• 2 Posts
  • 145 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 20th, 2026

help-circle

  • You can still move your folder from .config/librewolf/ to .librewolf/ and it will use it from there. At least, it works like that in Firefox (potentially to be removed in the future, but there’s no real reason to remove it any time soon).

    But yeah, I don’t know how that works together with KeePassXC. I mean, if it worked on LibreWolf before, then presumably moving the folder back to .librewolf/ should fix it until KeePassXC is updated…

    (And yes, the .config/ directory is specified by the XDG standard.)

    (Also, good shout about the directory being relevant. I guess, that’s also why the extension is currently broken for me, because I was a bit too eager to switch to the .config/ dir. 🙃)







  • MDN has a really good tutorial: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_development/Core

    I also want to throw in that a “static site generator” would probably be up your alley.
    It is additional software, but it just gives you HTML+CSS in the end, so you can still upload to NeoCities or the like. It would effectively replace PHP for your use-case.

    Knowing some HTML and CSS, and the rest of what you learned in that tutorial, is still helpful, as you may want to customize your template, but for the most part you can just write your blog posts in Markdown and it’ll generate the HTML with navigation links for you.

    Of course, a static site generator is still an additional layer of complexity. For learning how HTML and such work, it’s definitely valid to plug everything together yourself. 🙂



  • Just to kind of confirm this:

    ls -l does not show them like hard links, but rather like soft/symbolic links.

    But when I do tail -f /path/to/file.txt on a file (to keep it open in a process) and then delete the file, I get this output in ls -l:

    3 -> '/path/to/file.txt (deleted)'
    

    The 3 seems to just be an incrementing number for each file opened by the process. And then, well, obviously the file isn’t now called “file.txt (deleted)”. That is just a name the kernel makes up when ls -l asks it what’s in that directory.

    So, presumably the kernel keeps a separate copy of that file in memory until the process closes the file or is terminated. And then exposes it through this pseudo-softlink rather than making use of hardlinks.


  • Yeah? You should still make a decision. If you want it possible to watch, star and fork the repo from any of the sub-pages, then that stuff has to live in that top ribbon.

    But then you shouldn’t duplicate it into the Code sub-page. I’d work with split buttons, where you can look at who starred and you can add your own star, all from the same UI element. It would not even take up more space, since they do already display the count in the top ribbon as well.

    Apparently this is how Codeberg does it (see e.g. this repo), so this might be where I have the idea from…


  • I mean, yeah, it can make sense to duplicate information. That screenshot isn’t supposed to say that all of these should be deduplicated.
    But you really gotta be cautious with duplication, because it makes everything else harder to find. And I would absolutely argue that GitHub has crossed the line where they duplicate too much, across the board. It feels like design-by-committee.

    This is entirely anecdotal, but what really dumbfounded me while annotating that screenshot, is that I never actually read the links in that “About” section.
    I’ve seen this page probably a thousand times already, but I had no idea that there’s an “Activity” link there, which actually seems like it could be useful. Nor a link to the README, to the CONTRIBUTING.md or for “Custom Properties” (whatever that is).
    I had no idea how to report a repo until now, even though the link is apparently always on screen.

    There’s just so much info there, and it’s presented like read-only info, not like navigation links, so I always just skipped over the lines that don’t have numbers in them. I also genuinely never tried clicking any of these lines before…








  • I’ve heard before that powders/solids are generally easier to mix than liquids, because you can just have all the active parts go when water is added.

    With liquids (or really water-based solutions), there’s already water in there, so you have to design the reactions, so that they only start when a certain water concentration is reached, which is a lot more fickle and limits you in what you can do.

    I could imagine that giving powder an advantage, but I also don’t have scientific evidence. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯