_cnt0

Heed the warning ;-)

Jk. It’s not black magic. Just do as AlpacaChariot said. You might want to read up on it a bit https://www.shell-tips.com/bash/environment-variables/

It’s certainly no bad habit to handle spaces in scripts preemptively, and obviously they do occur in the wild. Quotes from ls output do not get piped to other commands. I had to look that up myself right now, because it has been quite a while since it mattered to me.

$ touch 'file with spaces in name'
$ ls
'file with spaces in name'
$ ls | cat
file with spaces in name
$ 

Looking through some scripts I wrote back in the day, I seem to like to use ls -1 in scripts. I guess that reduces ambiguity on what the separator is.

Repeating false statements doesn’t make them true. fyi: that’s a criticism of your comments ;-)

Feel free to travel back in time and have a discussion with Ken Thompson in ~1970, whether spaces in file/folder names should be allowed in the first place. I for one use an underscore instead, whenever I have control.

It’s really neither a bug nor a problem. It is very reasonable default behavior to enable piping to or parsing by other commands because space is the default separator for arguments.

Add-on: you really don’t need to get rid of the quotes. It’s a very reasonable behavior. You just need to learn/understand what they mean.

The backslash escapes the space because it would otherwise denote a seperator to the next argument of the command. ls a b c means invoke ls with the three arguments a,b, and c. ls 'a b c' or ls a\ b\ c means invoke ls with one argument “a b c”. That behavior is universal for pretty much all unix/linux shells (ie bash).

I’d wager a guess, that all file/folder paths that are surrounded by quotes contain at least one space!? And you’re talking about the output of ls? It’s rather unlikely, that installing any software has changed that behavior. It’s just a display feature, to denote that “two” parts separated by a space are actually one.

I just did the questionnaire for shits and giggles, not expecting much. The top two suggestions were fedora and debian. I’m actually running fedora and debian on different machines. I wonder how much of a fluke that is, or if it really is that good. Anybody else, who’s already happy with their distribution(s), tried it?

As someone who has used linux for >25 years and has experienced the madness of SysV init scripts for decades (well, only two, but the plural is still technically correct; the best kind of correct), I have a very hard time to take people who make posts like these serious.

now

They have had it for a while ;-)

ps: I hope I got the tense right. Not a native speaker and slightly drunk. They still have it.

Type A to C (almost) only describe the physical dimensions of the sockets/connectors. There is a (non-standard) color coding for A sockets that let’s you see at one glance which USB version is supported (look for “Usual USB color-coding” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware). Color coding is rare on laptops, though. The best kind of cable is one that can be plugged in without force on both ends (/s). If you want to use a docking station, more important is, what protocols are supported on which port of your laptop. What you want/need is DisplayPort over USB-C (DP Alt Mode) or Thunderbolt. There is no easy command to check if you have it, and the most common advice to look for certain emblems next to the socket isn’t really reliable. A quick google search suggests, that your machine can speak DisplayPort 2.0 and Thunderbolt 4. You should look into the technical specifications of your machine to be sure.

one of those vendors

Which one?

I have a Slimbook PRO X AMD. Except for the rubber bands on the bottom coming loose after ~2 years, it just works. And I never had a laptop from any manufacturer where the rubber feet/bands did not start to peel of after a few years.

edit: mixed you up with OP, but, meh, unaltered reply:

Where the fuck is the actual executable and its configs?

which ... with … being the name of the executable. Whyever it matters to you in which exact path an executale is …

God help you when you uninstall and clean things up if you use compiled packages instead of ones from your repository.

make uninstall or xargs rm < install_manifest.txt will usually do the trick. If neither is an option, observe the output of make -n install and undo the installation manually.

Judging from your post and comments, you’d be much better off with a distro other than arch and using packages from a distros repository plus maybe flatpak or snap.

This has to be my number one gripe about Linux. How every package just spews binaries and libraries and config files all over the place.

99.9% of the times those places are pretty well defined and easy to look up. You seem to lack some basic knowledge about linux/unix conventions and make false assumptions about how things should be and then come to judgemental conclusions when they aren’t.

I actually have an older HP envy x360 (AMD chipset). Works like a charm with linux (everything out of the box). The touchscreen is fully functional, but I don’t really use it. I don’t dig that at all 😅

One thing that bothers me is that it is impissible to update the BIOS firmware without at least a Windows VM.

WTF!

For the kind of workload you’re describing, 16GB of RAM was on the low end like 5 years ago. Your number one priority should be getting more RAM. For what you’re doing vmware is at least better than HyperV, and depending on what people are doing with their machines there can be pros and cons favoring Windows, linux, OSX, … in your case Windows is factually the worst choice. When working as a developer with linux native technologies, use linux. If you insist on your kids playing with your work machine (interesting choice), and they “need” Windows, then dual boot. Other than that I’d second another users advice to go with fedora (easy to use, up to date, no bullshit). But do yourself a favor, go bare metal, and get more RAM.

Sure, things usually put env in /usr/bin, but there’s no guarantee for that.

There is even less guarantee for it to be anywhere else.

Hardcoding /usr/bin/env is probably your best bet

Because it is the convention.

That’s why #!env is probably your best bet

It definitely isn’t. That might work in your user space instance of bash in the desktop, but will likely fail in a script invoked during boot, and is guaranteed to fail on several non-gnu/non-linux systems.

#!/usr/bin/envis the agreed convention and there is no probably or but about that. If that does not work on a system it is a bug (looking at you BusyBox containers 🤨).