You must log in or # to comment.
deodorant must violate Unix philosophy based on my experience with Linux users
Lmao
suckless shampoo: you have to build it yourself. want no tears? that’s a patch. smell like coconut? patch. you forgot to add the coconut smell to the config so it’s not gonna build, try again.
*principles
What if it’s systemd’s shampood?
Or:
shampoo -> /bin/busybox
conditioner -> /bin/busybox
I find it funny that systemd gets so much hate for trying to be all the things, but haven’t seen the same criticism directed at busybox
Programming too:
One role, one responsibility!
Eh I think its fine. Its just
clean hair --conditionor
clean body --moisturizeAnd its not like literally any cleaning product on the market isn’t just a wrapper around libclean anyway
Fuck that’s a good edit
That’s true, but neither of those options are POSIX-compliant. You have to set POSIX_ME_SLIMY for clean to also condition.
Son, I’m crine
me slimy ,😭
2-in-1 shampoos suck tho, so unix wins again
Exactly.
Shampoo is supposed to remove dirt and grease from your hair. Conditioner is supposed to replace the necessary oils your hair needs to have. … Which need to be replaced because the shampoo just washed them all away. In order to make a 2-in-1 shampoo and conditioner, they have to make a significant compromise, producing a shampoo that doesn’t wash all the grime out and a conditioner that doesn’t stay and replenish as well as a standalone one would. So you get both in one bottle … but a shitty version of both. Using separate products will work much better. Even the cheapest shampoo and cheapest conditioner out there, used individually, will easily outperform even the fanciest combination.
Oh, and while we’re here… That thing on the bottle that says ‘lather, rinse, repeat’? It’s not just for fun, and not just because they want you to use more shampoo. It actually does work noticeably better if you do it twice in a row.
I have really long hair and another benefit of doing them separately is, it’s easiest to brush it right after applying conditioner, and harder when it has shampoo in it. So there’s that on top of really needing the conditioner to work well.
I am following your logic, but as someone who’s been using a 2 in 1 for like a decade, I can tell you everyones hair needs are different. I’ve used them separately as well and it really does not make a difference for me.
Even the cheapest shampoo and cheapest conditioner out there, used individually, will easily outperform even the fanciest combination.
But I really take offence to this line, absolutely not true. The cheapest shampoo will dry up/irritate your scalp, the cheapest conditioner will make your hair feel like an oil spill.
Folks shampoo is for you skalp/hair roots and conditioner is for the tips only.
I prefer the gnu 2-in-1, in order to have a different implementation to the BSD version they optimised for speed over space.
