teliva

com/ - https://onezero.medium.com/the-document-metaphor-desktop-gui... - https://den.dev/blog/user-hostile-software/ - https://www.charlieharrington.com/smart-phone-dumb-terminal/ - https://mattmower.com/2021/08/02/what-we-lost/ and COUNTLESS others, similarly many "new stuff"/innovations appear and are actually partial, limited and limiting solutions to problems already solved decades ago in a more broad and superior way. Emacs itself is a bit horrific in the sense that it's codebase is hard to be kept up by modern developers who have troubles knowing it, but at least represent the classic model. If we lost the memory of the past it will takes decades to reach the level of evolution we have already achieved witch is really a shame. Anytime I see new software, yours, LogSeq, some "new shiny file manager", Tiidly Wiki and so on, witch actually are a BIG effort to achieve something already existing with far less efforts thanks to an already made ecosystems who makes their development easier I have a sore smile: end users suffer from limits of modern software, DEVELOPERS suffer equally because craft something on top of modern systems it's equally terrible but we seems to be unable on one side to reach again a critical mass of users to being able to innovate again, on the other sides most people simply ignore the past so ignore what's lost. A stupid example: link an email in SB means essentially or support a specific MUA, tracking it's evolution since breaking changes might happen all the time or add an MUE inside SB. In Emacs it's just a simple function since anything is already there. In Plan 9 to cite a project often considered hostile from and to Emacs write an MUA is damn simple limiting mails to Plan 9 itself, an MUA it's just a specific viewer of some text stream read form some user-configured filesystems mounts and so on. The sore part is that's I can easy state the above, even in my poor English, but I have no practical solution because resurrecting the classic model for present times demand an effort ONLY a public funded body or a large community can made. We have dismissed "for business reasons" essentially all public research and we have essentially pushed to irrelevance all communities...

ies and open files, but prevent malicious code that creeps into it from scanning directories or opening files?

nstantly ask if the operational burdens justify some new feature. Just switching mindset that way from software as asset to software as liability has, I'd like to believe, helped my org's decision-making. > We have probably invested dev-millennia into managing copies. This is exactly what source control does. This is not a new area of investment. Merging is a giant pain in the ass and very possibly always will be. Accepting merge pain better come with some huge benefits. Not all copying is the same. We've learned to copy the letter 'e' so well in our writings that we don't even think about it. In this context, even if I made a tool to make copying easier and merges more reliable, that would just cause people to take on more dependencies which defeats the whole point of understanding dependencies. So tooling would be counter-productive in that direction. The direction I want to focus on is: how can we help people understand the software they've copied into their applications? _That_ is the place where I want tooling to focus. Copying is just an implementation detail, a first, imperfect, heuristic coping mechanism for going from the world we have today to the world I want to move to that has 1000x more forks and 1000x more eyeballs looking at source code. You can see some (very toy) efforts in this direction at https://github.com/akkartik/teliva > It’s untenable to have, e.g., everyone who works on Windows be an expert in every part of the code. It's frustrating to say one thing in response to counter-argument A and have someone then bring up counter-argument B because I didn't talk about it right there in the response to counter-argument A. I think this is what Plato was talking about when he ranted about the problems with the newfangled technology of writing: https://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-1/socrates-.... I'm not saying everyone needs to be an expert in everything. I'm saying software should reduce the pressure on people to be experts so that we can late-bind experts to domains. Not every software sub-system should need expertise at the scale at which it is used in every possible context. My Linux laptop doesn't need to be optimized to the hilt the way Google's server farms do. Using the same scheduling algo or whatever in my laptop imposes real costs on my ability to understand my computer, without giving me the benefits Google gets from the algo.

fore we can walk.

r challenges on this road. Partly due to these challenges, I've actually started to hedge my bets and make some compromises. My new project is https://github.com/akkartik/teliva which doesn't try to eliminate C, just minimize it. Linux kernel, libc, Lua (12k lines of C), some libraries for https. A gemini client is actually on my todo list there. I think I have everything I need to build it.

ires encouraging people to use the few features terminals _do_ provide. Like chromatic backgrounds. I've been doing a fair amount of ncurses hacking recently[1], and I prefer to always explicitly specify colors. People won't get their preferred colors by default, but they'll always get a legible configuration by default. [1] https://github.com/akkartik/teliva