And at least in some distributions, they do exactly that, a number of aliases for the same interface. And you can add your own.

Per https://www.gnu.org/software/tar/, it’s been the case since 2004, so for about 19 and a half years…

Well, tar.zstd is starting to be the thing now.

You don’t need the z, it auto detects the compression

I also speak English, and now I’m extra exiled and will have to go to some country that I don’t speak the language.

I was not familiar and I’m American. Guess they’ll have to exile me somewhere…

Yep, and I see evidence of that over complication in some ‘getting started’ questions where people are asking about really convoluted design points and then people reinforcing that by doubling down or sometimes mentioning other weird exotic stuff, when they might be served by a checkbox in a ‘dumbed down’ self-hosting distribution on a single server, or maybe installing a package and just having it run, or maybe having to run a podman or docker command for some. But if they are struggling with complicated networking and scaling across a set of systems, then they are going way beyond what makes sense for a self host scenario.

Based on what I’ve seen, I’d also say a homelab is often needlessly complex compared to what I’d consider a sane approach to self hosting. You’ll throw all sorts of complexity to imitate the complexity of things you are asked to do professionally, that are either actually bad, but have hype/marketing, or may bring value, but only at scales beyond a household’s hosting needs and far simpler setups will suffice that are nearly 0 touch day to day.

While that is technically true, Microsoft didn’t really make any effort to correct the misunderstanding, despite it being a widely reported story in tech.

I suspect they had a legitimate faction that was going to say “rolling release” and so they let it go.

For the “don’t care” computer user? absolutely. Given that the key doesn’t exist at all by default, means it’s not discoverable even for someone that might think to randomly peruse the registry hierarchy. Even if you know it, it’s a typically tedious registry path. Based on Microsoft’s track record, the fact you know the registry key today doesn’t mean that key won’t change behaviors or move somewhere else randomly, or start having to be paired with some other registry key.

Contrast with Plasma, where the same capability is possible, and I just right clicked the button to check out settings and could easily figure out without help or internet search how to enable/disable internet results in the search. Further when I enabled it, the non-internet search stayed blazing fast. Then disabled it again because, well, why would I want that. I did however add browser tab search since I bothered to look because that is handy, just removed history and web search.

Well, sure, but this has a user hostile motive behind it.

Microsoft could have offered a right-click/disable internet search to facilitate. However, they wanted people to just give up and soak in start-menu driven internet action, so they buried the option in an obscure registry key.

The key is the start menu search to internet really makes the experience suck, as you try to type something on local system and some internet result gets prioritized, and by nature of the internet search, the internet search is unpredictable, so the search you do every day that usually opens up what you expect suddenly starts going to some internet site in edge.

In this case, I’d say it’s less about how the registry works, and more about how deliberately obnoxious Microsoft makes the experience for the sake of their agenda.

Sure if you have to deal with the registry at all, it’s “hard” but that’s casting stones from a glass house as dconf can be just as hard, and then you have the odd occasion where someone suggests dbus-send, which certainly doesn’t have room to mock registry handling as hard. The point is that most people never have to touch dconf/dbus directly to do what they want, and in Microsoft some things are deliberately obscure due to user hostile intentions.

Yeah, ansible is just full of these scenarios. Even in the best of times it demands an awful amount of verbosity.

Half the time I see people land with no more idempotency than they had before, which is supposed to be one of the big draws. A lot of the things they are frontending are inherently idempotent, and a lot of other times the modules themselves fail to be safe to run multiple times for the admins input. I’ve been shocked how fragile some modules have been given its regard in the industry.

I feel like Red hat has pulled off a remarkable marketing feat with Ansible.

I’m my work I consult with a lot of different sysadmins and have to be conversant in whatever they are using and that includes Ansible for a big chunk of the industry.

I’d say for about 90% of people I’ve worked with using ansible heavily after getting the hang of it, when they are being honest they don’t see what it is getting them (generally it’s a lot more tedious but not better than alternatives), but are afraid to admit it because “not getting Ansible” might be seen as being inadequate in the industry. And this is only counting the folks that I consider to have gotten far enough to be competent in Ansible, reflecting experiences of people who know how to use it, but still don’t understand why they should see it as “helpful”. Lots of people don’t make it that far (and those folks are even more shy because they think themselves “dumb” for not getting it ).

I agree, have seen so many people trying to document how to “desnap” Ubuntu and wondered why bother, you are fighting against what is now the whole point of Ubuntu while trying to use Ubuntu while so many other options exist.

I do happily encourage folks to explain why they left Ubuntu behind as I did (snaps). No confusion, just a reiteration of disappointment that they went from being my favorite distro to completely off my list with the snap stuff.

I can’t imagine anyone wanting to run KDE on a server or corporate workstation.

While I generally agree that there’s probably not much appetite among the distributions for switching default, this point seems weird. I don’t see why KDE would be any less desired than Gnome in that segment.

When I installed F39, it at least promoted and made opting into the most reasonable nonfree repositories. So at least recently they’ve gotten a bit more practical on that situation.

So to get it straight… You call people stating their preference on an open source project as being an entitled brat, while simultaneously saying you’ll never make any open source contributions while using open source because you wouldn’t like anyone disagreeing with you? That seems pretty entitled…

I would like the feedback to know why people do not like my project and if I feel like I should care about that perspective.

Further, gnome is hard to ignore, and getting harder all the time. Beyond being the default, even when I go to the trouble of switching the desktop, certain applications in GTK will bring the Gnome design language wherever it goes, and it’s deviated enough to not be possible to theme into consistency. It’s design decisions permeate the distributions and create some headaches even when you make a fair effort to opt out of it.

Well, at least with FlatPak the dependencies are likely shared, if applications are in the same ballpark.

Contrast with docker style where everything bundles their own dependencies so even if you have identical containers, you have essentially duplicate content wasting space.