void-docs VS ebuku

In general, Void assumes familiarity with the principles of Linux and UNIX system. Basic questions about configuring or running a Linux system can frequently be answered with a Google search. The Internet grew up with UNIX, and Linux grew up on the Internet; you are encouraged to avail yourself of the extensive body of knowledge already out there. Some particulars of Void administration are described in the handbook; consult this document before asking common questions about configuring Void systems.

I know for sure that these images work with espeakup, and espeakup can be enabled at boot by adding live.screenreader to the command line as described here

You might look at https://docs.voidlinux.org/, which provides a good overview of Void. The package manager, xbps is [my opinion] better that apt [I have to use the latter in AntiX Linux].

the final criticism i have for void is the way they have decided to host their docs; as this void-docs. This bottlenecks the possible amount of expertise you'd receive from your doc writers by ensuring that only those who want to learn git are able to contribute to your docs. this, to me, is very inadequate if your intent is to have documentation written by those who are very good at docwriting but not necessarily maneuvering in version control systems like git. i'm not sure what the impetus was to move away from the traditional wiki model, but this from my perspective is a failure.

Follow the guide on the void website and you will be fine. Come here for support, we love helping others out and it's a great community, on par with the OpenBSD community as far as being helpful and encouraging you to learn the OS. If you find there's a package you need that hasn't been added to xbps yet, you can use a Flatpak or AppImage (easy way) or build the package yourself using xbps-src (advanced way, worth learning down the line).

I just made a PR on their github to add this.

Perl has traditionally been my language of choice for this sort of stuff (e.g. this script for converting mdBook to LaTeX), but more recently i've been focusing on POSIX shell scripts as a personal challenge and learning exercise.

from https://docs.voidlinux.org/

Understanding how runit manages services is critical. Also, there are certain "restricted" packages that xbps can manage but not download. The handbook does a good job covering both topics.

Another option is to use something like ebuku.

i remember looking at that Google style guide a while back, and not being enthused about it. It's true my style across my POSIX scripts isn't yet entirely consistent, as i'm new to writing POSIX shell scripts, and am still working out what's best for me, as the person who's going to be the primary maintainer. Still, i believe my style to be basically consistent within a given script. Having been programming for a few decades now - although i only started coding-for-pay in the late 90s, starting with Perl - i've developed my own preferences regarding code layout (such as in my ELisp packages, e.g. Ebuku), and nowadays take the approach: I'll follow others' style in others' projects, and will generally try to follow common style standards in my own projects, but will modify them as needed when i find they're not conducive to my work.

Well, indeed, i certainly wasn't expecting you to do so! But i already have more than enough volunteer FOSS stuff on my plate as it is (e.g. Ebuku, pulseaudio-control, s6-man-pages, execline-man-pages and guides, amongst various other things), and not using mold with gcc 11 is no problem for me at this point. So i've just noted the issue with the patch on the wiki page, and the patch will have to be updated by someone for whom it's more important.

Fair point. Still, as a FOSS dev myself, i feel that the title might serve as a useful reminder to a number of their readers. Particularly when so many people use FOSS developed by large corporations, and see themselves as 'customers' entitled to 'responsive service'[a] that those of us who aren't a corporation aren't necessarily in a position to provide (even if we do try to provide 'best effort'). The contents of the screencap for one of my FOSS projects is not random. :-)

Based on your post headline, i was going to suggest my Ebuku package, an Emacs frontend to the buku Web bookmark manager - i use it myself, and it has support for both tags and comments on links. But it doesn't meet your requirement of capturing from the browser; i copy-and-paste the URL from the browser into an Emacs prompt.

Me asking for actual data about the the extent to which various arguments to the -O flag is me "trying to argue with you" and "having a bad day"? Er, what? i'm saying your assertions might well be correct, but as a dev myself (here's some of the stuff i've been doing during our exchange), i want some concrete data in support of this, because "premature optimisation is the root of all evil" (cf. "Rob Pike's 5 Rules of Programming").

Not beyond playing around a bit with Squeak. i like Smalltalk's message-passing approach to OO, and i like how thoroughly modifiable the environment is. i haven't spent enough time to know how easily it can interface with the system on which the image is running; one of the things i like about Emacs is that, in addition to being so modifiable itself, it provides lots of support for interacting with software outside of itself. (E.g. i wrote an Emacs package which provides an Emacs UI for the CLI-based buku Web bookmark manager: Ebuku.)