Yeah... poorly phrased. I understand that there's more than a kernel and a shell; I started with Gentoo and worked quite a bit with RedHat/CentOS/Fedora before moving to Ubuntu and then to Debian.
The point was that what you get without selecting or installing anything else via a package manager is still apparently far less than what you get with a "base install" from a BSD (at least according to the article) and that that starting point is what I'm used to.
So your contention is that there is no basic installation... followed by the assertion that the basic installation, which does not exist, is larger than that of any BSD. Sorry, I'm going to have a hard time taking this seriously. And, frankly, your statement about the "full OS" is meaningless, as unless you consider the "full OS" to be only the base system, it includes every possible package, which very obviously is NOT going to be smaller than anything you could consider a basic Linux installation.
I meant small in terms of packages. The kernel, a shell, and not much else unless you specify it. Obviously you will specify something else, but the point was that I'm used to specifying exactly what else I want, so I have that habit to break/relearn.
The point you ignored or missed is that as a Linux user with no BSD exposure there's a basic difference in philosophy that creates several kinds of tradeoffs that I find compelling and interesting. I'm not "bringing up" anything in terms of absolute pros and cons, I'm highlighting what I consider noteworthy differences in terms of learning more about things I have not used.
As a Debian user who started on Gentoo, I think the linked article was very interesting in terms of at least getting an idea of what the differences in design are.
I've never used a BSD or even looked into it... given what I read there, it seems like it'd be a lot nicer in at least one sense, since Debian releases die off and release-upgrade can be either perfect or very painful.
On the other hand, I do love how small and unassuming a basic Linux installation is, and -- as the author repeatedly and correctly stresses -- I'm used to doing things the way I currently do them. That's not good or bad, it's just momentum.
I do hope I'll get the chance to work with a BSD at some point, but much like my attempts to really get into Clojure... well, unlike the Stones, most of us do not have time on our side.
Better suggestion: Be careful when listening to anyone making absolute judgments based on generalizations.
Some operating systems, just like some applications, are better for certain purposes (often because they were designed and built specifically to be suitable for those purposes). "You can do anything with anything" is a very idealistic oversimplification that's implied by the idea that no OS is ever better than any other.
Google throws its weight around just as much as Microsoft ever did, they just smile while they do it.
I think it's less a matter of attitude and more a matter of being really, really good at doing it either unobtrusively or at least in a way that people won't mind or won't understand.
With so many years of experience with how users interact with information, they have the potential for unprecedented insight into the realities of UI interaction.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, and I agree that Google isn't doing us as users any favors in this regard (any more than Microsoft ever did or does), but there's more behind the fact that they're getting away with it among less user outrage than simply public image.
Absolutely agreed on the great knife bit. As for the bread... I think ditching the expectation of perfectly even slices is a good start. Cut a piece and cut it in half; there, half a sandwich (assuming your bread maker spits out loaves with a square cross section). Want another half? It may not be the same thickness as the first one, but as long as you're a little bit careful, your pieces should at least be consistent with themselves, so there you go.
I can respect your aesthetic reasons for running OS X, but it's entirely subjective. I'm exactly the opposite: I run Mac hardware because, for my requirements, it's the only option. I run Debian on it because, for my requirements, looking pretty is the very last thing on my list and whatever doesn't run from the terminal is a few easy clicks away.
"Lukewarm" with respect to a "desktop experience" depends entirely on what you want from your desktop. I have the same "why does this software hate me" while attempting to use OS X. It doesn't make either of our experiences more or less valid; it simply means that different people have different tastes and requirements, and that any given mix of hardware and software might be great for you but will be totally inappropriate for someone else.
There are two fairly consistent benefits to running OS X:
1. It usually comes installed on great hardware.
2. It's less vulnerable to most things than Windows.
Beyond that, if you choose to build a Hackintosh, in my opinion you (for whatever reason) enjoy OS X enough to depend on it but don't like Apple enough to run their OS without paying their hardware premium (entirely understandable from the price perspective but a little illogical if you take it a bit further).
Frankly, I can't see any reason for the Hackintosh middle ground other than people who can't cope without the OS but can't afford the hardware. The software is little more than a neutered and compromised version of BSD that lets you part way into a walled garden (cue It's a trap! meme).
Granted: There's also the requirement of a Mac for iOS development... but guess what? You're still stuck with the developer program membership fee. Save $500 here, lose $100 a year there, along with probably being in violation of half a dozen usage limitations.
Why does "we're taking it down while we figure out what's going on" not qualify as a valid approach? Shouldn't safety be a higher priority than "well someone might want to look at the home page so we'll put more effort into a crappy default landing page?"
It's easy (and often correct), in hindsight, to say that some things should be prepared for in better or different ways. However, that's a different animal than "crap, something is up, we need to react in the best way we can now."
Yep, the recycling/trash system is nightmarish. Furnishing a new apartment (they don't typically come with anything, including a washer or fridge) results in a huge amount of packaging (the Japanese absolutely love to box, rebox, bag, rebag, wrap, rewrap, etc.) which makes your first month a very nasty lesson in how trash pickup works and doesn't.
There's nothing wrong with that for people who choose to use it that way. But it kills discoverability (well, more accurately, there is no discoverability) for people who may hear about it without being given the direct link to this particular site or the page itself and attempt to search for it, only to find... they're not really sure what.
I've been using and (for the most part) promoting Android ever since the G1... but after 2.x the rate of UI change has, in my opinion, been terrible from a usability experience.
Pretty much all software (whether that's apps, websites, programming languages, or anything else) past a certain complexity has quirks. Getting used to the quirks is part of learning the software.
Massively changing large swathes of your built-in software is bad for users! I get that it'd be suicide to say "OK, permanent feature freeze... now," but big changes to the UI on apps that are (to many normal users) fundamental to using Android break the user's understanding of their use, often amounting to months of acclimation down the drain.
For Chris “Douggs” McDougall, his definition of insanity is a lifetime of boredom, comfort and caution, wasting away on the sofa and hiding from the inevitability of danger.
I'm too exhausted to go look up the exact fallacy, but this is something like a straw man. And, whatever it is, it's the same one the article's title makes.
Not everyone takes pleasure from doing fundamentally stupid things in terms of lifespan. If they did, as a species, it's extremely unlikely, statistically speaking, that we would have survived this long.
Espouse your insane idea of fun all you want, but please, don't pretend it's somehow objective or intrinsic to humanity.
While I agree, I don't think attempting to perfect a ranking algorithm is useful beyond a certain point. At least for the topics I checked, it's reasonably close; there were a lot I didn't agree with, but then if it yielded my exact personal ranking, a lot of others wouldn't agree with it. So it's a bit of a roll of the dice, which in a way is nice, since there's just no ideal algorithm to be found. Getting close, which in my opinion they have, is pretty great.
That's an interesting and potentially useful idea, but if you go down that road, I think it'd be immediately relevant to also go into available subtitle languages. It also really depends on where this site gets its data from, as the "from [country x]" filtering can yield some questionable results.
I love the UI and the results! I'd just say that I have two concerns; while the click-to-add nature of the genre list is great, I don't think it's immediately intuitive. Perhaps I'm just part of the old "if you click a link it takes you to a page" demographic, but clicking to add or subtract -- while in my opinion the right mechanic here -- isn't immediately obvious. Making it more clear how this works could save you some traffic by avoiding requests from people who don't immediately understand how the UI works.
The second thing is that, on browsing movies "from Japan," I immediately get Band of Brothers, Kill Bill, Lost in Translation, The Last Samurai, and the latest American reboot of Godzilla. If it's intended to show movies set in a particular country, that's potentially a really cool gimmick, but as it is it seems inaccurate.
Inescapable? Sure, if you ignore sample size. There aren't enough countries period, and I don't think they're all similar enough in meaningful ways, for any subset to be considered a representative sample for just about anything.
I don't know enough about the debate to form an educated opinion one way or the other, I just can't stand hyperbole like this, especially when the underlying assumptions are so fundamentally flawed.
Edit: And over all of eight months. Wow, yeah, now I'm convinced...
This meshes with my impression that the separation here is almost nonexistent; the zones are more a matter of density than category. The lower residential zones can't have quite the same type of commerce in them, but I think most people in Tokyo live somewhere in the quasi-residential/neighborhood commercial/commercial row, so the more limiting zones aren't something you necessarily see a whole lot of.
Yep. I really, really dislike cities in the US (where I'm from), but now I live in Shinjuku, and it's great! Being able to just stroll down any alley and find an incredible amount of varied restaurants and shopped stacked on top of each other is brilliant. Definitely one of the reasons I like it here.
Why? That's a bit like saying a back end development framework is only a starting point, and you should start working outside of it as soon as your product is mature.
I don't think the name carries the explicit rejection of ongoing use that you believe it does. That you can use it to get started quickly does not mean you can't use it indefinitely; it's often necessary to tweak or hack Bootstrap to fit your specific visual requirements, but for a project that can actually use it without serious modification, I don't see a reason to throw out the convenience and consistency it provides arbitrarily, simply as a matter of course.
The point was that what you get without selecting or installing anything else via a package manager is still apparently far less than what you get with a "base install" from a BSD (at least according to the article) and that that starting point is what I'm used to.