Lecture Notes: Linux Exploration and Development

Introduction

• Focus of the Lecture: Exploration of C# .NET in Linux and terminal menus using different programming languages.
• Objectives:
  • Achieve YouTube and Twitch chat synchronization.
  • Explore C# .NET in Linux.
  • Investigate Go with Bubble Tea for terminal menus.
  • Compare Rust, C#, and Go for Linux utilities.

Key Topics Covered

Chat Synchronization

• Successfully integrated YouTube and Twitch chat.
• Demonstrated how both platforms can communicate seamlessly.

Linux and C# .NET

• Experiment: Running C# .NET on Linux.
• Challenges:
  • Admitted it may upset some Linux purists.
  • Linux users' typical preference for terminal commands over .NET-type environments.
• Goal: Understand feasibility and performance issues, if any.

Rust vs. Go vs. C# for Linux Utilities

Rust

• Current Use: Rust used for the current project state.
• Issues:
  • Problems with linutil, like interaction with prompts.
  • Failed nested prompts and sudo elevation requests.

C#

• Progress: Created a branch in C# and .NET
• Demonstration: Showed how C# and .NET were able to execute some tasks without major issues (like basic bash setup).
• Challenges:
  • Display issues.
  • Received errors when setting up environments.

Go and Bubble Tea

• Upcoming: Plan to experiment with Go and Bubble Tea for terminal utilities.
• Reason: To find a more suitable language for terminal menus and scripts.

Personal Opinions

• Rust: Personally not liking Rust for UI elements; prefers others’ solution.
• C#: A bit conflicted; admitted it feels “wrong” on Linux but intrigued by possibilities.
• General Observation: Will explore various programming languages to determine the best fit.
• Learning Focus: Believes the journey and knowledge gained are more important than just the end product.

Development Challenges

• Project Goal: Tool that can cater to user preferences like theme changes, scripting, and other utilities.
• User Interaction: Need for user inputs for sudo and customization of scripts.
• Tech Language: Not in a hurry, experimenting with different technologies.

Streaming Workflow

• Personal Experience: Streaming allows transparency in development showing real-time struggles and solutions.
• Engagement: Values feedback from the streaming community.
• Sponsors and Career: Prefers not doing sponsor spots; enjoys working on content and interacting directly with users.

Conclusion

• Outcome: Encountered major issues and system breakdown during the live demonstration.
• Plan: Intended to fix the problem offline and stream again.
• Learning: Demonstrates difficulties and real-world troubleshooting.

Final Thoughts

• Lesson: Experimentation and transparency in development, even if failures happen.
• Future Streams: Promised to continue working on it and stream soon again to show progress.