> 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 Philpotlphilpot01@gmail.comSent from Evolution on Xubuntu Linux
On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 22:15 +, 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
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users
