> You can still see traces of this in application names (eg beginning > or ending with qt or k or gn :-) which was probably warm and fuzzy at > the time, but gets less and less relevant as the application matures, > u ntil it's just annoying.
Let's see... g*, k*, q*, x* ... I guess minor consolation is that it's not unique to unix/Linux: win*, mac*... or for that matter, i*, e*? I guess I shouldn't lean too much on "e", since I'm reading this via email. :-) Like you said, it's cute for a while but soon wears thin, ending up looking amateurish and somehow (to me, at least) childish. -- Len [email protected] from Evolution on Xubuntu Linux On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 22:15 +0000, Peter Flynn wrote: > On 15/11/17 07:01, Teresa e Junior wrote: > > > > Em 14/11/2017 21:50, Len Philpot escreveu: > > > > > > From what I recall, the debate was fundamentally about more > > > options > > > and complexity vs. fewer options and good defaults. There were > > > good > > > points on both sides and the idea of good, intelligent defaults > > > always makes sense, but it all too often (IMO) seems to end up > > > being "too few options" and lowest-common-denominator defaults > > > (i.e. dumbed-down). In other words, if I wanted a "fruit" computer > > > I would've bought one. :-) > > I settled with Xubuntu exactly because of this. You have the whole > > power of Debian behind you, so you can configure your system as much > > as any other distribution, while at the same time having sane > > defaults for most packages. > I fit into exactly the same category, although I gave up on GNOME, > Xfce, > KDE, and variants once I discovered Enlightenment. I have flirted > with > other distributions, but Xubuntu has always done what I need. > > The only problem is that they stopped 32-bit distros at 16.10, and we > have a few old emergency laptops in the office which we were > carefully > keeping up to date (and Xubuntu 16.04 runs perfectly on them). Now > we'll > have to replace them. > > Len's point about good arguments both sides is a good one. What I > tend > to be wary of is applications or interfaces written solely because > the > programmer is enamoured of a new technology or library or toolkit. > You > can still see traces of this in application names (eg beginning or > ending with qt or k or gn :-) which was probably warm and fuzzy at > the > time, but gets less and less relevant as the application matures, > until > it's just annoying. > > ///Peter -- xubuntu-users mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users
