One of the annoyances of Linux is working out where configuration information is, following through multiple layers of indirection and files over-riding other files. This looks like adding another layer, another place to look, and if you're reading the man file for a shell (for example) it probably won't even mention that this could invalidate the information contained in that in the man file.
So the solution to not having a man page that tells you where the config is… is to write a PR for your own documentation for someone else’s project? lol riiight
You're not wrong. In a worst case scenario I resort to using strace to figure out where a program is reading config from.. from what I understand, if this kernel module is in use then even that approach wouldn't help.
But since the use case is personal dotfiles, I imagine the user isn't going to forget that they set this up.
To be fair the author shows an example of using NixOS. It's absolutely another layer of indirection (probably several) but it does make that usual Linux "fun" less problematic because of its immutable nature and API design.
> this could invalidate the information contained in that in the man file.
No, it doesn't. The point of modetc is precisely keep both myself and the programs happy: the files are actually stored where I like to keep them, but they can be accessed as if they were stored where the developer intended.
And I said that the man pages would be a part of what you have to examine. 95 pages in the case of bash (that's after running it through troff). man pages were fine when they were three pages long, but their lack of any internal index has become a problem.
Ok, now you might have a dozen files which could contain the information, where the location of each file can be modified by environment variables. It's tolerable if you are working on something you change weekly, but a practical problem if you do it yearly or it's entirely new.
'man bash'. Type G. Press PgUp until you see the FILES heading (took one press for my terminal size). There's your list of files. Alternatively, instead of G and PgUp, type /FILES<Enter>.
Of course, this doesn't help at all when software either doesn't have manpages, or doesn't include the list of files in the manpage. Just nitpicking your bash example.
This is HN, not Reddit. You can safely assume that every single person here knows how to use man, particularly if they mention using troff to format it properly. There remains a problem.
I truly wasn't sure if they were aware of man's search and go to options, as they brought up 95 pages as being why it was hard to find configuration file locations for bash.
When I'm searching for configuration file location, I do use '/FILES' or PgUp from the bottom of the manpage, so the length of the manpages is irrelevant.
With HMRC, the reasoning is that this forces the company to have an accounting package. They don't care which, they just define the API. Not unreasonable. There are more issues with MTD IT (making tax digital, income tax) due to some detailed requirement decisions such as the need to report different income streams separately.
It is easy, yes. About the equivalent of two or three A levels for anyone in the UK. However the point is not networking, but understanding large areas of business operation that you don't already know. For people like us, that's generally things like strategy, finance, marketing (which isn't the same thing as advertising), organisational behaviour (effectively applied sociology), HR (the weakest area of the course I took). It's not particularly useful for networking, since the people you meet are at your own level.
A library card etc. are useful, but a very long way from the usefulness of a planned and taught course. And no, I haven't missed the point - you most certainly have. There are useful methods of networking, and they are based on breadth (how many people you meet), depth (how specific your discussions can be) and length of engagement. People from completely different industries whom you meet over coffee in a group exercise are not that, and would not justify the cost of the course. What does justify it is what you learn.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that map relates to the title. It's not showing just the Scottish Highlands (roughly speaking the north-west half of Scotland), but the whole of Scotland, Ireland and Wales, plus about half of England, including the famously flat Lincolnshire fens.
So, you expected a map that omits all adjoining land to the mountains?
Most people wouldn't object to an article about Kilimanjaro containing a map of where it is in Tanzania, but for reference, here is a map of just the mountain: O.
The current models are apparently ok. Wet clutch, which realistically won't wear out and is certainly not vulnerable to the engine seal failure which traditionally took out BMW clutches, and from what I gather they don't require the bike to be returned to kit form to change it. Also they finally got rid of the Bochum indicator switches.
BMW bikes have improved. It used to be with the last of the dry clutch flat twins that when the clutch failed (and it would fail), you had to remove the back half of the bike. Literally. As in not figuratively, to avoid doubt. The front half would be left standing, like some bisected cow artwork. Apparently it was a two day job.
I mean, they are generally excellent motorcycles. Their monocylinders are super smooth with great handling.
But often you have to deal with those weird engineering decisions that make repairs annoying. My local garage is a BMW car specialist, and it appears that it's basically the same deal.
Funnily enough, in my youth I visited the BMW factory in Munich, and I was amazed back then. But the maintenance fails to amaze as much, haha.
This is an area I have some peripheral involvement with. For retrofitted sails on bulkers, the figure of 10% saving in fuel is the usual one mentioned rather than 20%. However given the long life of ships, there is much more interest in retrofit than in new build.
You mention container ships. I haven't seen anything explicit on these, and I think the reason is probably that they cruise much faster than bulkers and tankers, which means the potential savings from sail is smaller. I would have thought 20% optimistic even for a new-build.
Retro fit is clearly a preferred path for a new approach given ship life spans and size of existing global transport fleet.
My gut objection to the container approach taken above in the first link was existing container locking mechanisms for ships can struggle in severe weather to keep the boxes on the boat .. additional forces from a sail (in good weather) might well mimic the forces that break stacks in bad weather.
Your point is well taken, I might suggest that container ships could be segregated into fast and slow cargo and that might help somewhat with total fleet fuel consumption. (pure spitball notion).
I'm sure there's plenty of businesses out there who'd love to advertise near zero or zero emissions transport for their goods, with the caveat that they have to plan a few more months ahead.
Also if possible, use a unique email address for each site. I know that's not feasible for most people, and some sites (e.g. LinkedIn) are structured so that email addresses become linked, but it does provide useful isolation.
reply