View Single Post
Old 10. Mar 2011, 07:34 AM   #23 (permalink)
Dedoimedo
Editor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 90
Default

I don't dispute the nature of Bodhi.

When reviewing software, there are two approaches: 1) try to understand what the software does, sympathize with its cause and then present the software 2) use a set methodology and pit everything against it.

The first approach does not offer a reference. In other words, everything will be tested with its own set of tools, ideas, etc, allowing no comparison. To give you a radical example, and totally not related to software, it's like saying, let's try to judge what Stalin did, but see it through his eyes. If you go that way, you can justify anything. I'm sure that Gentoo makes sense for people who need Gentoo, just as Ubuntu makes senses for people who need Ubuntu. Both cater to different crowds and therefore the term easy, available, stable, beautiful become entirely related to how you look at things. But this leaves no room for comparison at all. In other words, each software product becomes its own world.

The second approach is about setting a baseline. In my case, the baseline is my own subjective interpretation of how I perceive software should be and what it should behave like. Again, I might be deluded and think that I understand what newbies want or need and so forth. But I try to present an universal approach of use the way I like things to be. In this regard, I hope my approach co-aligns with what you'd might call the average user. And remember, everyone perceives average to be something else.

Comparing a compact car to a truck is wrong, if you go by 1. But if you're looking for a comfortable and affordable transportation unit, then you can compare the two.

I'm looking for easy to use, well integrated, aesthetic, robust operating systems. The kernel version, the application stack, the themes, everything else, are components that build the overall picture.

I approach the reviews from Y -> X. What do I need, first. Then, how do I get there. If I understand some of you correctly, you use the classic approach X -> Y. I have a set of variables, let's see what the outcome is.

This is like classic experiments versus statistical engineering. Your possibility space is much larger. Mine is narrow. The first approach also permits more leeway to interpretation, which is similar to what is done in the academy - like outliers this, outliers that. My approach forces you to focus on the specific outcomes and judge the inputs against them.

So without trying to preach on how experiments are done, I have one goal in mind: being able to enjoy the computer with ease, pleasure and stability. The rest is cosmetics or lack thereof.

To sum it up, if I were to say: for people looking for a minimalistic distro with an enlightened desktop, then a minimalistic distro with an enlightened desktop makes sense indeed. But that means you're coming to prove what you wanted to prove. On the other hand, if I were to say: I want 30 sec. boot time, no crash on suspend and resume, codecs out of the box, compiz effects, ext4 filesystem, and gmail desktop integration, then the objective becomes different.

It's the matter of options degeneracy. Any distro can potentially match my criteria. But not any criteria can match a specific distro.

Regards,
Dedoimedo
Dedoimedo is offline   Reply With Quote