bobo

Bash will also do autocomplete for cli programs that have autocomplete functionality. Try typing:

git r<tab><tab>

you'll see options for all the git commands that start with r. Often cli commands will have autocompletion for long (double dash) options.

If you want to see all the commands that have auto complete available, look in:

/usr/share/bash-completion/completions/

There's a few other locations they can live, notably:

/etc/bash_completion.d/ ~/.bash_completion ~/.local/share/bash-completion/completions/

I don't know if there are more or if there is any variation per distro.

You can also write your own bash completions. They can get pretty smart and context sensitive.

Pretty good beginning tutorial:

https://iridakos.com/programming/2018/03/01/bash-programmable-completion-tutorial

edit - I should've mentioned that this isn't native to bash, it requires installation of bash-completion. But bash-completion is installed by default in many distros.

I only asked whether English was your first language because of our wildly different interpretations of Gorilladrum's post. Obviously, there's room for different interpretations among native speakers, but I thought it was a possibility that a language or cultural barrier may be in play.

I didn't mean to cause you any vexation. And dialogue is appropriate for online forums. I only meant that given my perspective on the post you were responding to, that it was a very sarcastic expression of exasperation, like someone yelling "FUCK!" It seemed to me that, despite his wording, he was actually just railing against the futility of keeping up with celebrities, rather than a lack of understanding of why some people do so. So it never would have occurred to me to respond the way you did. Obviously you read it differently and responded with a sincere attempt to shed some light on it. I can imagine it was frustrating to get downvoted so hard when you were making an earnest effort to help someone.

Anyway, you do seem like an interesting person, and I appreciate your interaction. I value your contributions and I will carry this forward into future interactions and not be so quick to assume people online are being sarcastic or condescending. I hope you walk away from this interaction with more positive feelings than negative ones.

I read Gorilladrums statement:

"It’s truly beyond me how people have the energy to keep with celebrities"

as being sarcastic. I find it difficult to see it any other way. I read it as Gorilladrums expressing exasperation with cultural obsession with celebrity. I didn't read it as him asking for someone to explain it to him. I'm pretty sure that's the last thing he wanted. In that view of his post, which is the view that I assumed most folks reading his post would have, your response of explaining it to him in simplistic terms comes across as sarcasm and condescension. I understand now that this is not the context that you were viewing his post in.

Given my understanding of his post as an expression of exasperation with the culture of celebrity that does not expect or invite a response, I'd say both your first and final sentences come across as deliberate condescension, because both of them seem to imply that Gorilladrums didn't understand something, and required an explanation, when it seemed clear to me that he didn't expect or want. Therefore a response providing an explanation seemed like a teasing or a taunting in defense of celebrity culture that he was really just railing against. Again, I understand now that condescension was not your intention, and you were sincerely trying to assist.

A sincere question: is English your first language?

I am not being insincere.

Fair enough. I believe you. I don't think you're being sarcastic, but, even upon re-reading, your original response more readily comes across as sarcastic to me than sincere. I don't think you were being sarcastic, I'm just saying what the choice of words conveys to me. Again, I think that tone can get lost in online conversations and I understand that this is not what you were trying to convey.

OP wasn't claiming to be sincere. You are.

Since you don't see how the link is relevant, I'll take the time to explain. The character played by David Foley in the Kids in the Hall sketch is not being intentionally sarcastic, but his affect is so sarcastic-seeming that the character played by Kevin MacDonald in the sketch is offended and leaves, despite Foley's good intentions and desire for human contact.

In the same way, your post, by your own declaration, is not meant to be sarcastic or condescending, but was certainly taken that way by me and probably by a large number of the folks who downvoted it. I hope this simple answer has bought it into your range of understanding.

I'll take you at face value if you say you were being sincere in your original posting, but it certainly didn't come across that way at all to me (and I assume most of the downvoters). Just another interesting example of how tone doesn't translate in online forums, I guess.

Relevant Kids in the Hall sketch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziH9St7ajuw

I'd really like independent workspaces per display. I haven't explored how to set it up in my current environments (I use primarily KDE, sometimes Gnome, and still occasionally XFCE). I'm not sure it's even possible. I understand there's quite a bit of customization of workspaces coming with Cosmic, but I haven't checked it out.

I do have some resistance to tiling window managers. Primarily because my wife occasionally uses my computer, and I can already see her rolling her eyes in frustration at me. How's the learning curve for awesome?

Who discovered this initially? This lemmy thread is the earliest record I've been able to find of it.

They did indicate that the subnet they provided in the example was not the actual one they used.

You keep saying I don't remember, which feels a bit dismissive. I do remember. We just have differing opinions on the barriers to entry for Microsoft vs. FOSS in the 90s.

It kills me that my wife hates cilantro