I have read articles on how OpenBSD focusses on security and disables hyperthreading. Is there some IPC security feature it puts in place that makes forks/IPC slower? Or is it just the constrained resources and priorities of the project?
Is there a tool that already does this? If not, what would be the best architecture for building an event driven chain of ttys? What would be the biggest difficulty?
Your response here is a bit of a nonsense, actually most of your response is. I interpret you need help, otherwise yes that's another way of rephrasing the problem.
arttime is a terminal application that blends beauty of text-art with functionality of clock, timer, and pattern-based time manager. One can also display customized dynamic feed of information like weather, news, stocks, system metrics and etc. The above GIF shows that a feeder can be used to display weather in arttime.
Please read sections ORCHESTRATING and CONTRIBUTING (which has a software spec) in [arttime man txt](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/poetaman/arttime/main/shar...). to understand how to write custom information feeders. They can be written in any language, and should be quite simple. Please get in touch if you write something of common interest. Link to such feeders will get added to arttime's page, and best ones will get special mention. Here's an example that shows how line of text under art can be remotely updated to show "Hello World":
v2.3.0 of arttime enables silent remote updates for exciting information feeders, adds illustrative manpage, and new .deb package. One can write a customized information feeder in language of choice. Please feel free to share if you write something of value to others, a link to your work will be added to arttime's page. Links:
v2.3.0 of arttime enables silent remote updates for exciting information feeders, adds illustrative manpage, and new .deb package. One can write a customized information feeder in language of choice. Please feel free to share if you write something of value to others, a link to your work will be added to arttime's page. Links:
Package managers should agree to remove software from a platform if the developer thinks it's not fruitful for them to keep publishing there, or it's detrimental to the user's experience.
Be more useful than just saying you agree or disagree with them. What is it that makes you agree with their behavior to not remove a problematic install experience? They are forcing me to modify my software and publish a release so users will get a notification at runtime. That't not what I want my software's users to experience. Given they don't allow printing an installation note, it's fair to ask them to remove the software from their platform, as I don't see it fruitful to add a bloat code to my software just so users get notifications at run time for what really are installation notes.
So! I developed and published a software https://github.com/poetaman/arttime. Thinking it would be beneficial for users to be able to install it from homebrew, I published a package on that platform. Recently, I realized that there is problem. Unlike when a user runs install.sh from arttime's cloned GitHub repository, a user installing from homebrew doesn't get a crucial installation note. The note asks users to take a few steps before using the software, so it runs correctly at their end. The only installation message homebrew's installer print from developer is called "caveats". But they won't let me add a note for new users to take a crucial step before trying to run arttime, because of a legalism of what "caveats" stand for in homebrew's lingo. They are not open to other kinds of installation notes either. The lead of Homebrew stepped in and steered the conversation to irrationality. Talking of his 15 years of experience and what not instead of seeing it from users and developer experience perspective. I requested them to remove my software till a satisfying solution is found. Then they started using the word "law", and because it is not written in law, they won't remove my software. And I have been told to add some bloat code in my application to notify the users at run time to update their computer settings. This is definitely one instance where open source software publishing platforms have failed us. An open source developer should have freedom to stop publishing a software from a platform that is forcing them to add bloat code.
