From 87c1ddcb8c5912000217507d94943af020bd8ae5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Philippe PITTOLI
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 19:23:38 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Rant, fixed.
---
.../{hand-book/index.fr.md => handbook/rant.fr.md} | 0
content/{hand-book/index.md => handbook/rant.md} | 12 ++++++------
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
rename content/{hand-book/index.fr.md => handbook/rant.fr.md} (100%)
rename content/{hand-book/index.md => handbook/rant.md} (88%)
diff --git a/content/hand-book/index.fr.md b/content/handbook/rant.fr.md
similarity index 100%
rename from content/hand-book/index.fr.md
rename to content/handbook/rant.fr.md
diff --git a/content/hand-book/index.md b/content/handbook/rant.md
similarity index 88%
rename from content/hand-book/index.md
rename to content/handbook/rant.md
index 5352f42..eef4f3f 100644
--- a/content/hand-book/index.md
+++ b/content/handbook/rant.md
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Still, this message tells us a couple of things:
2. ... but we **know how to provide the tool to you anyway**
That part is weird.
Why don't you give me the package yourself then, since it will be installed on my machine regardless if someone tested it?
- Why does another package manager does the job instead of the package manager of my OS?
+ Why does another package manager do the job instead of the package manager of my OS?
*Snap seems to be a good substitute to `apt`, says `apt`*
Now I have 2 package managers, one for *supported* applications from my OS and the other by... no matter who, but hey they tell me it's secure and stuff.
Great!
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Let's check what's the developer has to say...
```
Snap notes
-yq installs with with strict confinement in snap, this means it doesn't have direct access to root files.
+yq installs with strict confinement in snap, this means it doesn't have direct access to root files.
```
*(Note: I'm not even in root files here.)*
@@ -80,20 +80,20 @@ No.
I won't install an application designed to run virtual machines **just to read a file**.
-Making it complicated to provide a simple application **written in a language design to deploy applications easily** is an un-human achievement.
+Making it complicated to provide a simple application **written in a language designed to deploy applications easily** is an un-human achievement.
Thanks Cthulhu, I guess.
# Okay okay, let's try to answer this question: who's to blame here?
- The developer?
- He tried to provide its application for everybody, including poeple installing applications only through `snap` and `docker`.
+ He tried to provide its application for everybody, including people installing applications only through `snap` and `docker`.
AFAIK, at no point he is responsible for this mess.
- `Snap` and `Docker`?
They respond to simple requests, they have a purpose.
**Some things were not possible on the different OSs, so they were developed.**
There was a need behind those.
- The original package manager...
- If there was a way to get my application, it **should have been** through the OS packager manager.
+ If there was a way to get my application, it **should have been** through the OS package manager.
Since it wasn't possible, I had to learn how to get the application from non trusted sources with a parasit application running over the very simple binary provided by the developer.
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ To get the application I downloaded a binary version, compiled statically, direc
Am I on Windows in the early 00's?
Is my package manager still **useful**?
-Another possibility would have to download the application from the package distribution of the language used.
+Another possibility would have been to download the application from the package distribution of the language used.
How long has this practice been used?
That's just a way of skipping packaging for an OS.