roundabout-host

From the user's perspective, it is not Unix-like, even though it contains Linux. FreeBSD is more similar to GNU/Linux than Android is.

Also, I do not see any confirmation of the N9 running standard GNU/Linux apps like the N900. But if the N900 continued, it would have been entirely different.

I would love to see a UEFI phone (for standardised hardware support, without Device Tree) with a keyboard.

Or the "status" stream (you can still redirect it and it is useful sometimes).

You are comparing CLIs to GUIs. Anyways, there are GNU/Linux GUIs with the help manual (often still F1), but I would attribute the lack of manuals in some newer GUIs to a general trend against manuals, which can be seen well in Android/iOS apps, where everything has to be "engagement-optimised" and "flow-based" and with lots of blob illustrations, because otherwise people are too lazy to read even a page about how to use the app.

Indeed, and the jq example invocation is way too trivial. It is better not to put it there.

    Display output on success, but keep it brief. Traditionally, when nothing is wrong, UNIX commands display no output to the user. This makes sense when they’re being used in scripts, but can make commands appear to be hanging or broken when used by humans. For example, cp will not print anything, even if it takes a long time.

It starts with talking about no indication of success, then switches to no indication of progress. I think they are pretty different.

Also, what kind of "responsive" font sizing does this website have?

It is, but then why does the "guide" contradict it tens of times?

If you use the 14 standard colours (the plain old colours minus black and white), shouldn't they be set to something readable in the terminal emulator configuration? Of course, the 256-colour mode should not be used. And how do you check the background?

Do they really not use the following patterns, which I find quite common?

    cat > file
    cat >> file

But really, if you feel that you're waiting too long, can't you just ^C? Isn't it better to teach people rather than making the programs "helpful" (i.e. sometimes helpful, but more often annoying)?

It also annoys me very much, especially horizontally. Wrapped lines are much easier to copy, for example if you want to do a Web search.

You are wrong. Maybe 2% aren't OK with it, but 98% of the 2% will still give in to avoid losing their "normality".

Even with the "independent European" list, you would still be unable to use a custom OS not in it.

Even if they did that, it would not be OK. Free software is no longer free if it has to be on a list.

Indeed, it is just as unfair no matter if 1%, 55% or 99.99% of the affected population has one. Your operating system should be a choice.

1. By doing this, the EU is killing any alternative operating systems for phones: no one will switch to one if they can't access online services. Banks are already making it extremely hard.

2. Google and Apple might be better regarded than Huawei, but they are not moral (or they are not guaranteed to remain so).

3. The very idea of a de facto state-enforced monopoly on operating systems is outrageous.

No, I don't think that it's about buttons and scrolling. It is simply about what the algorithm promotes. If you look at one thing, even if you decide that you don't like it, they show you more to provoke you. The algorithm should be limited to showing followed pages.

The problem is not the ability to communicate, but rather the addiction generated by those algorithms. They should absolutely be regulated, for all ages.

So force parents to give them devices running an even more nonfree, even more crippled OS. At least on a smartphone you can run GNU/Linux.

Also, you cannot block one harmful one without blocking a thousand legitimate ones.

The harm mainly comes from the addictive, manipulative algorithm designed to provoke the user, and not from the ability to communicate.

The browser itself is not the problem, but the way the platforms design themselves to be very addictive.

Not unconditionally, but some truly benefit from them, if the parents teach them not to use social media in a harmful way.

Or WhatsApp? Or Matrix? Or SMS? Or the telephone network? Or email? Or Google Docs?

A concrete example is the annulation of the 2024 Romanian elections. It probably happened because a certain candidate was able to manipulate the TikTok algorithm using (undeclared) paid influencers and spam.

Because now the digital version will require Android or iOS, which are proprietary, locked-down, crippled, American platforms.

Because it requires Android or iOS.

Google started to lobby by using a dramatisation: "if it is easy to reject advertising cookies, the whole Web advertising industry will go extinct!"

I agree to prohibit them in schools, but at home it should be the family's decision.

They are doing something which is not a solution but can fake being a solution, so that the masses will accept it. An actual solution would be to regulate these social media, to prohibit addictive and manipulative algorithms.

There are experimental mobile platforms, and they work fine. They won't appeal to the mass-market but there's really no reason to disallow them.