The fucked up big bird is amazing. A yellow cheap poncho with feathers lazily glued on it, orange pants, then he goes out of his way to paint a PLAGUE MASK yellow.
Now I have this idea of a short skinny dude wearing torn up red clothes and a mangy pattern of red fur glued on it as Elmo. Having a tough time imagining Cookie Monster, but it would be funny
a berry is a fleshy fruit without a stone (pit) produced from a single flower containing one ovary. Berries so defined include grapes, currants, and tomatoes, as well as cucumbers, eggplants (aubergines) and bananas, but exclude certain fruits that meet the culinary definition of berries, such as strawberries and raspberries.
I am of the opinion that “a small, sweet, edible fruit” is closer to the right definition for the word, and that botanists’ decision to appropriate the word for a redefined purpose was inappropriate and unnecessary.
We do know that even over a thousand years ago, speakers of Old English were still calling these kinds of fruits berries, such as strawberries and blackberries (although pronunciation differed somewhat, of course). A word for strawberry as “earth berry” is even reconstructed for the proto Germanic language around 1500 to 2500 years ago. Beyond that, it becomes difficult to trace the word berry any further.
The Botanical sense of the word berry seems to come largely from at earliest the 1500s, from the writings of Caesalpinus, although the definitions were inconsistent and later writings on the matter constantly redefined things and added new terms. Although, largely, these writings all used Latinate terms for their botanical concepts, such as bacca (the closest to the modern botanical berry), and also words like pomum (pome/pomme), drupe, etc. for the other categories of fruit.
So, somewhere since all of that, some English-speaking botanist decided it would be a good idea to use the word berry to describe this concept of a bacca (even though berries had been used for distinctly different things from what that concept described), and now we end up in our current silly predicament where strawberries aren’t berries but pumpkins are.
I’d propose we call botanical berries “bayes” or “bayfruit”, the word bay/baye being an alternate word for berry that ultimately derived from the Latin word bacca, via Old French.
I’m pretty noviceand will certainly offend someone with this statement but I thought KDE was Windows-like (task bar, start menu, etc) and Gnome was Mac-like (permanent menu bar across top, dock).
The screen shot seems to remind me of Gnome rather than KDE. What are the benefits of configuring KDE to look like Gnome?
Kde defaults to a windows style layout, but it's very configurable by design. You can freely add and customize panels with different widgets. Kde has different design philosophies than Gnome. Even with a similar dock + menu bar layout, features vary or are handled differently.
I run Gnome (Ubuntu currently) and have minor stability issues. I also just… kinda don’t like Ubuntu. Previously I was running Fedora and liked it more but again, stability issues (which was what I was hoping to solve moving to Ubuntu).
Do you have any suggestions for a novice friendly distro that has (or can easily be set up to have) a dock (that can be hidden) and hot corner window switching like gnome under KDE?
That's just a thing that KDE does, regardless of which distro you run it on. If you want stability, Debian is probably a good choice, but KDE is KDE wherever you go.
I run Gnome (Ubuntu currently) and have minor stability issues. I also just… kinda don’t like it. Previously I was running Fedora and liked it more but again, stability issues (which was what I was hoping to solve moving to Ubuntu).
Do you have any suggestions for a novice friendly distro that has (or can easily be set up to have) a dock and hot corner window switching like gnome under KDE?
It exist a spin of fedora and ubuntu with a KDE desktop but you could just install KDE on you existing ubuntu desktop itsfoss.com/install-kde-on-ubuntu/
KDE is for those who love customization. You can create an alien like Desktop that isn’t Mac nor Windows similar. Its more about being able to change everything or most things.
Gnome should be more stable… because you can’t change it into a buggy custom setup (except you use Extensions)
I'm using it as well. For me it was a great entry point to Linux. I wanted to start with Arch or a Arch distro right out of the box and Garuda works like a charm for setting up and maintaining everything. I will try setting up Arch by myself for the next time, but for now it's perfect for me.
lemmy.ml
Newest