Derp

Here come the downvotes, which most seem to use based on whether they agree with something or not, rather than for signalling the quality of a comment. It fosters echo chambering rather than healthy discussion. I for one think that this is an excellent question and discussion.

This reads like fake news. No publication date, no sources listed, very vague and self-contradictory on the details. How is no other news outlet corroborating this?

I'd take this one with a huge grain of salt.

Test driven development. It's a technique where you know what behaviour or result the code should produce, but you haven't written any producing code yet. So you break down the problem into small steps which each produce a testable result or behaviour that brings you closer to what you need. And before writing any implementation for each of these small steps, you write a unit test which checks whether an implementation would execute this step correctly. Once you have each test set up, you can start writing the implementation, keeping it as simple as possible, and running the test until it passes for your implementation. This keeps going in a cycle.

Once all your tests pass, provided you've written good and correct tests for every step, there are several benefits of this approach:

• you can be quite confident that your code works as expected
• making changes to existing code is much less scary, because you can change the thing you need to change, adjust or add tests accordingly, and rerun all the other tests to make sure everything else still works as expected
• there is a big psychological benefit when you force yourself to define exactly what you expect the code to do before you actually write it
• it can help others understand what the intent behind the code is by looking at its expected behaviour

The downside is that it takes more time to write tests for everything. But for complex applications, it will save you a lot of time in the long run if the code will be changed very often in the future or is complicated, because many bugs will be caught by your test landscape.

Yes. And by improving and changing the system, it by definition stops being anarchism and becomes something else. Which is what I was saying.

I mean, anarchism was the initial state, so it has been tried. It seems that it is not very resilient against being replaced by other systems, so it can't really be the best system in the real world.

This is the way.

Maybe you've been sold a bit of a lie.

Linux is not like Windows. Linux will never be like Windows. It is first and foremost a general operating system, not necessarily a Desktop operating system.

IMO, that means you will never truly be able to completely avoid using the terminal here or there.

Telling people that it's easy to switch from Windows to Linux is just not true. Linux just works differently and going in with the expectation that things will work the same way only serves to disappoint those brave enough to attempt the switch.

If you try again, go in with the mindset that you've never used a computer before, and without needing to depend on Linux for your day to day computer work. See it as a tinkering side project, and maybe it will stoke your curiosity enough that you'll want to use it day to day.

can't we all just enjoy the frog without associating it with any politics

Mobile Version

Except when a bug pops up somewhere. Ownership/Responsibility changes in sub-Planck-second time when assigning blame.

Noone asked

And how does that work? How do you unmount the root directory of a live system and invoke a script?