lengau @ lengau @midwest.social

Posts

8

Comments

936

Joined

1 yr. ago

The Afrikaners weren't disenfranchised. The National Party held seats in parliament from shortly after its founding in 1914 and JBM Hertzog was prime minister from 1924-1939. The first prime minister of the Union of South Africa was Louis Botha, who was a Boer veteran.

The United Party was a centre-right party that was an alliance of Anglophone and Afrikaner whites as well as coloureds (n.b. for Americans: not what you're likely thinking, so click the link). They lost the 1948 election to the far-right National Party, at which point the government of South Africa became dominated for 40 years by far-right Afrikaner grievance politics.

The most notable English-speaking member of parliament during apartheid was Helen Suzman.

Really? When did they make the switch?

Nice non sequitur. Thanks for confirming what I wrote.

Words have meanings. If you don't want to answer the question because you're embarrassed of the fact that you care for political purity over the lives of others, that's on you.

Only one of the two major parties helped ensure that a good friend of mine had legal access to lifesaving healthcare recently, and it wasn't Republicans. Pretending one party isn't worse isn't productive. How are you going to approach the spoiler effect, or do you simply not care about all the death and suffering that will result from strategy that doesn't tackle the spoiler effect?

If the Republican party regains power in my state, my life is in danger. Even if I were so selfish as to only care about having "got mine," that non-sequitur would still be irrelevant.

Right now I live in a state with a Democratic governor, a Democratic state senate, and a Democratic majority on the state supreme court. And these three things are preventing major catastrophes here. So no, this has not already happened, and what I have to lose here is quite literally my life.

How do you plan to avoid the problem of abandoning the DNC causing Republicans, who are worse than Democrats, from gaining unmitigated power while said other party is gaining momentum?

I literally know someone who's not running for a state office because even with the compensation he can't afford the expenses of actually being in office.

Put them in a blender together and you'll get one that lets in only the right folks and one that lets in only the wrong ones.

The initial comment said that they didn't like that Ubuntu is owned by a company.

Content note: shilling

!https://frame.work/!<

Again? It just exploded once like two minutes ago.

Tellico

This (well, with alt) has been a standard thing in x11 for decades. KDE kept it (with meta) when it added a Wayland backend to kwin.

The first desktop that I used on Linux was GNOME, probably either 2.0 or 2.2. It was a bit clunky, but it was fine. I distro hopped for a while and discovered Mandrake 9 and thought the desktop was great. This was when I discovered desktop environments. I hopped over to Fedora Core when it was first released and was unhappy with the desktop again.

So I started desktop hopping on Fedora. I tried XFCE, Fluxbox, Openbox, and several others. They were cool, and the KDE experience on Fedora Core 1 was not great. At some point I switched to Gentoo and used the KDE experience there. When Ubuntu came around, I found that while the install experience was good, the desktop was kinda clunky. I ended up sticking with Gentoo. When Kubuntu 5.04 came out, though, I switched over. And I've been using some combination of Kubuntu and KDE Neon ever since.

If GNOME had been my only option, I probably would have gone back to Windows. Initially because I found it clunky (and tbh kinda ugly), but more recently because every time I've used GNOME in the last decade or so, it feels like it's lost features I used heavily. Meanwhile KDE has taken a different approach to configurability of trying to cut down configuration options by figuring out what a better option that everyone can agree on looks like. It's still very configurable, but it has nowhere near as many knobs as it had in the KDE 3.5 days. You know what, though? I cannot think of a single lost configuration option in Plasma that I miss.

So I am strongly in the KDE Korner between these two, and much more weakly favour KDE Plasma vs. other desktops.

Personally I have no issues with a corporate backed distro. My point is that if someone doesn't want a corporate owned distro, PopOS doesn't fit the bill.

Not sure why you specify binary-based OS's. Following Gentoo's upgrade guide also gets you potentially whatever they want on your systemp

Yes! In fact, Chromium was originally a fork of WebKit, as WebKit was a fork of KHTML. In both cases the codebases have diverged quite significantly though.

The core of Safari (WebKit) is open source. If it weren't they'd be violating the GPL license of KHTML.