3 ms·

I've always been confused by the "choices" argument: it seems to be a false dichotomy. Why not have good defaults but then let determined users change whatever

by tikhonj 15y ago

I've always been confused by the "choices" argument: it seems to be a false dichotomy. Why not have good defaults but then let determined users change whatever they want? If you don't care, you just use the system as is; if you are consistently annoyed by something, you can dive in and fix it.

voidr 15y ago
That is what Canonical is pushing for, you get Unity and GTK, if you don't like it, you are probably one apt-get install away from changing it. To accomodate Ubuntu to my needs I hack the hell out of it, it takes me hours to get it right, to make OS X work the way I like it's just an hour or less, but I have more power over Ubuntu than OS X. The problem however with choice is maintainability and duplication. Do we really need so many window managers? Why not have only one that actually works? While it's cool to have multiply desktop environments for almost every distro, it has it's toll, somebody has to maintain and test those. What would we have if we had combined the effort that was put into Libre Office, Abiword, KOffice, Open Office and the rest? Don't get me wrong I love having control over every bit of the OS and I love being able to choose, but I feel we could sacrifice some of it it for the greater good.