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
