https://www.privacyguides.org/fr/real-time-communication/

It will definitely be the only utility I recall that uses a numeral.

Utility names should include lowercase letters (the lower character classification) and digits only from the portable character set.

• https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/idx/utilities.html
  • https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/m4.html
    • m is for macro processor. 3 is the version number. In the days of its creation, programs were given as short a name as possible to preserve memory and disk space as both were expensive and in short supply.
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_(computer_language)
  • https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/fort77.html
  • https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/c99.html
    • It was difficult to achieve a satisfactory solution to the problem of name space in option characters. When the standard developers desired to extend the historical cc utility to accept ISO C standard programs, they found that all of the portable alphabet was already in use by various vendors. Thus, they had to devise a new name, c89 (now superseded by c99), rather than something like cc -X.

Note that many versions of macOS adhere to these standards: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3700.htm https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3705.htm

I know it had been this way for decades and was grandfathered in as a feature

If people were more resistant to "grandfathered" features I think we would not have as much software as we do today: https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better

provide about 50%--80% of what you want from an operating system

one expects that if the 50% functionality Unix and C support is satisfactory, they will start to appear everywhere.

Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses.

users have already been conditioned to accept worse than the right thing.

It's probably possible to make several programs with "50% functionality" in the time it takes to make one program with 100% functionality. Having more programs that are suitable for a majority of relevant applications is probably better than having one program that is suitable for all relevant applications, since having more programs will probably enable a larger variety of problems to be solved, and people often have to solve many different types of problems in their life.

what does usr mean

https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04.html

Some operating systems may handle long path or file names in a surprising way, so having short paths and names is useful: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_13

If any pathname component is longer than {NAME_MAX}, the implementation shall consider this an error.

if the combined length exceeds {PATH_MAX}, and the implementation considers this to be an error, pathname resolution shall fail

{NAME_MAX} and {PATH_MAX} are described in more detail at https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/limits.h.html#tag_13_23_03_02 and used in the context of https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/pathchk.html

Note

The resources I linked are descriptive and not prescriptive, but in my experience they are suitable to depend upon as a reliable baseline, which makes meeting client requirements with software engineering easier.

You surely need to explicitly cause systemd to process changes after writing to a file. I would be very surprised if it reacted to file system changes automatically.

For example, I recall that I need to execute a command like systemctl daemon-reload after editing a service file: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/364782/what-does-systemctl-daemon-reload-do

You might get more useful information from resources like https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/systemctl.1.html

Linear Tape-Open (LTO) has significant advantages in certain situations, such that you have to make specific design decisions if you don't want people to use it: https://www.chia.net/2018/06/11/the-asic-resistance-of-proof-of-space/ https://chiaforum.com/t/lto-tape-drive-as-a-storage-option/12829/3

I will always remember stumbling upon this video ("HP Protecting your business data (or Disc vs Tape)"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHP_bKJx2xg

If you're not trying to change other people's behavior, what are you doing?

Finding sources you can trust is helpful. For example, I trust the ArchWiki and POSIX.1-2017, and I follow instructions I find there, which helps me accomplish things without having to spend time thinking about the rationale of those instructions (since the instructions have probably been independently reviewed many times, and if there was something wrong with them I'd probably have heard about that). It would probably also be helpful to be able to trust instructions at https://libretube.dev/ for similar reasons.

I don't think keeping my thoughts to myself is a good idea, since I don't want other people to disrupt my life (unintentionally or intentionally), and giving notice about how I want to spend my life is helpful.

I do think my comments are helpful (and that helpfulness is relevant). If I didn't think that I wouldn't be commenting.

The end of the article does try to take a hopeful tone:

“I definitely prefer talking with people in real life, though,” he added.

I don't necessarily agree with everything though:

While some of the culture around Character.AI is concerning, it also mimics the internet activity of previous generations who, for the most part, have turned out just fine.

I don't think you answered my questions.

I started discussing your likes and dislikes, as an Internet forum is for conversation. How you choose to engage in that conversation is your choice, but it doesn't mean a conversation isn't happening.

The reason replied to you is that I wanted to rebut statements that I consider to be incorrect, and to save other people from taking time to do that and from seeing your comment go unanswered. I don't really care about your replies other than to accomplish those goals. You may perceive that as being disingenuous (though I suspect your behavior is more related to the fact I have disagreements with you, or some preexisting inclination), but I don't really care about that.

Assumptions do change people's behavior, probably in many significant ways every day: "it doesn't have to be fact to cause people to act". Perhaps you should spend more time expressing your opinions in a compelling way so that people have more knowledge, and therefore don't need to hold as many assumptions.

Those URLs came from about:addons. I think it's important to provide as much provenance as I can to help people get programs, so I didn't edit the URL Firefox provided to me.

I haven't been stopped from watching YouTube videos for several months now, despite the fact I use different devices at different times. I use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/reviews/?utm_source=firefox-browser&utm_medium=firefox-browser&utm_content=addons-manager-reviews-link and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/reviews/?utm_source=firefox-browser&utm_medium=firefox-browser&utm_content=addons-manager-reviews-link and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dearrow/reviews/?utm_source=firefox-browser&utm_medium=firefox-browser&utm_content=addons-manager-reviews-link

I did have problems using YouTube many months ago, but I tried to watch a few videos each day and after a few days things started working normally again.

Do you like a compiled app differently from source code used to generate it? Your previous reply made it seem that is true.

Am I incorrect in thinking that a compiled app can be assumed FOSS when the text "License: GNU General Public License v3.0 or later" is on the page I use to install it, along with a link to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0-standalone.html

You don't like a compiled app differently from source code due to it not being FOSS. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say you would prefer the compilation process to be more easily verifiable for you.

Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is available under a license that grants the right to use, modify, and distribute the software, modified or not, to everyone free of charge.

I expect this discussion is regarding apps like LibreTube, the license of which is "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later" and is available free of charge.

The GNU General Public License grants the right to use, modify, and distribute the software, modified or not, to everyone free of charge:

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License.

The GNU General Public License can be applied to programs:

You can apply it to your programs, too.

An app (that is compiled) is a program:

An application (program), especially a small one designed for a mobile device.

Therefore, a compiled app with the GNU General Public License applied is FOSS.

I recall this was originally titled something like "June 4, 1989"