No problem, it’s always good idea to ask.

By convention two dashes -- are used for options with long name, such as --remove, while single dash - is used for single letter options such as -R. There can be some extra rules how options are used and combined, but that is not always true for every application. A common implementation is that options with single dash can be combined to have less to press, while double dash options cannot. Meaning if you have options -a -b -c then you could combine them into one bucket as -abc or -ab -c, all equivalent. But you cannot combine --remove -a -b into --abremove in example. There can be some extra rules and some applications handle options bit differently.

I know how subcommands work. But that is not the point I am making. Having two dashes in front of it or not like pacman remove or pacman --remove does not change how the command operates. It is literally having two dashes or not and therefore is not an issue.

I don’t think it would make ANY difference if the option was named git --pull instead git pull (you don’t have to use the single uppercase). That is NOT the same semantic difference between <b> and <h3>, because it (the pull example) operates the same as before. The only difference are the two dashes. I don’t see how this creates confusion or learning difficulties.

But its just a matter of 2 dashes. It shouldn’t be a problem.

I don’t get why that is a problem. It’s just an option name with 2 dashes in front. In fact, that is the “correct” way of handling options, as in standard option processing in GNU / Linux. I personally dislike options without dash, but on the other hand it does not bother me enough to be bothered by it. pacman --remove is almost identical to pacman remove, so I don’t know why that is a “problem”.

You can use long option names instead too, as each capital letter mode has a long option name, such as -R --remove and -S --sync.

-S stands for “sync”. You are syncing to the online database.

I hate that too. 7z does that and its horrible.

I don’t think there is some exceptional good CLI interfaces. If anything, you either notice the interface is bad or unconventional or it is cluttered, because it has lots of functionality. It also depends if it “should” fit into the Linux eco system (similar commandline system and logic) or is this tool used for any operating system. I have my own scripts as wrapper for some tools, so they are excluded from discussions here. Note I think the discussion is about commandline interfaces that operate non interactive (in other words no “live” TUIs or interactive editors), so no Vim or htop.

Tools like yt-dlp or awk or find or git are complex and overloaded with functionality, because it offers so much and has to offer all of that. Or the command works different, because of its nature of calling another command like parallel. Then there are commandlines that just deviates from the standard and bugs me a lot. One of the worst offenders to me is 7z from package extra/7zip in the Arch repositories. But it is not a standard GNU tool, therefore it does its own thing.

So in the end, I do not think there is an exceptional good CLI, only bad or complicated ones. As long as it follows Linux standards its good to go. Often the best Rust CLI tools have pretty good ones that could be listened as standouts, but none specific in particular.

Some jokes are not funny.

But Hurd is too far behind and will probably never be a real alternative to Linux. Also the Linux Kernel is not what adopts the Age Verification, its the distribution. Therefore instead changing the Kernel, they just need to change on the distribution what they do not like. Or create the same distribution with Linux, they would create with GNU Hurd.

First time I hear about Gobolinux. A quick websearch for comparison between Nix and Gobolinux brought me this article from 2011: https://sandervanderburg.blogspot.com/2011/12/evaluation-and-comparison-of-gobolinux.html . An interesting system.

WTF we are talking about Linux, the biggest and most important piece of software. What are you even talking about will and adults? Sorry if this was meant to be a joke. But having a plan like this is crucial important.

I feel like this comment was a sarcastic joke and people didn’t pick it up.^^ Especially after the Hurd line, this has to be a joke.

Linus is not the only one involved in Linux. Most work and decisions are done without Linus’ involvement at all. There are candidates (especially Greg) who are as important as Linus themselves and probably will take over the project. This is not a single user driven project.

What amazes me is, that a formal official plan (this) is just done recently a few months ago. How was there no official plan before? I don’t understand…

windows was getting so buggy and aggravating

Also Microsoft convinced the people that system updates are a bad thing.

power-profiles-daemon vs autocpu-freq vs tlp, which is better?

Yes.

(Edit: It’s a meme reply, as I don’t have a clue.)

Yeah, I’m surprised how many go to Bluesky. It’s just Twitter all over again, controlled by a single company.

While I am not the biggest fan of Ai (but also not the biggest hater as well, at least for local models), I think banning a topic because you don’t like it is not fair for everyone else. It is already used and part in many sections in our life, so discussing it (either if its good or bad or its pitfalls or recommendations) should be allowed. Especially in a generalized topic such as Open Source or Programming. I mean would you rather like it being silently used and lied about or make it official, and at least then you can filter out and ignore stuff about that topic?

I mean you don’t have to participate in the Ai discussions, but you can allow others to discuss. I don’t understand why you want to ban it for everyone.