Plus this applies to your family as well. DNA is shared and by you giving it up you give up info about those related to you as well.

The problem with bash scripts is they tend to explode in unexpected ways when thing don’t go as intended. This could be one of the command you run returning some expected or not output which might work now but might not in the future. Best to program bash defensively.

Remove the loop and sleep from the script you created so it just runs and exits.

Then create a file at /etc/systemd/system/battery-alarm.service with the following:

[Unit]
Description="Sound alarm when battery is low"

[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/battery-alarm.sh # point this to your script

Then create a file at /etc/systemd/system/battery-alarm.timer with the following:

[Unit]
Description="Run battery-alarm.service every 2 mins"

[Timer]
OnUnitActiveSec=2m
Unit=battery-alarm.service

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

Then sudo systemctl enable --now helloworld.timer to start and enable the timer on boot.

This will be a little more robust then your current script. It works without the user needing to log in. And there is nothing to get killed so will always trigger. The current script will just silently stop working if it ever gets killed or crashes.

Worth running shell scripts though https://www.shellcheck.net/ (has a cli as well). Finds lots of common issues that can blow up scripts when input is not what you expect. With links to why they make the suggestions they do.

Line 4:
        battery_level=`cat /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/capacity`
                      ^-- SC2006 (style): Use $(...) notation instead of legacy backticks `...`.

Did you mean: (apply this, apply all SC2006)
        battery_level=$(cat /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/capacity)
 
Line 5:
        battery_status=`cat /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/status`
                       ^-- SC2006 (style): Use $(...) notation instead of legacy backticks `...`.

Did you mean: (apply this, apply all SC2006)
        battery_status=$(cat /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/status)
 
Line 6:
        if [ $battery_status = "Discharging" ] && [ $battery_level -lt 21 ];
             ^-- SC2086 (info): Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting.
                                                    ^-- SC2086 (info): Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting.

Did you mean: (apply this, apply all SC2086)
        if [ "$battery_status" = "Discharging" ] && [ "$battery_level" -lt 21 ];

Probably nothing. This is more steamdeck related stuff since the SteamOS is based on ArchLinux. And even then, it does not mean much for SteamDeck users. They wont notice much at all really. This might help with development a bit on valves end. The big news is really for ArchLinux users and maintainers which will see more effort in the development of that distro.

There is some wild speculation that maybe this makes arm for Arch Linux more official in the future. Which is based of the other recent news that Valve are creating an ARM emulation layer for running games on ARM devices. Which means maybe they are working on an ARM device and maybe need to start working on getting ARM support for Arch. Though again this is all wild speculation.

The Steamdeck was motivation for the collaboration - since it is based on Arch Linux. But as a desktop client they only support ubuntu officially which makes level 1 tech support easier as supporting every distro can be very complex.

Arch normally immediately updates to the latest version of every program

This is not true though. Arch packages new program versions as soon as they can - for popular stuff this happens quickly but not everything updates quickly. And when they do publish a new package it goes to the testing repo for a short time before being promoted to the stable repos. If there is a problem with the package that they notice it will be held back until it can be solved. There is not a huge amount of testing that is done here as that is very time consuming and Arch do not have enough man power for this. But they also do not release much broken things at all. I have seen other distros like ubuntu cause far more havoc with a broken update then Arch ever has.

as an illustration of our player-centric approach

Or in other words: We lots loads of money when people didn’t flock to our exclusive platform like we wanted and it seems they don’t like being squeezed for every penny they have.

You should not be struggling most of the time when using the CLI. Basic uses is just as easy as any GUI. Learning the commands might be a bit more involved and you need to be a bit more proactive about it. Anything you need to do 30+ times a day you should be over the learning curve of and can just execute them just as quickly if not quicker than using GUI. Especially when you look at tab competition and the reverse history search.

But what using the CLI more often does teach you is how to lessen that initial learning curve. Making you quicker at finding the new commands you need and how they work slowly building up your tool belt of knowledge about the commands you do look up.

I see nothing in this graphic that isn’t easy to do with a gui.

I didnt say the GUI was not easy for the common stuff. But I think the CLI is also easy for the common stuff so there is not much advantage other than a bit of a learning curve with the CLI. But the big thing that GUIs make harder is automation of common things. For instance, when I want to create a PR I like to rebase to the latest upstream. In a GUI that is a bunch of button clicks. With the cli I just <CTRL+R>pus and that will autocomplete to git pull --rebase=interactive --autostash && git push && gh pr create --web and I am landed in a web browser ready to review and submit my PR. Doing the same thing in a GUI takes a lot longer with a lot more clicking.

And that is a very common command for me.

Like logging and diffing is just so much easier when I can just scroll and click as opposed to having to do a log command, scroll, then remember the hashes, and then write the command.

Never found that to be a big issue. Most of the time when you want a diff you want to diff local changes or staged changes which is simply git diff and git diff --staged neither of those are hard or any real easier in the GUI (especially with bash history). For diffing specific commits I dont find that hard either just git log --oneline and find the commits (and you can use grep to filter things out easily as well here) - typically does not require scrolling at all. Then git diff <copy paste>..<copy paste>. In the GUIs you are often scrolling through commits you want to select at some point so I dont see how that saves you any real time here. I would not say the CLI or GUI is vastly easier in this case. And even in this case it is rare to need to do. Far more often is just branches which on a decent shell can be tab completed for convenience.

And sometimes I watch beginners use the gui and I have to bite my tongue because I know it would be faster in the cli.

This is why I prefer the CLI for common stuff. It is just faster.

But, especially for a beginner, i strongly recommend a gui.

And that is where I disagree. I think beginners should spend some time learning the tools they will need to use. IMO the CLI is critical for developers to learn and the sooner the better. So many things a vastly easier with the CLI than GUIs and a lot of stuff is near impossible with GUIs. Automation being a big one. I have not seen a good CI system that is GUI focused that you never need to know the cli for. Or when you have a repetitive task then it is quicker to write a quick script and run that then doing the same thing over and over in the GUI. Repeating actions is also easier in the CLI. All of these apply to more than just git as well.

I have seen so many beginners start with GUIs that don’t really understand what they are doing in git. And quite often break things and then just delete and recreate the repo and manually make their changes again. I find people that never bother with the CLI always hit a ceiling quite quickly in terms of their ability and productivity.

The only real thing that makes the CLI worst is that it has a steeper learning curve. Once you are over that hill I find it to be vastly better for more situations or at least not practically any worst than a GUI equivalent. So that hill is one well worth climbing.

I can always use a GUI if I really needed to. But those that only know the GUI will have a very hard time on the CLI when they need to - which is required far more often than the other way round.

Not sure I would say that is a rebase failing - just you messing things up. Can happen with any merge. But yeah that is a place where reflog would be useful. But I dont see why it would be on the cheat sheet instead of a git rebase --abort or be rebase specific.

Typically because you have been leaning on the GUI for ages and don’t know the CLI well enough to do the easy stuff quickly let alone the advanced stuff at all. Or are even aware of what you can do with the CLI. And if you do know the CLI well enough you tend to find it just faster to work with and easier to automate things.

GUIs tend to only cover the common/basic usage. Which is easy to remember without a cheat sheet. When you need more advanced stuff then GUIs tend to become more of a sticking point I find. And with common workflows it is far easier to automate with the CLI then with a GUI.

The only time I see a rebase fail is due to a conflict. Which can be aborted with git rebase --abort no need for reflogs unless you really mess things up.

The devs from ΔV: Rings of Saturn give a completely different story. Yeah, most bug reports come from Linux - but platform specific ones a vanishingly rare: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/qeqn3b/despite_having_just_58_sales_over_38_of_bug/

Do you know how many of these 400 bug reports were actually platform-specific? 3. Literally only 3 things were problems that came out just on Linux. The rest of them were affecting everyone - the thing is, the Linux community is exceptionally well trained in reporting bugs. That is just the open-source way. This 5.8% of players found 38% of all the bugs that affected everyone. Just like having your own 700-person strong QA team. That was not 38% extra work for me, that was just free QA!

Not to mention the quality of the reports from the Linux users was vastly more details and useful to them.

One of the fabricated battery pouch cells was even able to work after being folded and cut off. “That proves its high safety for practical application,” the researchers emphasized.

If you can cut it in half and it still works I doubt piercing it will do much.

C is easier to get a program to compile. Rust is easier to get a program working correctly.

The social aspect of going into a dark room to watch a screen in silence? Vs talking a joking around on voice chat?

REPLs are basically shells. They behave the same way in every essential way. So the real question is support vs non-supported shells. But then that is easy - non supported shells fall back to just what a normal commands do ATM to process input/output. Other applications like TUIs are also easy to deal with as they already enter a different mode called raw mode - when a application requests that it can do what they currently do - switch to a new buffer and give full control to that one application.

I can’t think of any, but I’m not the most creative person… what do you have in mind?

Having smarter scroll back that knows the difference between a prompt/command and the output would let you do quite a few things that would be nice to have. Such as collapsing the output so you can only see the commands, keeping the command at the top of the screen even as other output scrolls off the top so you can always see what was running. Extra support for other UI elements could be nice to have as well - like tooltip support for blocks or similar.

All the shell - or really any application - needs to do is tell the terminal which bits of the output are witch. Like mark the start/end of the prompt, command and command output. Then the fallback is basically ignore the markers and print things out like it currently does.

And those are just random thoughts I have had over the last few days. These can be implemented in backwards compatible ways I believe and don’t need special support for specific shells - just needs to expand the VT100 protocols to be able to send more information between the terminal and shells/applications that are running. Much like how color, cursor positioning, entering/exiting raw mode etc are already done. Though I think some tight specialized integration might be a good start to explore these ideas before the protocols are formed.

What I would love to see is a terminal that builds it’s own shell from scratch too rejecting the ancient ideas we have with bash. I still love bash but I’m curious what could come of it.

Thinking about it some more I am not sure that we would have to go that far. Well not in the longer term - short term we might for experimenting with ideas. I think one of the bigger problems ATM is the terminal does not understand what a shell is or its component parts. Terminals just display characters and move the cursor around the screen and send keyboard and now mouse input back to the command they run. They are also aware of alternative buffers and raw input mode and know about echoing characters back the the screen.

If we extended the terminals to also understand some shell concepts like the prompt, commands being typed and output from the commands and gave the shell some markers it could send along with these (like we do with color information ATM) the terminal would be able to use these to change how it displays each part and would open up a lot of new an interesting features. Could even add things like tooltip support or actions on clicking some bits of the text.

I am starting to see these terminals as experimenting on what we features could be enabled if we were not stuck on the current VT100 protocals. Though if we ever get wider adoption and generalisation of these ideas backed back into the protocals will be another question to consider.