You must log in or # to comment.
I was just thinking yesterday about how the half adder probably violates the Unix design principles
No, it’s okay if you combine them with pipes.
Unix principals include Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson, and Brian Kernighan
Unix principles include tools that do one thing and do it well, casting directories and sockets as file abstractions, and clean separation between kernel and userspace modes.
Gawd it’s great to see unabashed grammar pedantry.
Gawd T-T
Spelling pedantry, really
“Spell Nazi” sounds like an actual evil-wizard title, tbf.
Whatever its shortcomings, it surely must be better than Microslop’s Coshampoo. Who the heck wants an attendant watching you shower?!
No kinkshaming lol
I am ALL for exhibitionism in non offensive settings, but Microslop up my ass? No spank you. 😝
up my ass
That is not what shampoo is for
Sure it is, it’s right there in the name. That’s why it’s a sham.
I oft co-wash my hair (washing the hair only with conditioner instead of shampoo).
Eh I think its fine. Its just
clean hair --conditionor
clean body --moisturizeAnd its not like literally any cleaning product on the market isn’t just a wrapper around
libcleananywayEdit: libclean is deprecated, now its all either libsoap or its newer fork libpid
libpid
🤣
Make sure to run “clean body” before and after you fsck
That’s true, but neither of those options are POSIX-compliant. You have to set POSIX_ME_SLIMY for clean to also condition.
Son, I’m crine
me slimy ,😭
Fuck that’s a good edit
suckless shampoo: you have to build it yourself. want no tears? that’s a patch. smell like coconut? patch. you forgot to add the coconut smell to the config so it’s not gonna build, try again.
Suckless shampoo is just a bucket of wood ash and pork tallow.
I am. It washes my body (as in corporeal form)
My hair quality became noticeably better when I started using SOLID shampoo. DRY shampoo, if you will
What if it’s systemd’s shampood?
Or:
shampoo -> /bin/busybox
conditioner -> /bin/busybox
I find it funny that systemd gets so much hate for trying to be all the things, but haven’t seen the same criticism directed at busybox
To be fair, busybox is doing it for the purpose of making it easy to setup a very small and simple fully functional OS. Systemd is doing it for the purpose of ???
For the purpose of managing system.
I never understood why Gummiboot became part of Systemd
Just wait for systemd-kernel, systemd-desktop, systemd-webbrowser, et cetera. You know it’s coming.
Gnu/linux -> gnu/systemd -> systemd/systemd
deleted by creator
Þere’s no such þing.
systemd-cleanincludessytemd-bodywashsystemd-shampoosystemd-conditionersystemd-showersystemd-house
and þey’re all interdependent. Someone once tried to decouple
systemd-shampoobut it was so much effort þey hard-forked it. Þe only þing it doesn’t include (yet) isyard.And it looks like þis!
Does this also apply to emacs?
2-in-1 shampoos suck tho, so unix wins again
Shampoo: Remove oils and thereby remove dirt attached to oils. Conditioner: Restore oils to your hair.
2-in-1: Restore oils while also removing oils?
Exactly.
Shampoo is supposed to remove dirt and grease from your hair. Conditioner is supposed to replace the necessary oils your hair needs to have. … Which need to be replaced because the shampoo just washed them all away. In order to make a 2-in-1 shampoo and conditioner, they have to make a significant compromise, producing a shampoo that doesn’t wash all the grime out and a conditioner that doesn’t stay and replenish as well as a standalone one would. So you get both in one bottle … but a shitty version of both. Using separate products will work much better. Even the cheapest shampoo and cheapest conditioner out there, used individually, will easily outperform even the fanciest combination.
Oh, and while we’re here… That thing on the bottle that says ‘lather, rinse, repeat’? It’s not just for fun, and not just because they want you to use more shampoo. It actually does work noticeably better if you do it twice in a row.
I am following your logic, but as someone who’s been using a 2 in 1 for like a decade, I can tell you everyones hair needs are different. I’ve used them separately as well and it really does not make a difference for me.
Even the cheapest shampoo and cheapest conditioner out there, used individually, will easily outperform even the fanciest combination.
But I really take offence to this line, absolutely not true. The cheapest shampoo will dry up/irritate your scalp, the cheapest conditioner will make your hair feel like an oil spill.
irrelevant unless you can prove you aren’t bald
Folks shampoo is for you skalp/hair roots and conditioner is for the tips only.
Which means conditioner is irrelevant for anyone without long hair
Just the tip?
I have really long hair and another benefit of doing them separately is, it’s easiest to brush it right after applying conditioner, and harder when it has shampoo in it. So there’s that on top of really needing the conditioner to work well.
(“do one thing well“)
I prefer the gnu 2-in-1, in order to have a different implementation to the BSD version they optimised for speed over space.
just use awk
*principles
