Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #26175 > unrolled thread

terminal only for two weeks

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  terminal only for two weeks Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> - 2024-11-25 13:34 +0000
    Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 22:18 +0100
    Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 21:52 +0000
      Re: terminal only for two weeks Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2024-11-26 03:18 -0400
        Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-26 21:28 +0000
      Re: terminal only for two weeks yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2024-11-26 09:22 +0042
        Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-26 21:24 +0000
      Re: terminal only for two weeks candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-30 01:20 +0000
        Re: terminal only for two weeks yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2024-11-30 04:22 +0042
          Re: terminal only for two weeks candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-12-01 20:40 +0000
        Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 03:52 +0000
          Re: terminal only for two weeks candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-12-01 20:40 +0000
            Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-01 23:24 +0000
              Re: terminal only for two weeks candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-12-02 02:00 +0000
                Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-02 05:41 +0000
    Re: terminal only for two weeks John McCue <jmccue@qball.jmcunx.com> - 2024-11-26 03:13 +0000
      Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 10:22 +0100
        Re: terminal only for two weeks yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2024-11-26 12:15 +0042
          Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 16:36 +0100
            Re: terminal only for two weeks not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-11-27 07:52 +1000
              Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-27 10:51 +0100
                Re: terminal only for two weeks not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-11-28 06:44 +1000
                  Re: terminal only for two weeks yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2024-11-28 05:54 +0042
                  Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 10:52 +0100
                    Re: terminal only for two weeks not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-11-29 06:17 +1000
                      Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 22:05 +0100
                      Re: terminal only for two weeks yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2024-11-29 02:19 +0042
                        Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 10:38 +0100
                          Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:39 +0100
            Re: terminal only for two weeks Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2024-11-26 17:57 -0400
              Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-27 10:54 +0100
                Re: terminal only for two weeks Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2024-11-28 01:41 -0400
                  Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-28 06:42 +0000
                  Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 10:56 +0100
                  URIs within URIs: google.com/url?q= et al. Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2024-12-20 18:42 +0000
                    Re: URIs within URIs: google.com/url?q= et al. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-12-20 19:03 +0000
                    Re: URIs within URIs: google.com/url?q= et al. Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2024-12-22 01:39 -0400
              Re: terminal only for two weeks Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 06:11 +0000
                Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-04 06:42 +0000
                  Re: terminal only for two weeks candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-12-04 14:30 +0000
                    Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-05 01:46 +0000
                      Re: terminal only for two weeks not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-08 07:52 +1000
                        Re: terminal only for two weeks root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2024-12-08 14:11 +0000
                          Re: terminal only for two weeks Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2025-01-12 23:01 +0000
                            Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-13 10:46 +0100
                              Re: terminal only for two weeks not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-01-14 06:52 +1000
                                Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-14 18:54 +0100
                            web Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-01-16 07:55 +0000
                              Re: web not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-01-17 07:10 +1000
                                Re: web yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-01-17 04:58 +0042
                                  Re: web anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-03-22 21:52 +0000
                                Re: web Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-01-18 14:05 +0000
                                  Re: web not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-01-19 09:09 +1000
                                    Re: web candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-01-29 20:10 +0000
                                      Re: web Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-04 21:42 +0000
                                  Re: web Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2025-01-19 14:47 +0000
                                    Re: web yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-01-19 16:14 +0042
                                      Re: web snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-01-19 16:05 +0000
                                      Re: web Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-01-19 19:15 +0000
                                      Re: web Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2025-01-20 15:37 +0000
                                        Re: web Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-01-24 18:45 +0000
                                      Re: web news@zzo38computer.org.invalid - 2025-01-20 11:23 -0800
                              Re: web Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 18:04 -0800
                          Re: terminal only for two weeks Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2025-01-12 23:01 +0000
                    Re: terminal only for two weeks yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2024-12-05 06:34 +0042
                      Re: terminal only for two weeks yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-01-16 11:42 +0042
        Re: terminal only for two weeks anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-03-22 21:52 +0000
    Re: terminal only for two weeks Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2024-11-28 12:45 +0200
    Re: terminal only for two weeks Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2025-01-12 23:01 +0000
      Re: terminal only for two weeks Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-01-12 22:03 -0300
        Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-13 10:48 +0100
          Re: terminal only for two weeks Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-01-13 16:24 -0300
            Re: terminal only for two weeks D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-14 18:50 +0100
            Re: terminal only for two weeks Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-01-15 22:10 -0300
              Re: terminal only for two weeks Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-01-16 04:15 +0000
              Re: terminal only for two weeks Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-01-16 15:58 +1000
              Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-21 05:31 +0000
              Re: terminal only for two weeks Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-01-23 19:33 +0000
                Re: terminal only for two weeks Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-12 13:12 -0300
                  Re: terminal only for two weeks Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2025-02-16 20:55 +0000
                    Re: terminal only for two weeks Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-16 22:54 -0300
                      Re: terminal only for two weeks Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-16 22:56 -0300
                      Re: terminal only for two weeks Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-17 03:41 +0000
                        Re: terminal only for two weeks Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 13:02 -0300
                      Re: terminal only for two weeks kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-17 22:18 +0000
                        Re: terminal only for two weeks Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 13:03 -0300

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#26175 — terminal only for two weeks

From the «text is good enough» department:
Title: Using (only) a Linux terminal for my personal computing in 2024
Author: Thom Holwerda
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 22:13:32 +0000
Link: https://www.osnews.com/story/141194/using-only-a-linux-terminal-for-my-personal-computing-in-2024/


A month and a bit ago, I wondered if I could cope with a terminal-only
computer[1].
[…]

The only way to really find out was to give it a go.

My goal was to see what it was like to use a terminal-only computer for my
personal computing for two weeks, and more if I fancied it.
↫ Neil’s blog[2]

I tried to do this too, once.

Once.

Doing everything from the terminal just isn’t viable for me, mostly because I
didn’t grow up with it. Our family’s first computer ran MS-DOS (with a Windows
3.1 installation we never used), and I’m pretty sure the experience of using
MS-DOS as my first CLI ruined me for life. My mental model for computing didn’t
start forming properly until Windows 95 came out, and as such, computing is
inherently graphical for me, and no matter how many amazing CLI and TUI
applications are out there – and there are many, many amazing ones – my brain
just isn’t compatible with it.

There are a few tasks I prefer doing with the command line, like updating my
computers or editing system files using Nano, but for everything else I’m just
faster and more comfortable with a graphical user interface. This comes down to
not knowing most commands by heart, and often not even knowing the options and
flags for the most basic of commands, meaning even very basic operations that
people comfortable using the command line do without even thinking, take me
ages.

I’m glad any modern Linux distribution – I use Fedora KDE on all my computers –
offers both paths for almost anything you could do on your computer, and unless
I specifically opt to do so, I literally – literally literally – never have to
touch the command line.

Links:
[1]: https://neilzone.co.uk/2024/10/could-i-cope-with-a-terminal-only-computer/ (link)
[2]: https://neilzone.co.uk/2024/11/using-only-a-linux-terminal-for-my-personal-computing-in-2024/ (link)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26177

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Retrograde wrote:

> From the «text is good enough» department:
> Title: Using (only) a Linux terminal for my personal computing in 2024
> Author: Thom Holwerda
> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 22:13:32 +0000
> Link: https://www.osnews.com/story/141194/using-only-a-linux-terminal-for-my-personal-computing-in-2024/
>
>
> A month and a bit ago, I wondered if I could cope with a terminal-only
> computer[1].
> […]
>
> The only way to really find out was to give it a go.
>
> My goal was to see what it was like to use a terminal-only computer for my
> personal computing for two weeks, and more if I fancied it.
> ↫ Neil’s blog[2]
>
> I tried to do this too, once.
>
> Once.
>
> Doing everything from the terminal just isn’t viable for me, mostly because I
> didn’t grow up with it. Our family’s first computer ran MS-DOS (with a Windows
> 3.1 installation we never used), and I’m pretty sure the experience of using
> MS-DOS as my first CLI ruined me for life. My mental model for computing didn’t
> start forming properly until Windows 95 came out, and as such, computing is
> inherently graphical for me, and no matter how many amazing CLI and TUI
> applications are out there – and there are many, many amazing ones – my brain
> just isn’t compatible with it.
>
> There are a few tasks I prefer doing with the command line, like updating my
> computers or editing system files using Nano, but for everything else I’m just
> faster and more comfortable with a graphical user interface. This comes down to
> not knowing most commands by heart, and often not even knowing the options and
> flags for the most basic of commands, meaning even very basic operations that
> people comfortable using the command line do without even thinking, take me
> ages.
>
> I’m glad any modern Linux distribution – I use Fedora KDE on all my computers –
> offers both paths for almost anything you could do on your computer, and unless
> I specifically opt to do so, I literally – literally literally – never have to
> touch the command line.
>
> Links:
> [1]: https://neilzone.co.uk/2024/10/could-i-cope-with-a-terminal-only-computer/ (link)
> [2]: https://neilzone.co.uk/2024/11/using-only-a-linux-terminal-for-my-personal-computing-in-2024/ (link)
>

Fascinating experiment. I would not be able to do it. I need a browser to 
run my business, manage my finances etc. so terminal only, while nice, 
would be very difficult without some serious programming and hacking 
around problems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26178

On 25 Nov 2024 13:34:25 GMT, Retrograde wrote:

> This comes down to not knowing most commands by heart,
> and often not even knowing the options and flags for the most basic of
> commands ...

Don’t need to. Type “man «cmd»” to see all the details of the options 
available for any external command. I do this all the time.

> I’m glad any modern Linux distribution – I use Fedora KDE on all my
> computers – offers both paths for almost anything you could do on your
> computer, and unless I specifically opt to do so, I literally –
> literally literally – never have to touch the command line.

Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you take 
advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature not 
available on a pure-command-line system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26180

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you take 
> advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature not 
> available on a pure-command-line system.

The command line is like language.  The GUI is like shopping.

Turns out, lots of my highly educated friends aren't all that good
with language. :-o

A windowing system is not in itself what most people mean by GUI and
is, yes, a huge leap forward over plain command-line terminals.

I do use a GUI browser and, occasionally, a GUI image editing device.
I can imagine that audio/video editing my work best in a full GUI.

But my default is a simple window manager (twm) on top of X with
numerous xterms open or iconified, some running things like dmesg -w,
one with root access etc.

I took one look, long ago, at Windows 95 and moved straight to Linux.
Took one look at KDE (shopping) and found twm.

FWIW,
-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26188

On 26 Nov 2024 03:18:45 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> 
>> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you
>> take advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature
>> not available on a pure-command-line system.
> 
> The command line is like language.  The GUI is like shopping.

Did you learn in Comp Sci about the concept of “abstract machines”? To 
program a computer, you start with the bare hardware, and add layers of 
software on top of that, each creating a new “abstract machine” that is 
easier to use for narrower and narrower classes of problems, albeit less 
flexible than the machine layer below.

The command line is itself such an abstract machine, and you can create 
additional layers on top of that by writing shell scripts.

GUIs, on the other hand, are not suited to having any additional layers 
built on top of them. They are designed to be used by humans, and that’s 
that. Attempts to automate GUI operations tend not to work very well.

> Took one look at KDE (shopping) and found twm.

KDE Konsole is probably the most versatile of all the GUI terminal 
emulators.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26181

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you take 
> advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature not 
> available on a pure-command-line system.

I still can use Cut&Paste on Linux's "real VTs" but I'd prefer a
decorationless fullscreen XTerm over those if I would try to work
GUIfree for a while because of easier size switching, Sixel and TeK40xx
graphics.

Screen and Tmux would offer (keyboard driven) Cut&Paste.

There now may be framebuffer terminals with most of the features of
XTerm, but testing those still is crying for attention in my eternally
growing (™Dark Energy Inside!™) to do list.  *sigh!*

-- 
1. Hitchhiker 5: (101) "You just come along with me and have a good
time.  The Galaxy's a fun place. You'll need to have this fish in your
ear."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26187

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 09:22:50 +0042, yeti wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you
>> take advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature
>> not available on a pure-command-line system.
> 
> I still can use Cut&Paste on Linux's "real VTs" but I'd prefer a
> decorationless fullscreen XTerm over those if I would try to work
> GUIfree for a while because of easier size switching, Sixel and TeK40xx
> graphics.

But then it becomes difficult to have more than one terminal session open 
at once.

I typically have about two dozen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26216

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 21:52 this Monday (GMT):
> On 25 Nov 2024 13:34:25 GMT, Retrograde wrote:
>
>> This comes down to not knowing most commands by heart,
>> and often not even knowing the options and flags for the most basic of
>> commands ...
>
> Don’t need to. Type “man «cmd»” to see all the details of the options 
> available for any external command. I do this all the time.
>
>> I’m glad any modern Linux distribution – I use Fedora KDE on all my
>> computers – offers both paths for almost anything you could do on your
>> computer, and unless I specifically opt to do so, I literally –
>> literally literally – never have to touch the command line.
>
> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you take 
> advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature not 
> available on a pure-command-line system.


You can technically emulate that with screen or a similar multiplexer.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26217

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

> You can technically emulate that with screen or a similar multiplexer.

Apropos similar: The funniest multiplexer I saw was Neercs.

   <https://github.com/cacalabs/neercs>
   <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d33Pu2OW7k>
   <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQr42LjaNCY>

Was it ever officially finished and released?

-- 
I do not bite, I just want to play.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26219

yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote at 03:40 this Saturday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>> You can technically emulate that with screen or a similar multiplexer.
>
> Apropos similar: The funniest multiplexer I saw was Neercs.
>
>    <https://github.com/cacalabs/neercs>
>    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d33Pu2OW7k>
>    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQr42LjaNCY>
>
> Was it ever officially finished and released?


Honestly, that looks super cool and it's a shame it doesn't seem like it
was finished.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26218

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:20:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 21:52 this Monday (GMT):
>
>> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you
>> take advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature
>> not available on a pure-command-line system.
> 
> You can technically emulate that with screen or a similar multiplexer.

A GUI lets you do that between different apps, not just terminal 
emulators, as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26220

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:52 this Saturday (GMT):
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:20:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 21:52 this Monday (GMT):
>>
>>> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you
>>> take advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature
>>> not available on a pure-command-line system.
>> 
>> You can technically emulate that with screen or a similar multiplexer.
>
> A GUI lets you do that between different apps, not just terminal 
> emulators, as well.


I'm sure you can set something up with xclip if you really need that.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26221

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 20:40:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:52 this Saturday (GMT):
>
>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:20:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 21:52 this Monday (GMT):
>>>
>>>> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you
>>>> take advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature
>>>> not available on a pure-command-line system.
>>> 
>>> You can technically emulate that with screen or a similar multiplexer.
>>
>> A GUI lets you do that between different apps, not just terminal
>> emulators, as well.
> 
> I'm sure you can set something up with xclip if you really need that.

But xclip requires a GUI, does it not?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26222

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:24 this Sunday (GMT):
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 20:40:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:52 this Saturday (GMT):
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:20:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 21:52 this Monday (GMT):
>>>>
>>>>> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets you
>>>>> take advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a feature
>>>>> not available on a pure-command-line system.
>>>> 
>>>> You can technically emulate that with screen or a similar multiplexer.
>>>
>>> A GUI lets you do that between different apps, not just terminal
>>> emulators, as well.
>> 
>> I'm sure you can set something up with xclip if you really need that.
>
> But xclip requires a GUI, does it not?


So does running GUI apps. For terminal apps, using a multiplexer
copy/paste should be fine.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26223

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 02:00:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:24 this Sunday (GMT):
>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 20:40:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:52 this Saturday
>>> (GMT):
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:20:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 21:52 this Monday
>>>>> (GMT):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, running a command line through a GUI terminal emulator lets
>>>>>> you take advantage of cut/copy/paste between windows, which is a
>>>>>> feature not available on a pure-command-line system.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can technically emulate that with screen or a similar
>>>>> multiplexer.
>>>>
>>>> A GUI lets you do that between different apps, not just terminal
>>>> emulators, as well.
>>> 
>>> I'm sure you can set something up with xclip if you really need that.
>>
>> But xclip requires a GUI, does it not?
> 
> So does running GUI apps.

If you’re running a GUI, you might as well use full-function GUI cut/copy/
paste, which is more general than anything provided within a character-
based multiplexer, anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26179

Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> wrote:
> From the ?text is good enough? department:
> Title: Using (only) a Linux terminal for my personal computing in 2024
> Author: Thom Holwerda
> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 22:13:32 +0000
> Link: https://www.osnews.com/story/141194/using-only-a-linux-terminal-for-my-personal-computing-in-2024/
> 
> 
> A month and a bit ago,?I wondered if I could cope with a terminal-only
> computer[1].
> [?]
> 
> The only way to really find out was to give it a go.

I am glad you tried, sure it was a nice and very different
experience.

<snip>
> 
> Doing everything from the terminal just isn't viable for me,
> mostly because I didn't grow up with it.

Fair enough, but at least you tried to see what things were
like for us old people.  But yes, big changes like this are
hard to deal with.

I started before DOS existed on minis and I remember when
GUIs became a thing.  I had to be dragged kicking and
screaming into that environment :)  Still I pretty much live
in Xterms and only need a GUI for browsing and html email.

<snip>

Nice post!

-- 
csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
                     - Paraphrasing Star Wars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26182

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, John McCue wrote:

> Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> wrote:
>> From the ?text is good enough? department:
>> Title: Using (only) a Linux terminal for my personal computing in 2024
>> Author: Thom Holwerda
>> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 22:13:32 +0000
>> Link: https://www.osnews.com/story/141194/using-only-a-linux-terminal-for-my-personal-computing-in-2024/
>>
>>
>> A month and a bit ago,?I wondered if I could cope with a terminal-only
>> computer[1].
>> [?]
>>
>> The only way to really find out was to give it a go.
>
> I am glad you tried, sure it was a nice and very different
> experience.
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Doing everything from the terminal just isn't viable for me,
>> mostly because I didn't grow up with it.
>
> Fair enough, but at least you tried to see what things were
> like for us old people.  But yes, big changes like this are
> hard to deal with.
>
> I started before DOS existed on minis and I remember when
> GUIs became a thing.  I had to be dragged kicking and
> screaming into that environment :)  Still I pretty much live
> in Xterms and only need a GUI for browsing and html email.

Through the wonders of alpine, atleast you can do html email in the 
terminal as well! =)

I use the gui for web browsing, reading pdf:s and libreoffice. The rest 
sits in the terminal (email, programming/scripting, tinkering, reading 
text files).

I have been thinking about moving the reading part of web browsing into 
the terminal as well, but haven't found a browser I'm happy with. Modern 
web sites tend to become too messed up when viewed in the terminal. Maybe 
it would be possible to write a kind of "pre-processor" that formats web 
sites with a text based browser in mind?

> <snip>
>
> Nice post!
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26183

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> I have been thinking about moving the reading part of web browsing
> into the terminal as well, but haven't found a browser I'm happy
> with.

I use Elinks, Emacs/EWW and W3m, but none of them can replace the scary
fullfat browsers.  They seem to just fit Smolweb stuff (FTP, Gemini,
Gopher and similar).

> Maybe it would be possible to write a kind of "pre-processor" that
> formats web sites with a text based browser in mind?

Despite me finding this solution really scary, something like that
indeed exists:

    <https://www.brow.sh/>

-- 
4. Hitchhiker 11:
(72) "Watch the road!'' she yelped.
(73) "Shit!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26185

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, yeti wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> I have been thinking about moving the reading part of web browsing
>> into the terminal as well, but haven't found a browser I'm happy
>> with.
>
> I use Elinks, Emacs/EWW and W3m, but none of them can replace the scary
> fullfat browsers.  They seem to just fit Smolweb stuff (FTP, Gemini,
> Gopher and similar).

True.

>> Maybe it would be possible to write a kind of "pre-processor" that
>> formats web sites with a text based browser in mind?
>
> Despite me finding this solution really scary, something like that
> indeed exists:
>
>    <https://www.brow.sh/>

Ah yes... I've seen this before! I did drop it due to its dependency on 
FF, but the concept is similar. My idea was to aggressively filter a web 
page before passing it on to elinks or similar.

Perhaps rewriting it a bit in order to avoid the looooooong list of menu 
options or links that always come up at the top of the page, before the 
content of the page shows after a couple of page downs (this happens for 
instance if I go to wikipedia).

Instead parsing it, and adding those links at the bottom, removing 
javascript, and perhaps passing on only the text. Well, those are only 
ideas. Maybe I'll try, maybe I won't. Time will tell! =)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26189

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, yeti wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> I have been thinking about moving the reading part of web browsing
>>> into the terminal as well, but haven't found a browser I'm happy
>>> with.
>>
>> I use Elinks, Emacs/EWW and W3m, but none of them can replace the scary
>> fullfat browsers.  They seem to just fit Smolweb stuff (FTP, Gemini,
>> Gopher and similar).
> 
> True.

I like seeing useful images, so prefer Dillo and Links (the latter
does support display via the framebuffer so you can run it
graphically without X).

>>> Maybe it would be possible to write a kind of "pre-processor" that
>>> formats web sites with a text based browser in mind?
>>
>> Despite me finding this solution really scary, something like that
>> indeed exists:
>>
>>    <https://www.brow.sh/>
> 
> Ah yes... I've seen this before! I did drop it due to its dependency on 
> FF, but the concept is similar. My idea was to aggressively filter a web 
> page before passing it on to elinks or similar.
> 
> Perhaps rewriting it a bit in order to avoid the looooooong list of menu 
> options or links that always come up at the top of the page, before the 
> content of the page shows after a couple of page downs (this happens for 
> instance if I go to wikipedia).

Lucky if it's just a couple of page-downs, I can easily be
hammering the button on some insane pages where 10% is the actual
content and 90% is menu links. Often it's quicker to press End
and work up from the bottom, but many websites have a few pages of
junk at the bottom too now, so you have to hunt for the little
sliver of content in the middle.

> Instead parsing it, and adding those links at the bottom, removing 
> javascript, and perhaps passing on only the text.

A similar approach is taken by frogfind.com, except rather than
parsing the links and putting them at the end, it detetes them,
which makes it impossible to navigate many websites. It does the
other things you mention, but the link rewriting would probably be
the hardest part to get right with a universal parser.

Site-specific front-ends are a simpler goal. This is a list of ones
that work in Dillo, and therefore without Javascript:
https://alex.envs.net/dillectory/

Of course then you have the problem of them breaking as soon as the
target site/API changes or blocks them.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web