|
this, or that? trying to choose better
this: sometimes this is better. there might be times when this isn’t better, even if this is better almost all the time. often this goes without saying, although sometimes people choose this when they ought to choose that- and vice versa. that: sometimes that is underestimated, although sometimes this or that are neither very good choices, and a third option is better- sometimes both options would be better together, and sometimes there are lots of options that would be better together. both: see “that.”
free software: this is the movement that open source diverged from. its goal is to make all software free, to get rid of the practice where your computer is controlled by someone else, just because they wrote software for it. of course there’s the alternative freedom, to choose to give up freedom in little ways, but this is not a choice that reflects what the free software movement exists to achieve. open source: this movement was created as a way of promoting software produced by the free software movement- less often, it promotes the idea of free software itself. a lot of people think it’s the same thing as free software- while all free software does offer source that is “open,” the goals of free software are not the same as the goals of open source- misunderstanding (or being unaware of) the differences between the goals of each movement often leads to heated debates and ad hominem attacks from both sides, who sometimes forget that they’re supposed to be working at cross purposes. both: free software advocates and open source advocates are sometimes allies, as the paths to their respective goals often overlap- this is not necessarily a bad thing that they see what they have in common, open source initiative founder bruce perens has an awful lot in common with free software foundation founder richard stallman. it’s when free software is trying to make things more free, while open source is enthusiastically accepting less freedom that the two have irreconcilable differences… due not to different approaches to the same goal, but to notably different goals.
kde 3.5: i’m going to side with the 3.5 people here, kde 4 looks totally awesome and yet i really don’t like using it at all. it makes me feel like i used to feel when i started using a mac, like everything would be ok as long as i could open a term and avoid the terrible (though good looking) gui. of course, 3.5 is going to lose support, no matter what people say, and what would the point be then? i like kde apps, they make great apps, and i use them even when i don’t use the kde desktop- this still refers to 3.5 though. kde 4.x: i think a lot of people would use 4 over 3.5 just because of how cool it looks. make no mistake, a lot of people consider more than looks when it comes to their software, but kde 4 is really good looking. i find it difficult to believe it would be in the state it’s in if everyone hated it, so i’m probably in the minority. what i know is i love 3.5, more now than ever, and in part because it’s not kde 4. kde 4 is sort of inevitable since they’re not going to support 3.5, but… both: of course you can use both, though probably not very well on the same installation. (?) i would say neither… or 3.5 for now, and we’ll see what kde 5 is like. it becomes a trickier question when the matter of kde or gnome comes around. i rarely use kde for the desktop environment.
kde: before kde 4, this was an easy question, and the answer was kde. a long time ago, the obvious answer was gnome (only because of how qt was being done- that difference is now irrelevant.) today you barely even have much of a choice- if you normally prefer kde. gnome: there are a few things i like about gnome. i won’t say what they are and they’re subject to change. if i’d typed this earlier today it would have been from gnome, on a system i really didn’t want to tinker with yet, but today i installed kde 3.5 on it and it’s refreshing. i could make some complaints about kde 3.5 too, but there are so many things i loathe about gnome- too many to mention. both: the reality is that it’s almost “impossible” to uninstall gnome, if you’re using xwindows. i think i’ve seen mini distros with x but not gnome, generally you’re running something from the gnome project no matter what. i try to avoid it, when there are obvious alternatives.
vi: i use nano the most, when it’s available. there are certain things i wouldn’t like to edit with nano, for those i would probably use vi. it’s lightweight, mostly ubiquitous, and it usually does what you’d expect it to- not much, you might argue, and i might agree. emacs: emacs is such a cool idea, and in a way it was the beginning of the free software movement, which makes it cooler still. that said, every time i do the tutorial i end up forgetting the very basic things you need to do to get around and use it for simple tasks. i press keys and i can’t even figure out what’s going on, i thought i remembered the right combinations… every time i try to use emacs i end up promising myself i’ll write a “replacement” (really just some editor) in python, as that feels easier. instead, i use leafpad and nano, and i keep promising myself i won’t. both: no, i really can’t use emacs. it’s too much editor for me. if it had to be emacs or vi, maybe i could figure out emacs, though as long as there’s a third option i’ll probably settle for vi long before bothering with emacs. i’m not saying i love vi, only that it’s more comfortable- despite effort.
|
|
this, or that?
trying to choose better
This site is run by riseup.net, your friendly autonomous tech collective since 1999.
This site is powered by crabgrass, AGPL software libre for network organizing