[TAG] segmentation fault in aptitude

[Benjamin A. Okopnik]

[ Firing up the way-back machine to answer an email from the dark
past... ]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:28:14PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:18:25PM -0700, mso at oz.net wrote:
> > Suramya Tomar wrote:
> > > actually I am interested to follow the article by Thomas
> > Adam
> >
> > > (linux-gazette) about implementing fast linux desktop for low-end
> > > machine.
> >
> > I assume Suramya is referring to this article:
> > http://linuxgazette.net/105/adam.html
> 
> Gah!  You mean someone *actually* read that?  :) 

Yes, Thomas - people actually read what you write. I *told* you not to
expose your innermost secrets to the cruel world like that, but would
_you_ listen? Anyway, now that your reputation is completely ruined, you
might as well go ahead and write a few more. :)


   A bad reputation can set you free. After all, if you've already
   declared yourself to be a pot-smoking, acid-addled slut, your
   opponents are forced to oppose your ideas on their merits, rather than
   strategically revealing your hidden depravities. Shame is no weapon
   against the shameless.
    -- John Perry Barlow


> Like so many things, I
> conceive an idea, and then rarely follow it up.  But not in this case.
> The series of articles I have planned are not by the wayside (for once).
> I just haven't submitted them yet.
 
[ Preparing The Dreaded Flogger of Ouchy Pain and Much Hurtfulness ] [4]

No, no, really - it's *O*K*. You just go ahead and hold on to those
articles... :)

> What? Why?  Heh, because Fvwm is in a state of flux.

It's Open-Source software? And it's in a state of flux? Naaaaw, couldn't
*possibly*! Tell it to the Marines; the old salts will never believe it.

> So what's happening out there in the world of Fvwm?  Myself and a few
> others have decided that we're giving Fvwm a face-lift [1].  It seems
> the motif look and feel to Fvwm is something that turns people away.
> I'm hoping my efforts from doing this, will result in some further ideas
> for me to write about.  It's all very interesting.  :)  I've been very
> active on the Fvwm-Forums [2] as well, helping various people -- there's
> a lot of good stuff there.  As well as the *giant* Fvwm thread [3] on
> the gentoo forum.
> 
> Actually, although it is incomplete, I really would like some
> opinions/feedback based on [1].  You don't have to do it via the forum,
> reply to TAG if you so wish -- might make a good thread, hehehe.  :)

FWIW, I think that the kind of thing that Nick and you were working out
_is_ important; the attitude of "it's good enough for us" has been, and
will continue to be the death of many projects. Yes, surely Fvwm is a
wonderful and brilliant and easily-configured, etc., etc. piece of
software - but no one outside the group of those who are already in the
know will ever find that out if the initial installation of it is
butt-ugly. Why would anyone bother to find out what it's like underneath
the hood - as worthwhile as it may be - when there are at least, ummm...

``
ben at Fenrir:~$ apt-cache search wm|grep -v '^lib'|grep -ic 'window manager'
49
''

...anyway, LOTS of other WMs out there - some of which look very fine
indeed before any configuration?

I'm a minimalist myself in lots of areas with regard to my own
computing, but I'm also a firm believer in the appeal of eye-candy for
newbies - particularly those coming from an environment that is ALL
eye-candy. Weaning is a _process._ :)


> -- Thomas Adam
> 
> [1]  http://fvwm.lair.be/viewtopic.php?t=205
> [2]  http://fvwm.lair.be
> [3]  http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=80517

[4] What, whaaaat? It's a standard weapon in Doom, or Quake, or
something. You go look it up.


* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://linuxgazette.net *