Admittedly this is where the meme kind of breaks down.

I forgot about that, oops.

Historically, yes, Ubuntu has put in the most effort into being the most user-friendly, most easy-to-use distro.

However, I would argue that is not really the case anymore because as other distros (especially Mint and Pop!) have arisen for a user-friendly experience, Canonical has gradually abandoned this over the past few years in favour of being more server focused. Most of the innovation for user-friendly design just isn't coming from Canonical anymore.

The biggest argument for Ubuntu for beginners is that there are more resources such as tutorials for it - mostly momentum.

BusyBox

I hear timezone names can also be a slight issue at times, some Australians call the eastern time zone EST. Leap years aren't so bad at times either though. Kind of agree with the rest of it, much of the complexity is from historical dates.

"OpenBSD made a secure fork of X?" Depends on what you consider secure I guess. X has some fundamental design issues.

One particularly memorable one is that lock screens in X are run on top of your userspace. If they crash, you get to use your computer again. No matter how many patches are applied to X lock screens, a new bug appears every few years that has to be patched. It fails insecurely, and as such will always be insecure as long as the lock screen could feasibly crash.

If your answer is "lock screens don't matter," security is not a top priority for you, and that's okay. There are other reasons you may wish to use X. Please understand however that some people may find it important, and may choose to use Wayland as a result.

I can't remember which, but some applications just show as the xorg icon when running under xorg.

I quite like many games with "poor" graphics. Perhaps not exclusively, but you're seriously missing out if you only go for realistic-looking or detailed games. Give a few of those indie games a try, you might be surprised.

Edit: Oh, and terminal games are cool! Usually not very performant though.

They've been working on GIMP 3.0 for over a decade, which has non-destructive editing, as well as an upgrade to the UI toolkit (although actual UI changes are still to-do). They don't want it to be this way, development has just been insanely slow. Mostly due to lack of developers and donations, although that has been changing recently.

They planned to have GIMP 3.0 out by May, but with so many delays it might be a few months yet.

From what I understand, GIMP fell behind because it refused corporate donations while Krita accepted them. This lead to GIMP reducing in scope as the 1-3 part-time* developers (at least when I last really looked into it) realised they'd never catch up, leading to people donating less as they weren't satisfied with GIMP's simultaneous underpromising and underdelivering. Meanwhile Krita managed to receive enough money to hire a team of full time developers for several years, leading to better software, to more donations. It's like the poverty trap, but with software.

• Edit: part-time isn't the right word, more like casual

A referendum isn’t needed to consult with people.

While that does seem to be mostly correct, I think it's also complicated. As I'm sure many people have said, previous consultative bodies have been abolished several times, and could only consult with the executive branch. This constitutional change will also enable representations be made to the legislative branch.

Could they have just tried to do so without a constitutional change? Probably. Yet they aren't without reason for putting it in the constitution either.

And people shouldn’t be included/excluded from consultation just because of their race/culture/heritage.

People are right now, but perhaps not in ways explicitly stated by law. If we were a new country with a clean slate I might think this voice wouldn't be necessary. Not only do we have a history of excluding people based on race, but I can see in the community that we still do so, and that will continue unless put a stop to.

I understand the unease of putting a specifically indigenous voice in there, but from what I understand even if parliament gives it the most power possible, it will still be less powerful than a traditional lobby group, only able to table discussions and research. Discussions I think should have happened decades ago.

It's not a perfect solution, I don't think I've met anybody who truly thinks that. But my opinion is that it would provide overall more help than harm, especially considering that I think the government's inability to listen is structural, and not just individual fault.

I believe that any time the government is going to introduce or change laws, they should consult with the people those laws will affect. Regardless of the race or culture of those people.

This is the entire reason why this is being debated. The government has a horrendous track record of ignoring indigenous people on matters that affect them. Even to this day, and it appears to be a structural issue. Let us not forget what the Australian government has done in the name of "helping" them, resulting in the Stolen Generations, among other things.