- I didn't expect a comment on this ~3 years later... but yes I will, thank you. -- Alad (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Heh, yeah I just recently decided to come back and start updating that article again with some new info (my old user was User:MaBeef). I appreciate it and no hard feelings. -- Ksd (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Disable auto updates
Help with the Visual Studio Code page
I saw that you have edited the Visual Studio Code page, so maybe you can help with the disputed content. I don't know if you will agree with me or not, but I cannot be the only one discussing (and I also find it hard to discuss, it seems pointless anyway). Personally I find it important to leave the clarity on the fact that Visual Studio Code is proprietary and is different from Code OSS; but if you think differently, please do share your opinion as well. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 07:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't feel the need to step in until now. Since things have turned to edit-warring, I've left some comments. -- Alad (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
You come back on IRC right this instant. One of the wiki admins first put "Bring back alad" in the /topic, then it became "On strike until alad returns", now all the separators in the channel topic are "🍌" and just now we got another troll in -wiki and the other ops are asleep.
How dare you leave IRC!
About i3 gaps topic
Hi!!!! I am a newbie in linux. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
I want to talk about this topic - https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=I3&diff=735587&oldid=735585
It is very important for people to know how to use i3 gaps. i3gaps is installed by default on every i3 installation. I think it really doesn't matter if it is a fork or not. I had to watch a youtube video to learn how to use i3 gaps. In the installation section it is written you can download the i3-gaps package but no one knows how to enable them. What is the point of installing i3 gaps if we don't know how to use gaps ? It would really be nice if it could be added to the archwiki :'(
- You keep saying things are "very important" in your edits, but no, this is not "very important". It's a personal preference which leads to installing a different version of i3. And more so, this alternative is mentioned right at the beginning of the article - including the fact it's default when installing the i3 group. -- Alad (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've enabled wiki mails, so you should be able to use "Email this user" in the sidebar. -- Alad (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you think using the AUR to install GNOME extensions is still correct and recommended nowadays?
Hi. I know this is definitely not the best place to post this, but I don't know who else to ask for guidance with this since you're one of the few very active Wiki administrator. Read below to understand why I ended up asking here.
GNOME#Extensions has always been very inconsistent, I just noticed this by looking at the revision history. Users keep editing it and their edits contradicts with the previous edit. Before, it had instructions to install extensions from both extensions.gone.org and the AUR. Then in 2014, you flagged that section to be poorly written because there were some AUR packages suggested in a bulletpoint list style, but with no description. As you can see in the edit, the person responded to your flag and updated it. However, they entirely removed the instructions to install from the AUR instead of just removing the bulletpoint list and keeping the AUR link. It stayed like that for a while, until it something similar was re-added. Someone made an edit suggesting that "using packages automates the update process," then another person replaced 'packages ' with 'pacman.' But in the official repositories there's only 1 or 2 GNOME extension(s). Thus, the AUR was entirely gotten rid of in that section, until recently I decided to re-add it after the section stayed with no AUR instructions for about 8 years. The thing is, I'm unsure of my decision of re-adding instructions for installing extensions using the AUR because apparently no one really cared about that.
I'm wondering, do you think that using AUR to install GNOME extensions is still recommended and a correct way nowadays to keep in GNOME#Extensions? Or should we get rid of it completely from that section because users abandoned it from the Wiki for 8 years straight? I'm thinking the fact that everyone is this inconsistent requires some guidance from a person who has better knowledge in this field, and I already tried the Arch forums which gave no useful answers. I would have tried to make a decision myself, but I have no idea what the reasons are for each option.
- I haven't used GNOME in years so I'm not the best person to ask. I suggest opening an item in Talk:GNOME. -- 19:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding a section in the system maintenance article
System_maintenance#Be_careful_with_unofficial_packages has the following description:
Use precaution when using packages from the AUR or an unofficial user repository. Most are supplied by regular users and thus may not have the same standards as those in the official repositories. Avoid AUR helpers which automate installation of AUR packages. Always check PKGBUILDs for sanity and signs of mistake or malicious code before building and/or installing the package. To simplify maintenance, limit the amount of unofficial packages used. Make periodic checks on which are in actual use, and remove (or replace with their official counterparts) any others. See pacman/Tips and tricks#Maintenance for useful commands. Following system upgrade, use rebuild-detector to identify any unofficial packages that may need to be rebuilt.
Since you're one of the last people to edit that section in particular, I thought I'd ask you for your advice since you'd have a solid understanding of its meaning.
The sentence talking about simplifying maintenance by limiting the amount of unofficial packages used seems kind of vague,
To simplify maintenance, limit the amount of unofficial packages used. Make periodic checks on which are in actual use, and remove (or replace with their official counterparts) any others.
I'm not sure if it's just me (because English is not my first language), but reading it gives me two meanings:
1- To simplify maintenance, limit the amount of AUR packages by removing unused ones.
- (in other words: you can install as many AUR packages as you'd like, but check every now and then to get rid of any AUR packages that aren't being used anymore)
2- To simplify maintenance, limit the amount of AUR packages by not installing many of them in the first place AND by removing unused ones.
- (in other words: try to be conservative with the number of AUR packages you install, and check every now and then to get rid of any AUR packages that aren't being used anymore)
Which meaning is that specific statement trying to express? Do you think a very slight edit of the current description to clear up this confusion is needed?
- I'm not sure I see the confusion - the "by not installing many of them" part is covered by "limit the amount of unofficial packages used." phrase. The next phrase complements this by giving the advice to check if installed AUR packages are no longer needed.
- In other words, if "Make periodic checks on which are in actual use, and remove (or replace with their official counterparts) any others." were the only phrase in that paragraph it might be vague. However, the general advice on limiting the amount of AUR packages is mentioned right before. -- Alad (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Ifs and whethers
You have reverted the edits that replace some "if"s with "whether"s. The article you have linked to seems to be consistent with the edits (from the article: "an indirect question involving two stated or implied possibilities or alternatives"). While it is true that none of the particular ifs represent choices/alternatives, they represent a possibility of two states. For example, the sentence "check if this is the case" implies that it may or may not be the case. Using "whether or not" in that sentence does not break it, and neither does it alter the meaning; it breaks the grammar or changes the meaning only in sentences where "whether" is not applicable. This is also consistent with examples from the Cambridge English Corpus.
Sorry for breaking the subsection. I forgot that something else may be referring to it.
- I don't see the improvement of using "whether" here. Without choices/alternatives, it's merely longer than "if" and is less readable to me. See also User_talk:Jasonwryan#Doubt_regarding_revert. -- Alad (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)