Shdwdrgn

On my system if I single-click it highlights the entire address. If I double-click it highlight the word (usually the parts between period and slashes). Triple-click highlights the entire URL once more. However I was not aware of the click-and-hold option! Thank you for that, it will certainly be helpful in many instances!

I still have the problem of grabbing something like an Amazon address, where I don't want all their nonsense when I send it to someone, I just want the short link to the product. Unfortunately if the description in included in the URL (as it is in most Amazon listings) then the end of the direct URL is outside the right side of my address bar so I used to be able to just click towards the end of the visible URL then cursor over to the end of what I want to grab. The new behavior means that I either click, then have to wait a couple seconds before clicking again to place the cursor, or I click once then have move the cursor all the way from the end of the URL to get where I wanted. I think your method will let me highlight a small portion at the end of what I can see and then move the cursor from there, so I'll wait and see how that works out in practice.

Open any document. Single click somewhere within that document. What do you expect to happen? Do you expect your cursor to be placed where you clicked, or do you expect the entire line to be highlighted? My guess is that you expect consistency in every application doing the same thing for a single click.

Just because one browser decided to change how they react, and everybody else copied that behavior, does not mean it is the correct or expected behavior. You've just gotten used to the difference that was forced on you, but imagine if every application on your desktop reacted differently depending on how many times you clicked a spot? What happens when they also start modifying the results of a right-click into something unexpected like clearing your cookies? Is that also OK just because one browser started doing it and every other browser copied that function?

They all do it NOW. They did not always do it this way. Firefox is what I've always used, so I know they used to let the desktop handle how clicks were managed. Literally anything else on my desktop, if I click once it simply places the cursor where I clicked. And since I need to copy partial URLs multiple times a day, this change is something that constantly aggravates me. Now I have to click the address bar four times quickly in order for it to finally place the cursor where I'm clicking at. It's not nitpicking if they intentionally changed an operation to no longer follow the rules of everything else on the desktop. Being inconsistent is not user-friendly.

I think it was around FF78 that they changed this behavior. Before that a single click just placed the cursor, double-click highlighted a word, and triple-click highlighted the entire address. This is the behavior for anything I click anywhere on my desktop (debian/mate) so I suspect what happened is the firefox devs decided to hard-code the behavior instead of letting the desktop handle it. I know there was a bug report for the issue which the devs repeatedly closed as won't fix, at one point literally saying this was the way things worked in Windows and they were following that path for consistency across all operating systems, despite multiple examples given to show this was NOT the expected behavior on any Linux platform.

I'm not too surprised Chrome does this too, but it does make me wonder if Chrome following this path is the reason why the FF devs decided to copy it? Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean that is the correct or expected behavior. ;-)

Firefox originally followed the method that I see in Caja (and for that matter literally anything else that you click on) where the first time you click it simply puts the cursor in that location, a second click highlights the word, and a third click highlights the entire line. Since around FF78 they changed it so you have to click FOUR times to finally place the cursor where you are clicking. This is something I use multiple times every day to grab a portion of a URL, so the change in behavior is constantly on my mind.

Absolutely nothing happened, we barely even got a rise in the Kp index.

And what's with all these fearmongering articles lately always claiming that a "massive" burst is gong to disrupt radios and GPS? Has anyone even seen this happen in recent history? I mean sure, if you get a burst strong enough to be seeing aurora as far south as Texas in the US then you might be getting into the region of affecting communications, but they keep pushing these warnings for solar bursts that aren't even strong enough to trigger aurora over the continental US.

Checking my image recordings the only thing I see as an ejection around 12 hours ago, so it would have to be a really fast burst to arrive today? Current Kp index is only at 2.3 which is pretty normal, and even NOAA's own forecast shows nothing happening. I'd say this event is a dud.

To give you a perspective on just how far away the sun is, if it were to blow up right now you wouldn't even see the light from the event for another 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

Go advertise on Twitter. I hear your kind are welcome there now.

I used to run Ubuntu on my servers but abandoned it because it was so unreliable. Things like a "security" update that completely broke the network card drivers, or another one that caused NFS connections to reboot the machine under a heavy load. I switched over to Debian at that point and have never had any problems in the past decade. Since so many people run Arch, I'm guessing it is similarly stable and will be a good choice for you (at least I think you said you were running it in your OP?). I'll have to look through those services you mentioned, I haven't heard of most of them.

KVM has been my go-to for many years of running servers because it is extremely lightweight. Like for example, last year I finally ditched the old poweredge 860 servers (very early 2000's machines which topped out with a dual-core CPU and 8GB of memory), however from these servers I was running half a dozen virtual linux boxes handling websites and email. Of course running a Windows vm is going to take a lot more resources but any desktop computer that is less than a decade old would easily handle it while still managing your regular linux desktop.

One caveat about KVM, however, is that there's not really a great GUI interface for it. There IS a monitor to manage the VMs you have up and running, but I always launch new VMs from the command line, which is pretty much just a matter of setting the name and memory, pointing it to an existing image file or ISO, and then using the GUI monitor to launch a VNC remote connection to handle getting a new OS installed or make changes to an existing image to get it on the network. I don't consider this a burden, but then again I grew up on the command line.