Both KDE and Gnome are stable. Anaconda works the same way for both of them, because that stuff doesn’t have anything to do with the DE.

It really depends on your preferences. KDE is easily customizaple and has a lot of features and UX improvements. But it can clutter quite easily: these options can be overwhelming.

GNOME follows a very strict workflou design that’s more similar to how phones work and helps an ADHD brain, like me to focus more. You can customize it, but you’ll do so at your own risk.

Best to try out both in a live system and do some things that emulate your day-to-day workflow. Then you can decide. And you can always change afterwards! If you have a separate home-partition, reinstalling a new DE/Distro is super trivial.

Holy shit! Can that be any more drawn out and boring?

It says that it s “inspired” by monospaced fonts. I imagine they mean stuff like the tiny serif on the lowercase i

Good luck pirating live service games.

I remember liking it 10 years ago. Now, it’s not only way worse: it simply got surpassed by all the markdown note-taking apps (Joplin, Logseq, …) and xournalpp (or even rnote).

Moral of the story: try rnote. It’s good.

I remember that Jdownloader could crack some CAPTCHAs back in the 00’s.

It doesn’t really address the core of the issue. Also: you said something wrong and ri corrected you, while acknowledging that the text was gender neutral now. What’s the big deal?

But not the PR.

You claimed the PR was merged.

No, it wasn’t. You might say that the issue was sidestepped, because it says “it”, rather than “they”, now.

I guess it was an overreaction by mastodon, though. Even if I understand the initial criticism.

Not really an example for transphobia, but rejecting gender-neutral language in documentation is a red flag.

Luddites were based, actually.

rnote is really slick. Haven’t used it thoroughly, though. The default recommendation is xournal++,which is a bit more old-school, but still very good.

Thanks. Didn’t know the last bit. Ffs =.=

My (poorly chosen) example wasn’t about the side effects, but rather about the differing layers of abstraction. Almost all criticisms I’ve seen was about the “functions should be like only 4 lines” rule. Which admittetly: Is a bit whack. But no one actually pulls that rule through, do they?

Can you give examples? I genuinely can’t think of how the principles applied with proper restraint not to overdo it make code hard to maintain. But I’ve only watched his talk a few years ago - not the book.

You do? I have the opposite experience: I regularly stumple over dirty code where levels of abstraction differ wildly and I regularly lose my train of thought, because some function writeToFile() all of a sudden shifts some bit in a register with an outdated comment next to it (overly dramatizised).

Functions never being longer than 4 lines goes, too far IMHO, but the “clean code should read like prose” bit is something that has been really useful to me.

Yeah. I get more of what you’re saying now. The 3 line functions on principle are indeed a bit much. Although I’ve found that sometimes theare necessary to stay consistent with the layers of abstraction (e.g.: a for-loop that writes some data over some bus).

Sorry, I still don’t really get the hate.

Most of the good points are common sense.

I use what I learned from watching a talk by him on clean code and I had to learn some stuff. It might be “common sense” for experienced developers. But it certainly doesn’t come naturally that “functions should do one thing” to first time coders. The thought processes of when the software was developed usually isn’t the best way the code should be structured in the end. But that’s usually how beginners code.

It’s mostly based on what he feels is good.

In most diciplines, experience in the field is what makes the knowledge of the field. You don’t always have to be able to explain why good practice does what it does.

Also: I know of some examples, where he clearly explains his reasoning, e.g. why comments shouldn’t explain how the code works. (Because they’re not going to be updated, when the code will be)

As a programmer, I want all relevant logic of a method to be neatly collected in one place - not scattered around deeply nested method calls.

Either you misrepresent him, or you get a hard nope from me. Staying on one layer of abstraction is most likely my most important principle of writing understandable and maintainable code.

I don’t really get the hate he gets in the other comments. Are you all joking, or can someone elaborate? I always liked what I’ve read/heard of Bob.