> I came expecting examples of to-do lists, mail clients, clever messaging apps, etc. There are a handful of those.
There are hundreds of posts about those sorts of applications in the archives[0], but the focus of the site tends to drift about a lot depending on what I'm up to/interested in at a given time.
> Instead, the majority of apps are described by sentences where literally every word would be unfamiliar to a typical computer user.
That's definitely a problem, and after chatting with some readers on Twitter recently I'm making more of an effort to 'translate' jargon and buzzwords in software descriptions.
> He hasn't covered yet some well known ones, or at least I cannot find them using the search field in his site
I've posted about all the software you mention bar toxic but, as you discovered, Tumblr's built-in search doesn't work terribly well. I'll add a Duck Duck Go search box this afternoon. (It's been on my todo list for, er, just over two years now...)
This looks like it'd be useful for any group that relies on donations from members, public collections, &c. - seems odd to limit the number of potential users by pitching exclusively to churches.
Hazel can do all of those things except add stuff to iTunes without opening the application (unless you count moving files to the Add to iTunes directory).
Not entirely practical in the British winter, admittedly. And the lack of seat belts tends to worry passengers. But I always have an enormous grin on my face while driving, and it's absurdly cheap to run.
It looks great in portrait, but the big empty stripe on the right in landscape is a bit distracting - any reason why you're not using the full width of the screen?
This looks great - I've been putting off making changes to a couple of themes for ages because of the head-deskyness (the constant cutting and pasting is especially irritating).
I could see that data being nice to review if you were writing a private diary/journal for your own future consumption.
Other than that, the concept seems pretty flawed - git is useful when you manually commit at the end of a chunk of writing, and again after an edit/change. Wrangling with commits made at preset intervals - when you're likely in the middle of a paragraph - seems like it would be a nightmare, and next to useless if you need to revert to an earlier draft.
Without wishing to knock Kickstarter, which has provided a platform for plenty of great projects, it's fascinating that people are now willing to pay good money for an icon and a statement of intent (otherwise known as vapourware).
He does use Firefox, for sites that don't work in w3m.
My setup on Linux is pretty similar, and I use w3m a fair bit, especially for reading documentation--it's fast, and for text-heavy sites suits me better than a graphical browser.
That said, doing without a 'normal' browser entirely seems a bit masochistic/text-obsessive to me too.
Slitaz is tiny, runs in RAM and tends to just work in my experience: well worth a try if you want to get up and running quickly - http://www.slitaz.org
That said, Arch is much easier to set up than it might appear and would be a perfect base if all you're going to run is Chrome. No need for a desktop environment/window manager, either:
I find it fascinating that every time I see an emacs vs. vim debate nowadays, everyone refers to the fact that it's a 'holy war' then proceeds to discuss the relative merits of the two editors sanely and without rancour.
There are hundreds of posts about those sorts of applications in the archives[0], but the focus of the site tends to drift about a lot depending on what I'm up to/interested in at a given time.
> Instead, the majority of apps are described by sentences where literally every word would be unfamiliar to a typical computer user.
That's definitely a problem, and after chatting with some readers on Twitter recently I'm making more of an effort to 'translate' jargon and buzzwords in software descriptions.
[0] See, e.g., http://onethingwell.org/tagged/todo