On: A decade of dotfiles

[yunohn]

> I find it odd that people use extra management software for their dotfiles

> you can set up symlinks, with a script or manually.

So yeah… that’s exactly what dotfile managers do with standardised scripts.

[blueflow → yunohn]

Except they are, themselves, a new dependency. And might even introduce more dependencies themselves.

[9935c101ab17a66 → blueflow]

I mean, maybe? But they could just be a binary.

Also, is writing your own scripts to symlink appropriate dot files across different environments not also a new dependency?

[blueflow → 9935c101ab17a66]

You can ship a portable shell script with your config files. Portable shell script is supported out-of-the-box everywhere where you have dotfiles. No extra installing necessary. Contrast this to binaries, which are not portable and need to be re-generated for every possible architecture and ABI.

[yunohn → blueflow]

> which are not portable and need to be re-generated for every possible architecture and ABI.

I mean we’re talking about Linux dotfiles. At worst, you might need a binary for arm, if amd64 isn’t enough. I’m not clear on your point about ABI incompatibility for simple binaries.

[blueflow → yunohn]

Its still work to be done. Thats something that is not even an /issue/ if you dont need much except the tools that already come with your distribution.

Like, i think its best to wait like, 10 years, and see how the whole thing worked out. Maybe we need another systemd or two until people realize that software is still a liability even if you aren't the one who is maintaining it.

[yunohn → blueflow]

I would recommend checking out GNU Stow, I’m quite happy with it - super straightforward to use.