot invert it trivially. | | If there is no selection process, then the Lindy effect is | either meaningless, or decomposes to an assertion that the | current thing is the only way to do something. | feral wrote: | Ok, so let's say discuss your formulation instead: | | Why can't we 'invert' it, just because it's statistical | effect? Yes, in your formulation, some of the new things in | the pool will go on to live a long time, while others will | be selected out. | | But so what? We are talking about the _expected_ lifetime | of an item in the pool, conditioned only on it 's age. | There's no fundamental problem making a statement that this | expected lifetime is short for new things, even if some | fraction of those new things will last a long time, right? | | After all, we don't _know_ any one individual item that 's | been around a long time will last a lot longer. We only | know we _expect_ it to. Because even long lived items have | finite lifetime, hence they 'll eventually die (and when | they do it'll be really surprising, because they've been | around so long; but it will happen eventually.) | | And so the statement is always talking about _expected | lifetime_ , whether for items that have already lasted a | long or short time. | | (Hence I still don't think there's really any logical | 'inversion' here.) | killjoywashere wrote: | If you sampled from a pool of now defunct software | projects, or all software projects that were made in some | year, you could make some estimate of the survival | probability of software projects that are current. But if | you can't draw an Kaplan-Meier curve, it's unclear to me | how you would assert there exists a survival function | that could be inverted. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > There's no fundamental problem making a statement that | this expected lifetime is short for new things, even if | some fraction of those new things will last a long time, | right? | | Everything that's new in the pool might be better than | everything that's old. | | All you can say about the old stuff is that it was better | (by some metric(s)) than anything it had to compete with | so far. | | But you can't say anything about the new stuff. Sure, | statistically it is likely that it will some blend of | bad, middling and good, but you don't actually know the | mix, or which term describes which items, until after the | selection process (i.e. time) has taken place. | kilobit wrote: | Exactly. Suppose a piece of software remains around for | another year with probability p, and for the sake of this | example, that p is constant. | | Then if the software has been around for one year, the | expected value of p is 50%. But if the software has been | around for ten years, the expected value of p jumps to | 0.5^(1/10) [?] 93.3%. | | In this way, if a piece of software has been around for | longer, then it has a greater chance of sticking around. In | fact, the expected number of years it has left is indeed | equal to the number of years it has already been around, as | stated in the article. | | In practice this mechanism is more complicated, as all | software is influenced by a changing environment, but this | same idea is still at the core. | blowski wrote: | I'd never heard of the Lindy effect! | | By the author's logic, COBOL programs still in use today will | long outlive Linux. That could even be true. | zwieback wrote: | Very true but I think what's also implied in the article is | that new tools (VS Code) that look very different from old | tools (vi/emacs) will probably not last. So, if A is very old | and B is very different from A then B is less likely to | succeed. | | I don't believe that, btw, just guessing at the mindset of the | author. | horsawlarway wrote: | Even that's a fairly bad take. | | Visual Studio Code is based on a much older line (visual | studio) which dates back to 1997. | | It's not nearly so new as it may seem, although I certainly | appreciate the refresh from the older, more feature-filled | (and feature slowed) visual studio proper. | | Not to mention - most of the "new stuff" in visual studio | code is really just a nice UI layer that's built using mature | and _incredibly_ battle tested tooling - HTML /CSS/JS. | TheCoelacanth wrote: | Is VS Code actually based on Visual Studio? I thought it | was purely a marketing-based connection like | Java/Javascript. | horsawlarway wrote: | Depends on how you define "based on", I suppose. | | It comes from the same parent company, with a lot of | interest in solving many of the same challenges. The UI | paradigms are obviously related, and if you've ever done | any real VS project debugging, you'll find the structure | of those configuration files very (very) similar to how | tasks work in VSCode. | | I don't believe the VSCode codebase ever actually pulled | anything from the original visual studio, but the roots | of the application clearly come from the same place. | pvg wrote: | It's not meaningfully based on VS proper beside the name. | The main difference is it lives in a very different | ecological niche. Microsoft wouldn't have taken up its | development if it didn't. | zwieback wrote: | Upvoted but disagree. VS Code and VS have totally different | lineages and probably not much shared code under the hood. | I've used VS for many years (best IDE bar none, in my | opinion) and when I started playing with VS Code I couldn't | help but think they should have chosen a different name. | | I appreciate what VSCode is achieving, though, I can run on | my Linux host and remote into my microcontroller bare-bones | OS for debugging and everything works nicely together but | it ain't no Visual Studio. | szundi wrote: | These statements of "longer" and "shorter" actually refers to | probabilities. So it makes sense to state when something is not | "longer", then it is "shorter". So I disagree, OP's statements | about the Lindy effect makes sense. | | Also someone commented about COBOL. Of course no one thinks | COBOL "is around", what also means statistics about usage. | COBOL is declining and almost no one uses it anymore, so it is | safe to say "it is almost not around". | tarboreus wrote: | There are 220 billion lines of COBAL in production. Much of | the most essential banking infrastructure in the world runs | on COBAL, and is likely to indefinitely. | | https://www.bmc.com/blogs/cobol- | trends/#:~:text=According%20.... | | The only way we stop using COBAL in production this century | is to have some kind of apocalypse, or maybe an apotheosis. | yarg wrote: | The Lindy effect states that the expected lifetime of a thing | is proportional to its current age. | | That includes the expectation that something young will be (on | average) half way through its lifespan. | monkeybutton wrote: | Can it also apply to the time until an event which hasn't yet | happened? Ie. a system you have never observed crashing | before, has been running for T hours. So being on average | half way through its lifespan, will probably run another T | hours without incident. | yarg wrote: | Not quite. | | It works based upon the 100% certainty that whatever you | are, at some point you will cease to be. | | On average, regardless of what you are, you are in the | middle of your life or existence (some very high variance | here). | | In order to generalise it to non-certain events, such as a | program crash, you'd need to remove the certainty | assumption and rejig the consequent statistics - it might | be doable, but you wouldn't end up with something quite so | clean and simple. | PaulHoule wrote: | It's a running annoyance of Windows that they are always making | small changes to the UI that don't really come across as an | improvement or a deterioration but that force you to relearn | things. | | It really drove me crazy when I went from being a linux partisan | for being responsible for quite a few different Windows machines | and on a given day I could be working with anything from Win 98 | to Win ME to Win NT to various editions of Win 2000 and XP and if | you had to find something in the UI it would be slightly | different in all of those which was a cognitive load. Contrast to | to Linux where I did it all on the command line and it stayed the | same in that time frame. | Casteil wrote: | Windows 11 had me feeling this quite a bit, particularly with | settings and volume/network management. | | They attempted to make the new Settings panel the 'HQ' for | everything, but in the process really buried some things (for | technical people) under numerous additional clicks/sub-menus, | if it's even there at all anymore. I think they've been | addressing the concerns with new updates, but I still find | myself floundering sometimes. | hbn wrote: | There's a bunch of UI/UX regressions in Windows 11. Examples | off the top of my head: | | - After waking my computer from sleep, my last active window | is not active any more. In fact, no window is active. I have | to hit alt+tab to grab focus of the window again, or click | the window (this probably wasn't caught because most people | use their mouse for everything) | | - There's new animations for the basic native Windows menus, | including the Win+X menu I use for sleeping my computer, | shutting down, etc. When you navigate to a sub-menu with the | arrow keys, you have to wait for the animation of the sub- | menu sliding out before you can interact with it. I've had to | slow down my muscle memory to sleep my computer because | otherwise I'll hit random other menu items cause the child | menu didn't slide out fast enough to keep up with my inputs. | | - I usually snap windows around with the Win+arrow keys | shortcuts, but they added a new snap layout where sometimes | when I do Win+up it brings the window to the top half of the | screen. But that's also how you maximize a window, so I don't | know how it decides which one it will do. In my experience it | seems to be related to your key input speed. | | - Sometimes I'll crop and resize images in Paint. They redid | a bunch of the UI in Windows 11, and now when I use the | resize menu, I can't hit enter to confirm the size I input. | Again, seemingly this UI was only tested by people who use | the mouse for everything. | agumonkey wrote: | Surprisingly I find linux quite guilty of the neverending gui | papercut too (it's a bazaar after all). | | Sadly Microsoft is kinda forced to follow the trends, | everything moves in all direction (web, phones). | PaulHoule wrote: | The first thing I do with a Linux install is uninstall X | windows. | | I remember being excited when I saw the first beta test of | KDE but it seemed each version got a little bit worse after | that and that's been the trajectory of the Linux desktop | since 1995 or so. | emptysongglass wrote: | How do you surf the web or use GUI programs? | PaulHoule wrote: | I don't. I surf the web and use GUI programs on Windows | or Mac OS. I have a Linux server that runs Jellyfin and | my IoT devices. | | awk, grep, tail, nginx and all that kind of stuff is | fine. | | (I tried taking the 1050 card from my media server I used | for AI training long ago and put it in another cheap | Linux box and put SteamOS on it. They claim it can run | Windows games but it won't run anything out of my steam | account including the games that the proton database | claims works. That's the kind of brokenness as the | expected condition that is endemic to the Linux GUI) | | If I found a GUI app worked on Linux I'd be so surprised | I'd have to file a feature report with their feature | tracker. | [deleted] | deadbunny wrote: | No offense intended but it sounds like you don't know | what you're doing. | | Xorg has worked for decades, a multitude of window | managers and desktop environments have been perfectly | usable for decades, and a couple of million people (going | by Steam HW survey results) seem to be able to run games | via proton perfectly fine. | medeshago wrote: | Do you realize that even if the marketshare for desktop | linux is minimal, let's assume 0.5%, those are still | millions of computers working using what you claim | doesn't work under any condition? | agumonkey wrote: | I don't mind X, but I push i3 or xfce and nothing more. I | tried bare console linux but there were too many keyboard | mapping fu and a few web browsing facility I didn't bother | to lose. | VyseofArcadia wrote: | > Sadly Microsoft is kinda forced to follow the trends, | everything moves in all direction (web, phones). | | Former Microsoftie here. While they are following trends, the | actual impetus behind all the little changes you see all the | time is that managers and ICs are incentivized to make | "impactful" changes if they want good performance reviews. UI | changes are a pretty easy way to have "impact". You can say | something in your review like, "and X million users used the | new taskbar that's in the middle of the screen". | indrora wrote: | This fucking reeks of Pressure to Publish in academia. | enriquto wrote: | Except that publishing stupid papers does not harm | millions of users, but yes. | AceJohnny2 wrote: | I am reminded of a study where the hue of lights in a factory | was changed, and the workers were reported happier and more | productive. Then they changed it again (actually, to the | original hue), and the workers reported being happier still and | more productive! | | So what lighting hue was best? Irrelevant, the important thing | was that workers perceived that management was paying attention | to their wellbeing. | | I think something similar is happening in Windows (and Mac!) | desktops, where they change small things "for productivity", | and the majority of people will think it's an improvement, just | because it's different. | | Bt a small subset of us opinionated people will be upset that | our carefully tuned habits are disrupted. | IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: | It's possible to recognize that mechanism and not mind being | affected by it. There is nothing wrong with experiencing joy | based on 'just' cosmetic changes. Indeed it's a direct effect | of what's called 'novelty-seeking' behavior, a character | trait associated with lots of positive things for the person | and society, and only a few drug habits and untimely deaths | in non-FAA-approved aircraft. | | Many of the possibly meaningless desktop changes are also | meaningless in the sense that they won't affect any workflow, | and are therefore benign. | hbn wrote: | > they change small things "for productivity", and the | majority of people will think it's an improvement | | I feel like I've never talked to a person, techie or not, who | didn't agree it was incredibly annoying to have UIs that | they're used to change out under their feet. | iLoveOncall wrote: | I usually don't mind at all, it's a non-issue. Losing | features suck, but a new UI, especially for tools that were | legitimately dated, is something I like. | BLKNSLVR wrote: | How would you define "legitimately dated"? | | I'd say something like the "ribbon toolbar" upgrade of MS | Office, which I think improved accessibility of | functions, is one of the only examples I can think of. | But then I'm not sure if that was just a case of getting | used to the new layout. | | Windows "Settings" versus the Control Panel is a counter | example. It was a downgrade, it still sucks now, years | later, but the Control Panel could be argued as 'dated' | by some definitions. | iLoveOncall wrote: | I'm not saying every UI update will be good, just that in | a huge amount of cases, updates that actually do improve | the UI will be placed in the same bucket as bad updates, | just because "muh me no like change". | mixmastamyk wrote: | "dated" is not the issue, rather does it continue to be | fit for purpose? | Zababa wrote: | > I am reminded of a study where the hue of lights in a | factory was changed, and the workers were reported happier | and more productive. Then they changed it again (actually, to | the original hue), and the workers reported being happier | still and more productive! | | > So what lighting hue was best? Irrelevant, the important | thing was that workers perceived that management was paying | attention to their wellbeing. | | I doubt it would work if they changed the place of tools, the | layout of the factory, stuff like that. | hyperman1 wrote: | The trick on windows is pressing win+r, opening the run dialog. | One keycombo works in all windows versions. It takes a real | command or exe, not some simplified shell abomination. After | learning a few .msc filenames, you can quickly get around the | old advanced config screens. Most common tools havent changed | their names since win95, e.g cmd winword excel calc. In fact, I | paste and recut one liners in it to strip them from their | formatting. | | Compare that with the start menu. I type something, and the | chosen program changes every time. I type notepad++, it shows | the correct program until I type the d, then decides I really | want to open edge and search notepad++ on bing. Or it launches | an uninstaller instead of the actual program. | | Now one of these days ms is going to optimize the win+r | experience, so have fun while it lasts. | dfxm12 wrote: | haha, I did a brief presentation talking about this exact | keyboard shortcut (among others) and why it was so useful for | Windows admins back in my college or high school computer | club. The feedback I got was the presentation was dry, but | useful, but that's keyboard shortcuts for you... :D | jrm4 wrote: | Not enough attention is paid to the (perhaps now cargo-culting) | cause of this mess, which is that we still have _companies_ that | do something like "selling operating systems." This is a stupid | idea that should have died a long time ago. | 13415 wrote: | I don't know, in the consumer market only Microsoft still sells | an operating system but it's dirt cheap, you can get Windows | licenses for a few bucks. The problem is perhaps rather that | they don't sell operating systems and instead of building a | good OS product sell their users' data or use the OS to lock | costumers into their platform and hardware. There does not seem | to be a competitive OS market at all (and probably there never | was a healthy one to speak of). | outworlder wrote: | Lindy effect predicts that Lisp will be running on our | civilization's future Dyson sphere. | dangus wrote: | Long-lived, stable tools are great things. However, it's also not | great to be stuck in your ways and being unwilling to adapt. | | > The problem with most notetaking apps is editing text outside | Vim breaks my brain. | | I see this as an unwillingness to learn. I felt like the tone of | the article was of the sort where I was just there to be told | that I'm inferior for using a mouse. | | Microsoft Word is actually an older program than vim (not older | than vi), so _obviously_ the author should switch to Word to take | notes instead of vim. | horsawlarway wrote: | Also - as much as the Vim/Emacs folks love to bash on the | mouse... it turns out a pointer is actually an incredibly good | tool for doing most of the things you might want to do with one | - like select some text, or change cursor position, or quickly | and accurately select an item from a list of similar items. | | Having grown up with a mouse playing fps/rts games, I don't | really get the hate. A mouse is an excellent tool. | mrob wrote: | I agree. But on the other hand, I expect you're using a good | mouse, configured exactly to your preferences, on your | favorite mousing surface, and you have opinions about all | these things. Somebody using whatever mouse was cheapest | directly on their desk is unlikely to become competitive with | an expert keyboard user, who can get away with a cheap rubber | dome keyboard. | mustermannBB wrote: | Agreed. I never understood this almost unnatural hate towards | the mouse by some vim users. | dredmorbius wrote: | Is "hatred" their language or yours? | | How would you distinguish an awareness of tool strengths, | _and a recognition that for the specific use in question, | keyboard is generally faster / easier / more reproducible_? | | Because really, that doesn't sound like hate to me. It | sounds like proficiency. | | Or is there perhaps a hatered toward proficiency? | dredmorbius wrote: | On text selection and movement: | | - Repositioning the cursor _by incrementally searching for | the word you want to move to_ is more accurate, _quite_ fast | (3-4 letters is virtually always sufficient to find the word | in question), _keeps you in the text / document "head"_, and | leaves your hands on the keyboard. | | - Yank (y) + movement (w for word, ) for sentence, } for | paragraph, 'yi<modifier>' for copy within marks (quotes, | braces, angle-brackets, parenthesis, etc.) is also amazingly | fast. | | - Visual mode can be used to select specific blocks of text | where necessary. | | - If I want to select specific fields from a file, I'll | usually either use tools for that purpose (cut, sed, awk), or | read in the entire file and edit it down from within vim. The | tools-based approach means I can reproduce the task readily | if I need to do it repeatedly. | | And finally, where I'm dumping text from some GUI app to vim | ... it's still usually easier, faster, less error-prone, and | more reproducible to grab the entire screenful of text | _without_ specifically selecting what I want (e.g., C-A or | Cmd-A (Mac)), and then trim to size within vim. Again, vim 's | tools permit working _with text as text_ rather than _with | text as a GUI presentation_. | | I'm not saying I _never_ use the mouse for text selection, | but it is _far_ less common than you might think, and much | more cumbersome. | horsawlarway wrote: | Cool! But that doesn't at all touch on my point. I'm not | arguing you can't use vim keybinds, I'm saying the mouse is | good at what it does. | | _You_ might struggle to use a mouse (lots of folks do) but | for those of us that grew up using it as a much more | accurate pointing tool... I 'd wager none of the things | you've listed present much of a challenge or thought. | | Like this: | | >it's still usually easier, faster, less error-prone, and | more reproducible to grab the entire screenful of text | without specifically selecting what I want (e.g., C-A or | Cmd-A (Mac)), and then trim to size within vim. | | That's funny - I found it incredibly quick and easy to | simply select that portion of your comment with my mouse. I | didn't have to trim, or take extra, or think about it. I | just selected the content I wanted with the mouse in about | a quarter of a second. | dredmorbius wrote: | 1. I've been using computer mice for something north of | 30 years. I'm reasonably proficient. I've used vi/vim for | roughly as long.[1] | | 2. _Text-based selection and interaction work at the | context of text._ It 's really hard to express how | powerful this is if you've not internalised it. | | 3. On many GUI-based devices, the mouse is no longer the | mouse, but the finger. This raises a whole host of | additional issues: | | - You're now covering up what it is you want to select. | | - Your selection is no longer based on a single pixel | (the apex of the pointer itself) but a _region_. | | - There's the inherent ambiguity between _selection_ and | _movement_. That is, when, where I 'm touching the | screen, do I intend to _scroll the display_ and when do I | intend to _select or interact with elements on it_? In | over a decade 's use of touch devices I've yet to see | either hardware or software which isn't subject to this | failure, constantly. | | - Hardware keyboards are highly effective for text input. | (I'm writing this on an Android device with an external | keyboard. Touch keyboards ... suck and blow, as the | saying goes.) | | You might struggle to use vim (lots of folks do), but for | those of us that grew up using it as a much more accurate | text-manipulation tool ... I'd wager none of the things | you've listed present much of a challenge or thought. | | The point of vim (or Emacs) is that those keystrokes | _simply become internalised_. I don 't _think_ through | actions, _they simply happen_. | | In a GUI, I'm constantly fighting the interface. | | ________________________________ | | Notes: | | 1. Along with a whole host of other editors, virtually | none of which are currently extant or readily available: | Wordstar, Mac Edit, MacWrite, DOS Edit, WordPerfect, | AmiPro, the TSO/ISPF editor, VAX EDT and EVE, emacs, | multiple generations of MS Word, Notepad, MS Write, the | whole StarOffice / OpenOffice / NeoOffice line, etc. | Vi/vim's pretty much always present, always works, and | has evolved _incrementally_ over the 30+ years I 've used | it such that I'm never faced with the prospect of | discarding accumulated technical-knowledge capital. | | Yes, the first few weeks were ugly. Steep learning curve. | High payoff function. | dangus wrote: | It's as easy as memorizing a bunch of commands and key | chords! | dredmorbius wrote: | Are you commenting on the Emacs alternative? | | In which case I'd agree, if you've internalised _that_ | mechanism. | Animats wrote: | And get off my lawn! | | Counterexamples - technologies that lasted a long time, then hit | a hard dead end. | | - NTSC / PAL video. | | - Audio on magnetic tape | | - Video on magnetic tape | | - Manual transmissions in cars | | - Daily newspapers | | - Mimeograph machines | | - Asbestos | swayvil wrote: | I like my manual ford f150 1995. Might retire it for a cheap | minimal electric someday. | qbasic_forever wrote: | You won't find a manual transmission in any electric car, for | better or worse. At best they would make some fake lever in | the console that just tells the ECU 'hrm it looks like the | driver wants more torque right now, and maybe play some | engine rev noises on the stereo'. | swayvil wrote: | Yes. I do not expect a manual transmission electric. That | would be silly. | dento wrote: | > - Manual transmissions in cars | | Only in US, in EU about 80% of new cars have manual | transmission. | bsder wrote: | This was driven by the cost of petrol rather than | convenience. | | An automatic transmission is a non-trivial amount of weight-- | especially on the small cars present in the EU--and affects | gas mileage tremendously. | | Driving a manual in heavy stop and go traffic, however, sucks | rocks whether you are in LA or Palermo. You are continuously | playing the "rolling game" in order to minimize stress on | your clutch to avoid burning it up. | | I presume these same forces will be the ones that cause the | EU to switch to electric cars first. | tobylane wrote: | Can't comment on weight, but on efficiency, automatics have | better mpg than manual. Are clutch burns weight related? | I've not heard of them coming from urban use, only track | days. There was a small resistance to young people learning | automatic as it would be a limit on their licence but that | seems to have gone away in the last decade. | outworlder wrote: | > An automatic transmission is a non-trivial amount of | weight--especially on the small cars present in the EU--and | affects gas mileage tremendously. | | This is a case of 'citation needed'. It's not like manual | gearboxes are weightless. Then there the likes of CVT. | | What do they add is to manufacturing costs. A simple manual | transmission is, well, simple, and has looser tolerances | (the driver compensates). Automatic transmissions require | more exotic materials - in the past we had to use whale | oil, which drove their costs to unsustainable prices in | non-US markets. | midasuni wrote: | In the U.K. in the 00s and before automatic cars were really | rare. Surprisingly though the last 10 years they've increased | in popularity and have overtaken manuals for new | registrations | | Not aware of any eu stats | | https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/analysis-are- | man... | midasuni wrote: | I've used 4 of those in the last month, including two of them | today | dredmorbius wrote: | Those are, respectively, transmission standards (1), storage | media (2, 3, 4, 5), a power transmission mechanism (3), a data | replication mechanism (6), and a material with various | applications (7). | | Of the set the two that come closest to being _interfaces_ are | 4 & 5, the daily newspaper and manual gearbox with its shift | lever. In both cases, the actual _interface_ component --- | articles written by reporters and published by a specific | organisation, and a rod through which a vehicle 's drive mode | is selected, are the parts _least_ changed. | | Even the mimeograph's _function_ still remains, though in most | cases it 's either through a smartphone or tablet (which | reproduces text ina mobile manner which can be shared with | others) or a printer-copier of some sort, usually functioning | on either a xerographic or wet-ink jet process. In the latter | case, the output (print on paper) remains. | | In the cases of video formats, audio and video storage media, | and structural materials, the _components_ of the end result | (video streaming, on-demand audio and video playback, and | various structural members and fabrics with specific | properties) have changed, but their fundamental _functions_ and | _perceived endpoints_ are ... largely ... what they were | previously. Enough so that someone from an age in which the | technologies you mention were in widespread use would recognise | the current replacements. | | Interfaces _do_ tend to be exceedingly durable. In large part | because they address not just _mechanism_ , but _human | interactions_. The former may change rapidly, the latter not so | much. | ghusto wrote: | Aaaargh, I can not help myself! | | * NTSC / PAL video, and audio / video tapes | | Better isn't always better. This is a philosophical point, so | I'll just give the gist: I believe that advancing something, | doesn't necessarily make things for the user better. For | example, Netflix is by technical measure "better" than going | all the way to a video shop with your friend, finding out they | don't have what you really wanted, spending ages deciding on | what to watch, going all the way back home, and sitting through | the film in one sitting. Which experience did you prefer | though, and more importantly, which one was better for you as a | person? | | * Manual transmissions in cars | | What? I know in the U.S.A. most people drive automatic cars, | but at least in Europe this isn't so. It's not because they're | not available, it's just that nobody wants to drive them. | Personally I find them boring and toyish, but I can't speak for | the reasoning of others. | | * Daily newspapers | | There was _a lot_ wrong with newspapers back in the day. One | huge thing they had going for them though (which nobody | realised was even in question at the time) was that they were | written by professional journalists, and they had standards. | Now my "news" is given to me by half literate emotional | reactionists. | majewsky wrote: | Re examples 1 and 3: Your judgment does not change the fact | that those are, as GP put it, "technologies that lasted a | long time, then hit a hard dead end". | Findecanor wrote: | News media hasn't deteriorated the same way everywhere. | | I live in Europe and still get most of my daily news from the | morning paper - a paper with professional journalists and | correspondents with standards. The articles are also | available on their (paywalled) web site, but I prefer | traditional paper. | rubyist5eva wrote: | That's what I like about macos - no drastic changes in the 10+ | years that I've been using it. They've added some stuff - some of | it I've absorbed into my workflow, some of it I haven't and it | stays out of my way. | horsawlarway wrote: | If this is a real opinion - I don't think you're doing very | much with macOS. | | Hell - just the KEXT changes break about 20 different things in | my workflow. | | honestly, as someone who uses a mix of all three major OSes | (Windows/Linux/Mac), Mac has been the least pleasant dealing | with upgrades - they make as many breaking changes as linux, | and they have dogshite docs. | rubyist5eva wrote: | My machine only has kexts for Parallels (had? they switched | to Virtualization Framework a while ago), and never had any | issues as long as I was keeping Parallels up to date. | -\\_(tsu)_/- | markstos wrote: | Wayland is viable. Time to try Sway! | bravetraveler wrote: | I've been using Sway, very happy - just prepare to do a fair | bit of fiddling :) | | A quick tip, imitate this however you see fit -- setting | `XDG_CURRENT_DESKTOP`: $ cat | ~/.config/environment.d/envvars.conf | XDG_CURRENT_DESKTOP="${XDG_CURRENT_DESKTOP:-sway}" | | ... so that `xdg-desktop-portal-wlr` can share your screen by | knowing the environment you're in | | For whatever reason this isn't set by Sway. This will only set | it if another DE hasn't already | Arnavion wrote: | >~/.config/environment.d/envvars.conf | | Set it by exec'ing from your sway config instead. Otherwise | every session under your user will think it's running in | sway, even if it isn't. | | How to do that is explained in the xdpw wiki. | | >For whatever reason this isn't set by Sway. | | It's because sway generally doesn't do any kind of | integration with anything not related to Wayland, which in | this case is systemd and dbus. It gives you the tools to do | it yourself. | | Distros that provide pre-configured packages of sway should | ship such a config by default. Eg OpenSUSE has https://github | .com/openSUSE/openSUSEway/blob/ee8fe750a843165... + https://g | ithub.com/openSUSE/openSUSEway/blob/ee8fe750a843165... | bravetraveler wrote: | That's fair (RE: setting/sessions). The method I proposed | relies on consistency everywhere else (defining that to | _something_ ), and assumes Sway if not :P | | It looks like this (on Fedora) is generally dealt with by | the ' _sway-systemd_ ' package. | | That provides a drop-in config ( _/ | etc/sway/config.d/10-systemd-session.conf_) that runs a | script and prepares the environment for you (including this | variable) $ dnf whatprovides | /etc/sway/config.d/10-systemd-session.conf [...] | sway-systemd-0.2.2-1.fc36.noarch : Systemd integration for | Sway session Repo : @System Matched | from: Filename : /etc/sway/config.d/10-systemd- | session.conf | | It's rather similar to the openSUSE approach you shared, | but seemingly a little more robust: | https://github.com/alebastr/sway- | systemd/blob/main/src/sessi... | | As long as you do this in your Sway config, it should be | fine: include /etc/sway/config.d/* | | I forgot about that adventure until now -- with something | like this, you don't need either 'manual declaration' | approach really | | I initially missed it moving to Sway because I literally | copied my i3 config and only changed it slightly | deadbunny wrote: | I was so close to switching from X/i3 to wayland/sway but I | couldn't get drag and drop from Firefox to mpv to work. Maybe | next reinstall. | hyperman1 wrote: | On linux, if you want a calculator, just type python. | marcosdumay wrote: | And here I go again, recommending Qalculator and its CLI friend | qalc. | | Python is a lousy calculator, unless you want to program it. | throwaway742 wrote: | >>> 1/3 | | 0 | Macha wrote: | $ python Python 3.10.5 (main, Jun 6 2022, 18:49:26) | [GCC 12.1.0] on linux Type "help", "copyright", | "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> 1/3 | 0.3333333333333333 | | If you're going to keep using EOL versions, that's on you. | jjice wrote: | Hmmm, I got | | >>> 1/3 0.3333333333333333 | | What version? $ python3 --version | Python 3.9.9 | | I'd expect your result with `1//3`. | yellowapple wrote: | I install Julia on my machines for this reason. | Evidlo wrote: | Octave is also nice as a calculator | markstos wrote: | I use Speedcrunch. Launches instantly, so not much time savings | to use a CLI tool instead. | hax0rbana wrote: | gcide-dict doesn't exist in Debian (anymore?) | hax0rbana wrote: | The author's `spell` script doesn't work either. No suggestions | appear, no definitions, and even entering "0" to get the | original text does not copy the word to the clipboard despite | the script claiming that is does. Tested on Debian 11. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-16 23:00 UTC)