I donāt knowā¦ I have been there twice in the last 4 years, and I went in many places (touristy and not, I was there for work, Just as examples: Truderinger Str. or MarsstraĆe are not so central) and never saw anything like that. For sure I didnāt see cars parked on the bus stop or on the zebra crossings.
But anyway, with a similar car density (but people density is almost double in Milan) I am not be surprised that the situation is comparable in both places.
So, well, you should organize and count them too! I think that such a status is unacceptable independently of where it happens š
Truderinger has a lot of space in comparison to other streets so thereās not much issue there, I think.
The marsstraĆe is kinda similar but more industrial.
I could see all those examples in various places here too. Also cars driving on pathways and so on. Maybe the density and amount of issues is different, I donāt know, possibly.
What drives me mad here is the absolute inaction. The city even responds to requests with the risk of damage to cars (!!) instead of considering humans.
I was genuinely surprised, because what you wrote was really different from what I experienced. But my experience i Munich is objectively limited. I somehow hoped that Germany, and Munich (along with other European cities) could be used as a model of how to do things right.
What drives me mad here is the absolute inaction
Exactly, and all this stuff about counting the cars is to try to move something. I have not much hope honestly, but excluding violence and vandalism, I think this is as much as someone can do
The city even responds to requests with the risk of damage to cars (!!) instead of considering humans.
This is completely crazy. In Milan they justify bad parking by saying things like āit has always been like thisā or āyeah, but you can go around itā etc. FFS, do your job!!
Ahh, itsfoss.com. they had some article on ābeing a supercharged Joplin userā or some nonsense and suggestion 3 or 4 was āCreate a notebookāā¦ Really being a power user when youāre utilizing the most basic functionality the app was created forā¦
My usecase is that I want to build a rock-solid workstation laptop for my non-tech-savvy family member.
I configure all the basics in .nix files, and then from there, they can install Flatpak from the software center, like they are used to doing.
Then I can just do a rebuild switch when I see them, make sure itās all working, and then trust that they probably wonāt break the system in-between.
Edit: to be clear, in my own config, if itās not reproducible, Iām actively working to fix that.
I mean why would you be fully against flatpak? I use NixOS without it and always packaged natively on Arch, but especially when upstream offers flatpak, it makes sense to enable it. Keeps the user-facing programs up to date and somewhat sandboxed while you can have a stable release beneath it. Especially if the systemās actual users arenāt that tech-savvy.
Stuff on unstable tends to break, especially electron-dependent derivations. Stable doesnāt always have the latest and greatest. Flatpak seems like a good compromise for desktop applications in some cases.
I thought about doing that but updating nixos confuses me. Does nixos-rebuild switch pull new packages? To my understanding there is a file that saves all currently installed versions of packages and switch only adds new things but wouldnāt update packages.
Like, if I want to update Google Chrome. Doing switch wouldnāt change anything if the config hasnāt changed, right?
I believe thatās correct ā if nothing has changed from your last generation, then the new generation will be identical. But if something has changed, it will do a bunch of duplicating and remapping symlinks in the Nix store to ensure that everything plays nicely together and that you can rollback to a previous generation if needed.
So if you do a rebuild switch regularly, you will end up with gigs worth of old ācopiesā of things that arenāt being referenced in your current generation.
Thatās what nix-collect-garbage handles ā once you know your current generation is working well, you collect the garbage and recover that space, at the expense of not being able to roll back.
Thatās why I think building a core system with NixOS and then having user software come from Flatpak is a nice combo for simple workstation that wonāt update and bork itself, leaving my grandpa without a laptop until I can come take a look.
Edit: To clarify, nixos-rebuild-switch wonāt update your Flatpaks at all ā just the Flatpak service
Whatās up with the ux design of nix? I get itās made for advanced users but still. Iām reading through this guide and man itās convoluted.
The different ways of installing packages. Either through editing the configuration.nix or running a command. The weird inconsistency of nix commands. nix-env -iA to install and nix-env --uninstall to uninstall. Then updating uses nix-channel --update but upgrade uses nixos-rebuild switch --upgrade. All this to use the package manager. Also havenāt even mentioned flakes or home manager.
Itās a cool OS, but the UX really needs work imo.
[Edit] I do wanna add something else too because I feel like my point isnāt getting across.
Itās okay to have a complicated ui. Especially if your target audience are tech-savvy. But even tech-savvy people have to start as new users. A tech-savvy new user isnāt going to know what the best practices are. Being able to anticipate the steps for installing a package is important for ux. If the commands for installing packages isnāt cohesive/intuitive, then the user has to spend more time looking for guides and learning how to use the software.
People also mentioned a new command in the works. This is great! However, these current commands are being recommended through blogs and nix. New users wonāt know about this new command.
feddit.it
Hot