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.
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.
> 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.
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.
How many are third-party?