I learned about artbollocks-mode.el from Sacha Chua's post, and it's pretty freaking amazing.

Basically, it does some processing of your writing--while you work--to highlight passive sentences and affected jargon.1 And that's all. There are some functions for generating statistics about your writing, but I find I don't use that functionality often. You can enable it all of the time, or just turn it on when you're doing editing.

After a few weeks, I've noticed a marked improvement in the quality of my output. I leave it on all the time, but I'm pretty good at resisting the urge to edit while I'm writing. Or at least I'm pretty good at picking up again after going back to tweak a wording. In general it's hard to keep more than a few things in an editing pass at any time.

It turns out that the instant feedback on passive sentences, even though it's not perfect, is great for improving the quality of my content the first time out. And it's even better for doing editing work. It's harder to ignore a passive sentence when the editor is highlighting you see a screen full of them for you.

It's of course important to be able to ignore its suggestions from time to time, and it's no harder to ignore than "flyspell-mode" (the on-the-fly spell checker in emacs.)

I'm not sure I'd fully realized it before, but the key problems in systems administration--at least the kind that I interact with the most--are really manifestations of a tension between complexity and reliability.

Complex systems are often more capable flexible, so goes the theory. At the same time, complexity often leads to operational failure, as a larger number of moving parts leads to more potential points of failure. I think it's an age old engineering problem and I doubt that there are good practical answers.

I've been working on this writing project where I've been exploring a number of fundamental systems administration problem domains, so this kind of thing is on my mind. It seems, that the way to address the hard questions often come back to "what are the actual requirements, and are you willing to pay the premiums to make the complex systems reliable?"

Trade-offs around complexity also happen in software development proper: I've heard more than a few developers talk in the last few months weigh the complexity of using dynamic languages like Python for very large scale projects. While the quests and implications manifest differently for code, it seems like this is part of the same problem.

Rather than prattle on about various approaches, I'm just going to close out this post with a few open questions/thoughts:

• What's the process for determining requirements that accounts for actual required complexity?

• How do things that had previously been complex, become less complex?

  Perhaps someone just has write the code in C or C++ and let it mature for a few years before administrators accept it as stable?

• Is there an corresponding level of complexity threshold in software development and within software itself? (Likely yes,) and is it related to something intrinsic to particular design patterns, or to tooling (i.e. programming language implementations, compilers, and so forth.)

  Might better developer tooling allow us to programs of larger scope in dynamic languages (perhaps?)

Reader submitted questions:

• Your questions here.

Answers, or attempts thereat ?on the discussion page.

I've been subject to a rather annoying emacs bug for months. Basically, when you start emacs with the --daemon switch, and the X11 session exits, and any emacs frames are open, then the emacs process dies. No warning. The whole point, to my mind, of the daemon mode is to allows emacs sessions to persist beyond the current X11 session.

This shouldn't happen. I think this is the relevant bug report, but I seem to remember that the issue has something to do with the way that GTK interacts with the X11 session and emacs's frames. It's something of a deadlock: the GTK has no real need to fix the bug (and/or it's a behavior that they rely on for other uses,) and it might not really be possible or feasible for emacs to work around this issue.1

I also think that it's probably fair to say that daemon mode represent a small minority all emacs usage.

Regardless, I've figured out the workaround:

.. don't use GTK.

Turns out, it's totally possible to build GNU emacs without GTK, by using the "Lucid" build. Which is to say, use the windowing system kit built for Lucid Emacs (i.e. XEmacs,) rather than GTK. I was able, using the code below, to get an emacs experience with the new build that seems identical2 to the one I used to get with GTK, except without the frustrating crashes every time that X11 spazzed when I decided to unplug a monitor or some such. A welcome improvement, indeed.

The following emacs-lisp covers all of the relevant configuration of the "look and feel" of my emacs session. Install the Inconsolata font if you haven't already, you'll be glad you did.

 (setq-default inhibit-startup-message 't
               initial-scratch-message 'nil
               save-place t
               scroll-bar-mode nil
               tool-bar-mode nil
               menu-bar-mode nil
               scroll-margin 0
               indent-tabs-mode nil
               flyspell-issue-message-flag 'nil
               size-indication-mode t
               scroll-conservatively 25
               scroll-preserve-screen-position 1
               cursor-in-non-selected-windows nil)

 (setq default-frame-alist '((font-backend . "xft")
                             (font . "Inconsolata-14")
                             (vertical-scroll-bars . 0)
                             (menu-bar-lines . 0)
                             (tool-bar-lines . 0)
                             (alpha 86 84)))

 (tool-bar-mode -1)
 (scroll-bar-mode -1)
 (menu-bar-mode -1)

Hope this helps you and/or anyone else that might have run into this problem.

tl;Dr> I got one of those nifty laptop risers that puts your laptop up closer to eye level, and it has pretty much improved all of my interactions with computers a thousand fold and it's made it possible for me to effectively use two screens. This post explores this.

One of my coworkers had a laptop stand she wasn't using and I asked to borrow it for an afternoon, and my neck stopped hurting. I never thought my neck hurt before, but apparently it does.

Or did.

But there's more: for years now I've kept an extra monitor around (and had one at work) but the truth is that I have never really felt like I've been able to get the most out of an external monitor.

Somehow, putting my laptop 4 inches in the air was the little change that made everything better. The laptop is generally on the left of the external monitor, and I have task lists, notes buffers, the chat window, and my status logging window on the laptop, and then three windows on the external (emacs buffer, terminal, emacs buffer) on the right. My primary focus centers between the monitors, but probably edges slightly toward the external, most of the time.

Also, I discovered that I--apparently--have a slight processing/attention defect whereby I find it painful and difficult to focus on things that are happening on the right side of the screen for any amount of time. Which is weird because my right eye has always been noticeably stronger. I'll ponder this more later.

My virtual desktops for email and web browsing are a bit less rigid, but the same basic idea. Somehow it seems to work. I've done a little bit of work recently to get the layouts right, to minimize the impact of the window management of most context switching (scripting various transitions, saving layouts, etc.) In all things are going great.

It strikes me that I've not posted here even a little about my setup in a while. The truth is that it's not terribly surprising and I've not changed very much recently. I'm back to one laptop, and as anxious as having one laptop makes me sometimes (I fear the lack of redundancy,) not having to keep it synced makes life easier. I've put some time into doing a little bit of polish on all of little bits of configuration/code that I have that makes my computing world go around, but mostly it's pretty good.

It's nice, and I'd write more about it, but I want to get back to getting things done around here. Exporting and exploring some of this stuff in greater depth is definitely on my list, so hang in there, and if there's something you particularly want to see, ?be in touch.