Cool promising future that failed to currently deliver for most

Some could not be happier, though.

Honestly, Manjaro community differs from place to place as well.

Russian Manjaro community didn’t go much far from Arch one. English, though, is very decent.

The contrast is very strong with the Arch Wiki, which does a genuinely good job - for a set of short articles - at explaining how that whole machinery works. Yet, if you don’t understand something from there - good luck finding a person to explain what to do.

Written in a typical rude condescending hacker speak.

Let’s call it for what it is - it’s more of a frustration vent than a guide. And this approach will certainly not make these people read through.

There are always way more polite ways to put it, like:

“Most of the questions you face about software are replied to by unpaid volunteers taking spare time to help you - thereby, the more effort you’ll put into properly filing the issue, the quicker you’ll get a response. Here are main points that we may need in order to help with your problem, and a way to obtain all information required”

The most reasonable approach, I guess.

Will take a look, thanks

The terminal commands have same idea and structure and apply to the entirety of your system. While it is still sometimes annoying to learn CLI commands of third-party apps (yes, I know of man, but it can be useless without examples at times), commands are generally the same for Linux systems and they cover everything.

Learning vim is like learning Linux terminal again, but for just one task of word processing in one specific application. Why?

With that being said, I’d rather solve most of my problems with GUI applications rather than go into a terminal. I can do stuff through terminal - I know basics of Linux/Unix commands - but just why? For most routine tasks, it is simply faster and easier to go with GUI, unless you are over SSH or just have a terminal-only instance, or unless you’re a sysadmin that does it 20 times each day and have muscle memory running in front of thinking what you wanna do.

I know how to update packages through terminal - the thing you demonstrate. But I can also press two buttons in app store and it will all be done for me, so why bother? (Also, you call it three steps, but it’s kinda two steps on Debian or other apt-based distros followed by one step in Arch and other pacman-enabled ones? I’m confused)

I’m certainly not gonna use terminal for word processing unless I absolutely have to. And for that, I’ll pick nano.

Linux has to get more user-friendly - and it does. Most people are not die-hard terminal fanatics and want to get their stuff done with minimal headache - and that’s where it goes and should go. Being vim elitist doubles down on that terminal philosophy that is alien to an average user. And we should not discourage any type of user to try Linux for as long as they are willing to figure truly necessary stuff out.

Fair enough.

I guess someone can make use of this all, just not regular users. Besides, the controls are very legacy and it would make sense to make an updated version just to keep it more in line with tools people are used to and generally enhance user experience.

A new media for the new generation. In an era of ever-growing flow of information, it’s only natural pieces are more and more condensed and visual. That’s how we got here.

It’s a trap

You just kindly described why no one ever should use Vim :D

Using xyzbdvefsisgshs to copy-paste a line is not the level of convenience someone expects from a modern tool

I mean, first we stop bloodshed, second we start negotiations and high-level diplomacy.

War is currently the highest priority, and then come all the issues around apartheid and Israel’s actions in peace time

Yes, with some of them coming back and stealing houses and murdering families, too.

Look, never have I ever argued they are right; what happens in Palestine is a bunch of war crimes and I really hope Netanyahu and company will suffer grave consequences.

People are super quick to trigger on the subject.

But human psychology is flawed, especially after traumatizing events; I’m only saying that it’s natural for Israelis to behave this way, even if not right, and when people are fanatically holding some position (because they see the alternative as eventual death, y’know), hatred might not be the solution.

Right now, as people die, we should focus on what’s effective, not a knee-jerk. That’s why police holds negotiations with terrorists, for example. Because it’s more effective at preserving human lives, not because they sympathize.

I want this war to end as soon as possible. Do you?

Did Nazis get convinced they are baddies?

That’s what’s most important at the end of the day.

Also, the parallels are incorrect, Jews did not attack Germans

I know exactly 0 instances when hate and blame game made people reconsider

It’s just generally hard to change what’s happening and reactions of Israelis, this is deeply influenced by human physchology - all I’m saying.

No, because it’s a natural human reaction on danger - they want to eliminate it, everything be damned.

Not even blaming them, despite them being super wrong with big consequences. All we can do is reach out and try to explain that their army is causing even more suffering some of them just endured, and that not all Palestinians are the kinds of guys who broke into Israel.

As an avid Palestine supporter, I gotta say the news is not about that, and bringing it up out of context is just the means to hijack attention to the position we’re all already aware of.

This piece of news is good, regardless of the conflict. Might be a little weird for them to focus on that right now, might be a political game, but it is good regardless.

My congratulations to Israeli LGBTQ+ community.

We should certainly establish the same definition of “green”, as it is so wide it encompasses both of our positions.

I claim that most people expect EVs to be the solution for eco-friendly transportation that is sustainable and future-proof. And this is not true. That’s what I meant.

It’s important to clear out why it is unrealistic in order to address it. I see two reasons: 1.Governments not doing enough to promote and build effective public transit 2.People not willing to lose comfort of driving their own car - something that insulates them from other people and allows to move anywhere anytime.

And both are solvable through policy changes. First, we desperately need to invest in public transit. We can get money by taxing car sales more, which will shift both sides of the equation by making cars less affordable, while at the same time freeing up money for public transit development (of course, less sales of cars should be factored in). We need more routes, more comfortable conditions for passengers, more relatively low-scale options to drive passengers to less popular destinations. We also need to subsidize taxi and car rentals for cases when someone actually needs a car.

But those are the solutions that might get negative reaction of the public at first, and this tension is to me the most problematic (of course after lobbying made by automakers). Populist leaders will never go for that step, or they risk losing their popularity and influence.

The point is that the rise of electic cars slows down the kinds of fundamental shifts and, most importantly, policy changes we need in order to actually get sustainable.

While it can be seen as an improvement, at the end of the day we end up not taking measures we absolutely should. Everyone is just advertising EV’s as a solution, which they are not. At best, it’s a transient stage before people can finally accept they cannot drive a car in an environmentally friendly way, ever.

You’ve just knocked down strawman yourself.

The point made by commenter is not that cars are the only source of climate change, but that EV industry is in itself heavily polluting and unsustainable. While it is true that it is a little less heavy on the environment than an ICE car (assuming you drive it regularly, because building an EV is less environmentally friendly, actually), it is still an incredibly environmentally unfriendly solution.

Manufacturing is super polluting and expends very limited resources in huge quantities. Energy sources are normally NOT green, and even if they are, they are not harmless, too. Tyres are still a giant problem. Parking lots require a lot of urban spaces, which leads to stretching cities and exacerbating problems with all transportation, as well as leading to deforestation on the outskirts and ramped up asphalt production. More roads are required, meaning again, more intervention in natural ecosystems, extreme amounts of resources and pollution.

There is simply no way you can drive a 2-ton car to move ~70kg human around with it making any ecological sense, while many people pretend that EV’s are here to save us. No, sorry, they are not; you’ll have to change your habits if you want to keep Earth habitable. Period.