Many people praise KDE. But to me, KDE is extremely ugly.
Admittedly, I use Gnome. I have few requirements for a DE and most existing DEs meet my need[1]. Many in the Linux community hate Gnome (not sure what the short comings are). I use it mainly because it is the default in most cases.
But KDE is extremely ugly out of the box: the panel at the bottom. The window frames, the mouse pointer, the menues. It takes some work to make it reasonable.
What are the features that people actually use on KDE that are missing on Gnome (or require some work to get on Gnome)? I mostly see only the argument that KDE is "extremely customizable" compared to Gnome. I agree, but what is the actual customization that one does that make the difference, which are more work to achieve (or impossible) on Gnome? I am genuinely asking: I can live with ugly DE if I am missing something I don't know.
[1] my needs: ability to switch windows, ability to press super key to search for an app, ability to display time.
> Many people praise KDE. But to me, KDE is extremely ugly.
>
> Admittedly, I use Gnome.
Same. To each their own, but I also prefer the aesthetics of the GNOME and GTK ecosystem. Though I use Sway as a WM the past few years, I always opt for GNOME and GTK apps when there are options. I've been using Linux since about 2000.
Because other people matter and building a caring and just society means we’ll all get further in the one life we have. If you require the threat of eternal punishment to do the right thing and be a good person I’d question if you truly are.
Of course not everyone can or will do the right thing without being threatened with punishment... but I think it's possible to make the world a better place in general if we can at least tone down the amount of bad things happening, even if it requires "threatening" the people that need it to behave.
But if there is no afterlife, why does building caring and just society matter? If you (and everyone else, and the universe) is going to die, you might as well train your conscious and trample on the lives of others if it leads to success in life.
> But if there is no afterlife, why does building caring and just society matter?
Because some (most?) of us are empathetic and compassionate people. We care about others and hurt when they hurt. We want to live in a just society and want to leave behind a just society for others after us.
The fact that it requires „training your conscience“ to „trample on the lives of others“ suggests that such an outlook is not a default state of being.
Most of us are egoistic a-holes, and most of us like to build false picture of them in their minds so we can have nice time thinking that we are good persons.
Even without believing in a life after this one, a lot of people seem to find immense value in living ethically/morally for its benefits in this life: a clear conscience, building trust, strengthening relationships, etc.
Even though life can be cruel, there seems to be an overarching goodness built into the universe that benefits those who float in its current.
Faith, ethics, etc., can be considered survival mechanics of a higher-level organism relative to individual human. These matters will by definition not make sense if you view them only from the perspective of a standalone individual—and it is fine, because humans really do not exist as standalone individuals.
Do you care about people _now_, even though their existence is finite and at some point anything you may or may not have done to affect them will cease mattering?
> At the end, the only thing that ever matters is the good we tried to do
But even this doesn't matter. If all goes to dust, even the good we do or the love we share. If we do evil, or if we hate the strangers, it makes no difference. We might as well do that if it satisfies us.
This is a philosophy, or "opinion", and should not be confused with truth. If the world was 100% evil people and beings, across all of history, forever, the present would look very different than it does now. And none of us know what the future holds.
Not the GP, but I suspect the GP meant that Aquinas's Summa and Aquinas's Contra (his major works) starts with discussing first whether there is a god.
> are any of those books a good read for someone
I am not Catholic. I wouldn't recommend Aquinas.
However, I would recommend "reasonable faith" book by William Craig. Or if you want his lectures to listen to, you can start from his lectures on the existence of God[1]
If you are talking about how can one believe in God in an "axiomatic" way, yet still be rational and warranted, I suggest Plantinga's "warranted Christian belief" or his more popular level book "Knowledge and Christian Belief".
> The article starts with that but then provides no evidence for that claim
You people are sure allergic to anything religious.
The author's main point isn't that so he or she didn't support it. I don't think it's true, though he is an important figure in philosophy and theology still.
Should the author also first attempt to prove the existence of Aquinas? And that he was a monk? Before writing about him? Does he need to prove that Aquinas wrote the work the work usually attribute to him? Does he need to prove there is a god? Just to talk about Aquinas' view? But I agree his intro is a bit overestimating.
Any solution has its cons. Github workflows has downsides and this solution does solve them (and introduces its own). But what I am not getting is why this approach is better than the email workflow.
The downsides of email workflow that the author mentioned are (1) Having to setup mailing list, (2) setting the mail client, (3) friction in submitting a patch, which I assume the author is referring to setting git-send, (4) email is limited such as not being able to modify it, not being able to download the patch, and limitation around the plain-text, and the author doesn't hint into what limitation he is thinking of.
These are downsides of email workflow, and I do not think they are significant (except for 1, which could be done though a person's email address if the project is small). But the SSH workflow replaces them with similar issues such as (1) setting SSH server and maintaining it and the cost associated with it, (2) clients will need to maintain their identities though SSH, (4) replace email-replies with code comments (email-replies is better as you can do more than just text). (3) Here SSH workflow is better as it requires no work, but configuring git-send is a very small and usually 1-time change.
In most cases, the only mail client requirement is to be able to write plain text. Virtually all mail clients can do this with a simple checkbox. Only the maintainer will need ability to `git am' the patch from an email message, and this is indeed a downside of email workflow.
All in all, nothing wrong with more options, and I am sure SSH meets certain needs, but to me email-workflow and SSH compete in the same category and email-workflow is superior.
Eh, (2)/(3) can be a pain for web mail accounts. For instance, I couldn't send patches to LKML through Gmail directly, since even for plain-text emails it wants to rewrap long lines itself. To get "git send-email" working through it, I had to wade through a bunch of outdated info to find the right method.
Even now there are persistent downsides: every email through "git send-email" contains my original IP address for everyone to see, unless I use a VPN service. Also, since I'm not a right-thinking person with a 'real' client-based inbox, I have to fiddle with the In-Reply-To and References headers by hand, if I want to include a patch in a reply to another email.
> every email through "git send-email" contains my original IP address for everyone to see
Is this the fault of git or your SMTP provider? I looked through a mailman archive and couldn't find my client IP address. The first Received headers refer to my email host.
The final Received header has "Received: from <my local hostname> (<my ISP's hostname for my IP address> [<my IP address>]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id <blah blah blah>". Regardless of who's to blame, it makes it more of a pain to send any raw email through SMTP, using "git send-email" or otherwise.
Let me try to explain to you, with my best abilities, what you are missing.
You are missing nothing. Absolutely nothing. As a vim user.
org-mode, is a bunch of features, unrelated sometimes, put together in the emacs eco-system that work well together, and work well in the emacs eco-system.
Org (and sometimes, with extensions) can handle scheduling, task management, document production, journals, literate programming, writing html emails, maintaining contacts info, building knowledge base, writing blog articles, etc.
If you are a vim user, you probably better off sticking with markdown for creating documents, and then using pandoc to convert them. You are probably better off sticking with task warrior for tasks. You are probably better off sticking with a calendar app for schedule, ... you get the picture.
But in emacs, org-mode is integrated so well in the eco-system that it makes it quite powerful. You can, while reading some code, take a note immediately, pointing to the region (which includes a hyperlink to the line, as well as copy of the content of the highlighted region) and store it in your todo list, with a scheduled time to review. It will appear in your agenda when you ask emacs to view your agenda.
In emacs, you can write a document (in org-mode format) and then include it in an email (within emacs), which is automatically converted into html when you send (or text, or both MIME.), ... you probably get this picture too. Org-mode provides a set of APIs that allows for automation and customization.
Because emacs has many usecases, and because org-mode meets many of these usecases, and because it integrates well, org-mode has found a special place in the emacs community.
Honest question: I have been using emacs/vim for many years, and always just used the diff viewer shipped with them. Any reason to switch to these tools? Do they have some functionality not available in these old tools? I am, frankly, ignorant of what these tools provide.
Maybe my use-cases are too basic? I appreciate a good diff gui, but really like vimdiff more than almost all of the ones I've seen. For folders `diff -qr one/ two/` does everything I feel like I need. I love just filtering things with grep instead of trying to figure out however that tool wants to ignore specific changes.
Thank you for asking in a way that is not derogatory unlike many of the comments here. There are two reasons generally. I am a Christian, and morally natural to the vaccine.
The first (and rarely claimed as the reason) is the mark of the beast interpretation in Revelation. Interpreting much of Revelation is hard, whether the mark is metaphorical or actual, and what the mark is, and what the beast is, are all questions with not extremely clear answers.
The second, and by far the most claimed reason, is the use of fatal tissues in testing, developing, or producing the vaccine. Here, Christians consider supporting and taking this vaccine is similar to supporting abortion. In a similar way, one might think that buying products produced by child labor is supporting child labor, or that eating meat is supporting animal cruelty.
The same Christians who do not support covid vaccine for the second reason, might be fine with taking other vaccines, even if they were developed by aborted tissues. The main reason here is that it has been such a long time between the development and today that taking the vaccine is not a support of such behavior. Similarly, one today might use ride a volkswagon beetle without being considered a supporter of nazi, even though it was developed by the nazi.
Some Christians see that the vaccine is good despite of using fatal tissues, because they see that there is no alternative to preventing getting covid, and so it is permissible in this exceptional circumstance.
Admittedly, I use Gnome. I have few requirements for a DE and most existing DEs meet my need[1]. Many in the Linux community hate Gnome (not sure what the short comings are). I use it mainly because it is the default in most cases.
But KDE is extremely ugly out of the box: the panel at the bottom. The window frames, the mouse pointer, the menues. It takes some work to make it reasonable.
What are the features that people actually use on KDE that are missing on Gnome (or require some work to get on Gnome)? I mostly see only the argument that KDE is "extremely customizable" compared to Gnome. I agree, but what is the actual customization that one does that make the difference, which are more work to achieve (or impossible) on Gnome? I am genuinely asking: I can live with ugly DE if I am missing something I don't know.
[1] my needs: ability to switch windows, ability to press super key to search for an app, ability to display time.
reply