From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:   
      
   >> Oh, that might even make my python script redundant! This gets more   
   interesting   
   >> by the minute!   
   >   
   > It will surely do.  (It is also a powerful filter, so you can organize   
   > your NNTP articles into various different Maildir, essentially being   
   > your NNTP client from the downloading perspective.  For uploading, we   
   > will need another program.)   
      
   Excellent! I wonder if it can replace mbsync nicely as well? Would be nice to   
   have fdm handle both my mbsync (so sync imap folders to local laptop) _and_ to   
   take care of news posts! I can easily see how the filters would take care of   
   sorting the posts from various newsgroups into their respective folders in my   
   mail client.   
      
   As for posting, my mail client, alpine, has that covered! =)   
      
   >> Never heard of. It was a bit too quick, so I'm still not quite sure what it   
   >> does. Some of that jumping around can be achieved in vim, but since I'm not   
   >> familiar with lisp nor with exactly what he was doing, it is difficult   
   >> to say.   
   >   
   > I'd bet vim can do the same.   
   >   
   > It's not important.  But the illustration there is that Lisp programmers   
   > don't worry about parentheses; it's all managed by them by editors such   
   > as the GNU EMACS (with its various packages for handling these   
   > specialized operations).   
      
   Yes, that makes a lot more sense. Manually typing all of those parentheses   
   would   
   be horrible! ;) It reminds me of an old xkcd comic... there were your father   
   parenthesis, a more civilized weapon for a more civilized age. ;)   
      
   >>> It's a pleasure to use paredit-mode.  Let me quote Donald Norman.  I'm   
   >>> gonna show a larger quote, but my point here is on pleasure of use and a   
   >>> ``feeling of control''.   
   >>   
   >> This is true. I like the idea that everything is a file, and that log files   
   are   
   >> plain text. It increases my feeling of control over the system.   
   >   
   > Good illustration!   
   >   
   >> That is why I do not like systemd. It moves away from this philosophy   
   >> and frankly, I still have not experienced anything that I need systemd   
   >> for, that could not have been solved without it.   
   >   
   > One thing I liked about systemd is that regular users can have their own   
   > daemons.  But it turns out that's the only thing about systemd that I   
   > ever liked.  And even then I changed my opinion.  Daemons are not really   
   > meant to be managed by regular users; if there's any user that should   
   > have the right to run a daemon, then they should have sysadmin powers,   
   > even if specifically just for the task at hand.  Bottom line: it's a   
   > neat thing that it does, but it might not quite be a real need.   
      
   I agree! That's the problem, it tries to be too neat, and to do too much. In   
   the   
   end you have this horrible monolithic kludge that will probably crash due to   
   its   
   complexity, and take the system with it.   
      
   Another thing I intensely dislike with it is the long and convoluted syntax of   
   the commands. I mean just look at "ls"... it's beautiful! And "l" followed by   
   an   
   "s"! =D   
      
   Now look at this horrible mess: "systemctl list-timers" Yuck!   
      
   > Let's take daemontools by djb, say.  You can let regular users run their   
   > own daemons with a simple UNIX command of letting the directory where   
   > daemon lives have the adequate permissions for regular users to manage   
   > their own daemons.   
   >   
   > Now let's take the dependency management of systemd.  Is that neat and   
   > cool?  It is.  But a competent sysadmin knows exactly what's needed in   
   > his start-up scripts---he doesn't need something complex to handle it.   
   > If he doesn't, he would want to learn.  Once he learns, I can't quite   
   > see much of a point in having those things be completely managed by a   
   > monolithic subsystem that's trying to hide details from the sysadmin.   
   >   
   >> Sad!   
   >   
   > It's alright.  As long as there are systems that don't buy the Microsoft   
   > way of things, we're good.  And there will always be because hackers   
   > never buy into the nonsense.   
      
   That's good! After all, if I don't want systemd, there are distributions   
   without   
   it. =) The only annoying thing is that since I teach linux I am forced to teach   
   the most common tools, and sadly that means systemd.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)