At the risk of sounding like a far-out social conservative crossed with a radical feminist, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that viewing porn satisfies a 'harmless urge'?
It is widely claimed that the subjects of pornography are typically vulnerable girls, and that the profits pass largely into the hands of powerful middle-men. It is also widely claimed that porn stars often struggle to maintain a happy family life off-screen, and that their economic prospects are bleak once their breasts begin to sag or they suffer scarring from a caesarian section. Some people claim that porn stars are discouraged from using condoms and are particularly likely to suffer unwanted pregnancies or life-threatening sexually transmitted disease.
I don't know if these claims are true, although they certainly sound plausible. If they are true, viewing pornography is no more a harmless urge than the 'harmless' urge once felt by cotton farmers to maximise their profits through the purchase of slaves.
Unfortunately, simply asserting that something is 'harmless' doesn't actually make it so. It is entirely plausible that your appetite for the consumption of porn leads to human misery and disease at the other end of an https connectiion.
Try replacing the word 'ginger' with a pejorative term for any ethnic group other than the indigenous population of North West Europe and see how intelligent you sound.
I never watch Top Gear. It's not my kind of thing. But I always had a sneaking admiration for the ability of Jeremy Clarkson, the wildly popular former host, to retain his job whilst thumbing his nose at everything the politically correct thought-police hold dear. When they finally find an excuse to sack Clarkson, the cheering and whooping from Broadcasting House could be heard all over the British Isles.
I always imagined that a politically correct replacement show would tank badly with its core demographic of non-metropolitan blokes. Viewers hate being told what to think, and I'm delighted to see they've rebelled in huge numbers.
The problem is the label doesn't help consumers make informed decisions, it just helps them make irrational ones.
Maybe so. But people should be free to make irrational decisions.
Vitamin pills, homeopathy and feng shui are just a few examples of irrational things that lead people to spend their money unwisely. In a free society, that's just part of life's rich tapestry.
If a sufficiently significant proportion of the population wants labels, they should have labels. Your definition of irrationality is irrelevant.
IOW you want a waterproof phone with lots of holes in it.
What's the problem people, if you have a 5 bucks wired headphone you don't want to ditch for an 800$ phone, just don't buy it!
Garmin makes waterproof watches and bike computers with electrical connectors. Even the touch screens work when they're wet.
No-one minds replacing £3 headphones unless the cheapest alternative is £50. But no-one wants to replace their existing high-end headphones.
And I definitely don't want to be forced to use expensive headphones when I'm cycling. Sweat, rain, mud and road grime mean that I regularly chuck out my cycling headphones. I don't care about sound quality because I'm breathing too hard, so cheap is good. Besides, cheap headphones tend to allow traffic noise through, which helps to keep me alive.
And I want plenty of choice for my running headphones - a narrow range from one lender is unlikely to find something that hits the sweet spot between comfort and staying in place when I'm doing interval training.
Sony has phones and tablets that are thinner than iProducts and waterproof
Oh? Google doesn't seem to find any for me. Nor does Carphone Warehouse's website. For reference, the iPhone 6 is 6.9mm and the 6S is 7.1mm.
Besides, Sony says that its phones have only been tested underwater in standby mode. You can't actually use them when they're wet. Seawater is a no-no, too.
Waterproof phones have a long way to go before you can treat them with the same casual disregard as a waterproof watch.
I said that a thin, waterproof phone is highly desirable. The current iPhone is slimmer than the waterproof Samsung models, and dropping the headphone jack would presumably allow it to be thinner still.
I'd be willing to shove a £2 adapter on my headphones if it shaved a millimeter off my phone. Most things in life are a compromise, and that's one that wouldn't trouble me in the slightest.
You're forgetting they'd most likely include a lightening port to 3.5mm dongle, which would cost more than the 3.5mm jack in the phone.
If they simply change the socket shape to something smaller and more waterproof, I'm good with that. I can put a cheap and light adapter onto all of my existing headphones and life will continue unchanged. A thin, waterproof phone is highly desirable - I once killed a high-end phone by falling into a river on my mountain bike, and I hate the faff of having to keep my phone in a waterproof case when I'm hiking or out on my road bike in showery weather (it always rains in Wales!).
But if they require an expensive adapter (active electronics or royalties), that's a big problem. I guess I'm not alone in using multiple headphones with my phone. I have good quality headphones at home and in the office, cheap disposable in-ear phones for cycling, sports headphones for running, a lightweight spare set that I keep in my laptop bag for travelling, etc. I don't mind buying a £2 adapter for each of these, but I don't fancy buying multiple £20 adapters, and I'm certainly not willing to carry an adapter with me just in case I need to use it.
It maybe a technicality, but the terms of service for those websites are unlikely to be regarded as a contract under UK law. We require consideration to pass from both parties before a contract is valid, and it's hard to see what co side ration is given by a user of a free website.
That's not to say that terms of service have no legal force, but they're very unlikely to be subject to the law of contract.
Landlords face real financial costs from tenants who don't pay their rent, who damage the rental property, or who are a problem to their neighbours. The vast majority of well behaved tenants subsidise the bad guys.
If you're a decent tenant and you can demonstrate that you're unlikely to cause problems to the landlord, you should be able to procure higher quality housing, have more choice of properties, enjoy lower costs or maybe a mixture of all three. If you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate good character, you'll have to continue to subsidise the bad guys.
There's a price to pay for privacy. Some people will pay it - and it's not your or my right to cast moral judgement on their decision.
Looking at my non-technical family and friends, 5-10 years ago many people had home PCs so they could send emails, order stuff from Amazon and read the BBC's website. A smartphone now meets all their requirements so they no longer need the PC.
I know several people who've dumped their PC and now rely solely on their phones. They don't even bother with a tablet. Those folk are part of these statistics.
I'm male, 5'11 (184cm) and 169lb (12st 1lb / 77kg) and very happy with my weight. I enjoy exercise so much that I need to eat around 3,000 calories per day, but I can't begin to imagine eating 590 calories for lunch except as an occasional blow-out.
You eat 3,000 calories per day but cannot imagine eating 20% of your daily calorie consumption in a single meal? You have a very poor imagination.
I said that I can't imagine working with that much food in my stomach, not that I can't imagine ever eating a large meal.
As described by Wikipedia, postprandial somnolence is a normal state of drowsiness or lassitude following a meal. Eating a large lunch is associated with poor work performance in the early afternoon. I want to be good at my job, not a drowsy glutton dozing quietly in my office. Much better to go for a run lunchtime - the exercise stimulates my brain.
590 calories is a light lunch? How do you work with all that food in your stomach?
Google tells me that an egg and cheese sandwich is 233 calories. An apple and an orange as bring my typical working day total to 332 calories.
I'm not surprised that people put on weight if they regard 590 calories as a light lunch
How tall are you? Male/Female? It makes a huge difference in how many calories your body needs to maintain a healthy weight. Especially height. If you're 5 foot tall, you'll need around 1200-1400 calories. At 6 foot, that jumps to 2000. That's a difference of your entire "light lunch" right there.
I'm male, 5'11 (184cm) and 169lb (12st 1lb / 77kg) and very happy with my weight. I enjoy exercise so much that I need to eat around 3,000 calories per day, but I can't begin to imagine eating 590 calories for lunch except as an occasional blow-out.
I draw a simple takeaway here: it's critically important not to become overweight or obese in the first place.
If you see yourself, your child or your partner starting to gain weight, immediate lifestyle and dietary changes are needed. Polite short-term denial is a long-term health disaster. I would rather my wife be blunt with me now than have to face a lifetime of wight-loss battles.
Of course having more data to run statistical models against gives more confidence.
Not necessarily. Data sets of a few thousand records are generally sufficient for decent p values unless you're looking for effects that are so small that they're of limited commercial value. The trouble with a really big data set is that data quality and data volume are often inversely related.
Far more relevant than a larger data set are the answer to questions like these: Is my data set representative or does it have important biases? Is my data set stable over time? What important causal variables might be missing from my data? Am I looking at causality or common cause? Are my errors normally distributed? Are my missing data points representative of the remaining data? What does this data mean in the real world?
In almost all cases, I would far rather work with a small, high quality data set than a large set of uncertain quality.
93% of communication is non-verbal(tonal 38% and body language 55%, which differs by culture) and 60% of knowledge cannot be communicated because it is too nuanced for natural language to handle. You can write all of the documentation you want, but you'll at best communicate 10%-50% of the 40% that you can communicate, and probably miss-communicate a larger portion if working with people from another culture. The best projects are analyzed, architected, designed, and coded by the same team who have domain expereience.
Which was exactly the point that I was trying to make. I suspect that offshoring of coding has reached its peak: it's impractical for very many projects.
It's generally more efficient for design and execution to happen close together. If coding moves to India, watch the design work follow shortly afterward.
On the other hand, most code is written to be used, not sold. We're a smallish financial institution, and we have an in-house software development group the gives us a key competitive advantage over the industry's behemoths. Putting developers in the same office as business users shortens development times, improves the quality of deliverables and increases flexibility.
If programmer productivity doubled, we'd probably hire more developers, not fewer, as the cost-benefit of various projects would improve.
Whatever the Twitterati say, we will continue to need a steady supply of high quality, intelligent, adaptable, proactive IT professionals for the foreseeable future.
I still use X over ssh with gnome 3.18 daily without issue, as I have been with every previous version of gnome shell. What issues are you having?
Try doing an xkill and click one window. Unless things have changed, boom, all of them go. Not good. Or you use one of the terminals to log in to a remote system, which needs CTRL-H for backspace instead of DEL for backspace. So you change that, and lo and behold, it changes it for all windows, unless you create a whole new profile first (and delete it afterwards if you don't need it). Similar for color schemes and much else.
There are security implications too (connecting from multiple gnome-terminals to multiple servers give each destination a venue to attack not just the client machine but the other servers).
Or try entering "gedit.bashrc" from two different terminals (or run prompts). Where's the second window?
None of what you say is remotely relevant to me. I suspect it's also completely irrelevant to 99.9% of other computer users.
However, minorities are important. That's why you have alternatives in Linux. If Gnome 3 doesn't work for you, don't use it. But there's no need to bad-mouth it for the vast majority who have no need for your specialist use cases. Suggesting that something is bad because it doesn't work for you has a horrible way of making you look a little self-centred.
Books are not computer user interfaces. You're not comparing like concepts.
Take GNOME 2 (or Mate) and GNOME 3. Compared the information density between both and what you can see on the same screen at any given time. GNOME 2/Mate makes better use of available screen real estate, whereas GNOME 3 has more padding and less space to show the actual useful stuff.
I fucking HATE this trend of lowering information density. It means having to scroll more and not take advantage of larger screen sizes. I suppose it's got a lot to do with laptops, phones and tablets being the predominant sizes to target for and people with decently-sized monitors being seen as outliers, but it's not as if I have to enjoy this regression.
Lowering the information density is not a matter of fashion. It's based on a considerable body of scientific research that carefully measures the way that people respond to information presented in various ways. Of course, you may be an outlier in the way that you process visual information, and you may genuinely cope with a higher level of information density than the average member of the population. But that doesn't mean that designers who seek to lower information density are stupid, fashion-chasing sheep. It just means that you're different, and that an alternative desktop environment might suit you better.
If you have an interest in some of the theory behind this, try reading works by Tufte or Few. They have both popularised much of the science, and, although their work tends to be focussed on the printed word rather than computer interfaces, much of their writing is transferable to any medium
I really don't understand what you mean. I have multiple windows open all the time.
Say you want three different gnome-terminals. Not one parent and two children, but three separate ones, so if one dies, it doesn't take the others with it. Or say you want to open a single document in two windows, so you can scroll to separate parts and compare them, or make different changes to the two copies before saving them separately.
Gnome 3 makes stuff like this really hard to achieve.
I'm still really confused. I've never noticed the problem you described before, so I flipped open my Gnome 3 laptop to check. I found four separate ways to open a new (different) terminal window within a few seconds. I have multiple terminal windows neatly tiled across my desktop in the way you describe. To be fair, though, I have never known Gnome Terminal to crash, so I have no way of testing whether one window failing would bring the others to an ignominious end.
Only one of those four ways needed more than two mouse clicks. How was that really hard to achieve?
Aren't those extensions the things they promised would be going away in a later release?
I notice you didn't answer whether more than one window can be running at once, so I'm going to guess that means only if you add some other addons....which are likely not to work with the next release.
FWIW, I was just browsing to see if Gnome was again worth installing. Your post did not encourage me, but maybe some other will.
I really don't understand what you mean. I have multiple windows open all the time. Window management in Gnome is pretty good, IMV.
I tried Gnome 3 on my MacBook about 6 months ago. I instantly loved it and it's now my preferred desktop.
And why the *** is there so much empty space all over the place?! I bought a 28" monitor so that it could be filled with useful content, not just empty gray areas with nothing in them!
Pick up a book. Any book will do so long as it's been professionally published. Look at the white space around the text, and reflect on why the publisher made you purchase all of that expensive blank paper.
White space can communicate effectively. Hostile vulgarity rarely does.
I wonder, have they discovered in gnome 3.x that real people need to open real applications on the same screen?
Or on multiple screens, for that matter. Or run the desktop environment in a window on a bigger screen (e.g. a VM).
Relying on pointing devices not going past the edge of the screen takes a certain kind of talent.
You could always press the Super key as an alternative to the hot corner. Or you could install one of the many extensions https://extensions.gnome.org/ that gives you an alternative way to launch applications. Neither of these things would take as much time out of your day as your slightly odd/. post.
Why should the lack of corners on your virtual machine prevent me from having access to useful features?
I've run a Raspberry Pi as a server (DNS, DHCP, LDAP, Kerberos, SMTP/IMAP, webmail, MediaWiki) for 3 years with only one restart necessitated by stability issues, when my DHCP server inexplicably stopped dishing out IP addresses and refused to play until the box was restarted.
That's much better stability than our ops guys ever seem to manage in the office.
Slashdot Mirror
...harmless urges...
At the risk of sounding like a far-out social conservative crossed with a radical feminist, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that viewing porn satisfies a 'harmless urge'?
It is widely claimed that the subjects of pornography are typically vulnerable girls, and that the profits pass largely into the hands of powerful middle-men. It is also widely claimed that porn stars often struggle to maintain a happy family life off-screen, and that their economic prospects are bleak once their breasts begin to sag or they suffer scarring from a caesarian section. Some people claim that porn stars are discouraged from using condoms and are particularly likely to suffer unwanted pregnancies or life-threatening sexually transmitted disease.
I don't know if these claims are true, although they certainly sound plausible. If they are true, viewing pornography is no more a harmless urge than the 'harmless' urge once felt by cotton farmers to maximise their profits through the purchase of slaves.
Unfortunately, simply asserting that something is 'harmless' doesn't actually make it so. It is entirely plausible that your appetite for the consumption of porn leads to human misery and disease at the other end of an https connectiion.
...charmless, loud-mouthed ginger twat...
Try replacing the word 'ginger' with a pejorative term for any ethnic group other than the indigenous population of North West Europe and see how intelligent you sound.
I never watch Top Gear. It's not my kind of thing. But I always had a sneaking admiration for the ability of Jeremy Clarkson, the wildly popular former host, to retain his job whilst thumbing his nose at everything the politically correct thought-police hold dear. When they finally find an excuse to sack Clarkson, the cheering and whooping from Broadcasting House could be heard all over the British Isles.
I always imagined that a politically correct replacement show would tank badly with its core demographic of non-metropolitan blokes. Viewers hate being told what to think, and I'm delighted to see they've rebelled in huge numbers.
The problem is the label doesn't help consumers make informed decisions, it just helps them make irrational ones.
Maybe so. But people should be free to make irrational decisions.
Vitamin pills, homeopathy and feng shui are just a few examples of irrational things that lead people to spend their money unwisely. In a free society, that's just part of life's rich tapestry.
If a sufficiently significant proportion of the population wants labels, they should have labels. Your definition of irrationality is irrelevant.
IOW you want a waterproof phone with lots of holes in it.
What's the problem people, if you have a 5 bucks wired headphone you don't want to ditch for an 800$ phone, just don't buy it!
Garmin makes waterproof watches and bike computers with electrical connectors. Even the touch screens work when they're wet.
No-one minds replacing £3 headphones unless the cheapest alternative is £50. But no-one wants to replace their existing high-end headphones.
And I definitely don't want to be forced to use expensive headphones when I'm cycling. Sweat, rain, mud and road grime mean that I regularly chuck out my cycling headphones. I don't care about sound quality because I'm breathing too hard, so cheap is good. Besides, cheap headphones tend to allow traffic noise through, which helps to keep me alive.
And I want plenty of choice for my running headphones - a narrow range from one lender is unlikely to find something that hits the sweet spot between comfort and staying in place when I'm doing interval training.
Sony has phones and tablets that are thinner than iProducts and waterproof
Oh? Google doesn't seem to find any for me. Nor does Carphone Warehouse's website. For reference, the iPhone 6 is 6.9mm and the 6S is 7.1mm.
Besides, Sony says that its phones have only been tested underwater in standby mode. You can't actually use them when they're wet. Seawater is a no-no, too.
Waterproof phones have a long way to go before you can treat them with the same casual disregard as a waterproof watch.
I said that a thin, waterproof phone is highly desirable. The current iPhone is slimmer than the waterproof Samsung models, and dropping the headphone jack would presumably allow it to be thinner still.
I'd be willing to shove a £2 adapter on my headphones if it shaved a millimeter off my phone. Most things in life are a compromise, and that's one that wouldn't trouble me in the slightest.
You're forgetting they'd most likely include a lightening port to 3.5mm dongle, which would cost more than the 3.5mm jack in the phone.
If they simply change the socket shape to something smaller and more waterproof, I'm good with that. I can put a cheap and light adapter onto all of my existing headphones and life will continue unchanged. A thin, waterproof phone is highly desirable - I once killed a high-end phone by falling into a river on my mountain bike, and I hate the faff of having to keep my phone in a waterproof case when I'm hiking or out on my road bike in showery weather (it always rains in Wales!).
But if they require an expensive adapter (active electronics or royalties), that's a big problem. I guess I'm not alone in using multiple headphones with my phone. I have good quality headphones at home and in the office, cheap disposable in-ear phones for cycling, sports headphones for running, a lightweight spare set that I keep in my laptop bag for travelling, etc. I don't mind buying a £2 adapter for each of these, but I don't fancy buying multiple £20 adapters, and I'm certainly not willing to carry an adapter with me just in case I need to use it.
It maybe a technicality, but the terms of service for those websites are unlikely to be regarded as a contract under UK law. We require consideration to pass from both parties before a contract is valid, and it's hard to see what co side ration is given by a user of a free website.
That's not to say that terms of service have no legal force, but they're very unlikely to be subject to the law of contract.
So here's the issue.
Landlords face real financial costs from tenants who don't pay their rent, who damage the rental property, or who are a problem to their neighbours. The vast majority of well behaved tenants subsidise the bad guys.
If you're a decent tenant and you can demonstrate that you're unlikely to cause problems to the landlord, you should be able to procure higher quality housing, have more choice of properties, enjoy lower costs or maybe a mixture of all three. If you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate good character, you'll have to continue to subsidise the bad guys.
There's a price to pay for privacy. Some people will pay it - and it's not your or my right to cast moral judgement on their decision.
Looking at my non-technical family and friends, 5-10 years ago many people had home PCs so they could send emails, order stuff from Amazon and read the BBC's website. A smartphone now meets all their requirements so they no longer need the PC.
I know several people who've dumped their PC and now rely solely on their phones. They don't even bother with a tablet. Those folk are part of these statistics.
I'm male, 5'11 (184cm) and 169lb (12st 1lb / 77kg) and very happy with my weight. I enjoy exercise so much that I need to eat around 3,000 calories per day, but I can't begin to imagine eating 590 calories for lunch except as an occasional blow-out.
You eat 3,000 calories per day but cannot imagine eating 20% of your daily calorie consumption in a single meal? You have a very poor imagination.
I said that I can't imagine working with that much food in my stomach, not that I can't imagine ever eating a large meal.
As described by Wikipedia, postprandial somnolence is a normal state of drowsiness or lassitude following a meal. Eating a large lunch is associated with poor work performance in the early afternoon. I want to be good at my job, not a drowsy glutton dozing quietly in my office. Much better to go for a run lunchtime - the exercise stimulates my brain.
590 calories is a light lunch? How do you work with all that food in your stomach?
Google tells me that an egg and cheese sandwich is 233 calories. An apple and an orange as bring my typical working day total to 332 calories.
I'm not surprised that people put on weight if they regard 590 calories as a light lunch
How tall are you? Male/Female? It makes a huge difference in how many calories your body needs to maintain a healthy weight. Especially height. If you're 5 foot tall, you'll need around 1200-1400 calories. At 6 foot, that jumps to 2000. That's a difference of your entire "light lunch" right there.
I'm male, 5'11 (184cm) and 169lb (12st 1lb / 77kg) and very happy with my weight. I enjoy exercise so much that I need to eat around 3,000 calories per day, but I can't begin to imagine eating 590 calories for lunch except as an occasional blow-out.
I draw a simple takeaway here: it's critically important not to become overweight or obese in the first place.
If you see yourself, your child or your partner starting to gain weight, immediate lifestyle and dietary changes are needed. Polite short-term denial is a long-term health disaster. I would rather my wife be blunt with me now than have to face a lifetime of wight-loss battles.
590 calories is a light lunch? How do you work with all that food in your stomach?
Google tells me that an egg and cheese sandwich is 233 calories. An apple and an orange as bring my typical working day total to 332 calories.
I'm not surprised that people put on weight if they regard 590 calories as a light lunch
Of course having more data to run statistical models against gives more confidence.
Not necessarily. Data sets of a few thousand records are generally sufficient for decent p values unless you're looking for effects that are so small that they're of limited commercial value. The trouble with a really big data set is that data quality and data volume are often inversely related.
Far more relevant than a larger data set are the answer to questions like these: Is my data set representative or does it have important biases? Is my data set stable over time? What important causal variables might be missing from my data? Am I looking at causality or common cause? Are my errors normally distributed? Are my missing data points representative of the remaining data? What does this data mean in the real world?
In almost all cases, I would far rather work with a small, high quality data set than a large set of uncertain quality.
93% of communication is non-verbal(tonal 38% and body language 55%, which differs by culture) and 60% of knowledge cannot be communicated because it is too nuanced for natural language to handle. You can write all of the documentation you want, but you'll at best communicate 10%-50% of the 40% that you can communicate, and probably miss-communicate a larger portion if working with people from another culture. The best projects are analyzed, architected, designed, and coded by the same team who have domain expereience.
Which was exactly the point that I was trying to make. I suspect that offshoring of coding has reached its peak: it's impractical for very many projects.
It's generally more efficient for design and execution to happen close together. If coding moves to India, watch the design work follow shortly afterward.
On the other hand, most code is written to be used, not sold. We're a smallish financial institution, and we have an in-house software development group the gives us a key competitive advantage over the industry's behemoths. Putting developers in the same office as business users shortens development times, improves the quality of deliverables and increases flexibility.
If programmer productivity doubled, we'd probably hire more developers, not fewer, as the cost-benefit of various projects would improve.
Whatever the Twitterati say, we will continue to need a steady supply of high quality, intelligent, adaptable, proactive IT professionals for the foreseeable future.
I still use X over ssh with gnome 3.18 daily without issue, as I have been with every previous version of gnome shell. What issues are you having?
Try doing an xkill and click one window. Unless things have changed, boom, all of them go. Not good.
Or you use one of the terminals to log in to a remote system, which needs CTRL-H for backspace instead of DEL for backspace. So you change that, and lo and behold, it changes it for all windows, unless you create a whole new profile first (and delete it afterwards if you don't need it).
Similar for color schemes and much else.
There are security implications too (connecting from multiple gnome-terminals to multiple servers give each destination a venue to attack not just the client machine but the other servers).
Or try entering "gedit .bashrc" from two different terminals (or run prompts). Where's the second window?
None of what you say is remotely relevant to me. I suspect it's also completely irrelevant to 99.9% of other computer users.
However, minorities are important. That's why you have alternatives in Linux. If Gnome 3 doesn't work for you, don't use it. But there's no need to bad-mouth it for the vast majority who have no need for your specialist use cases. Suggesting that something is bad because it doesn't work for you has a horrible way of making you look a little self-centred.
Books are not computer user interfaces. You're not comparing like concepts.
Take GNOME 2 (or Mate) and GNOME 3. Compared the information density between both and what you can see on the same screen at any given time. GNOME 2/Mate makes better use of available screen real estate, whereas GNOME 3 has more padding and less space to show the actual useful stuff.
I fucking HATE this trend of lowering information density. It means having to scroll more and not take advantage of larger screen sizes. I suppose it's got a lot to do with laptops, phones and tablets being the predominant sizes to target for and people with decently-sized monitors being seen as outliers, but it's not as if I have to enjoy this regression.
Lowering the information density is not a matter of fashion. It's based on a considerable body of scientific research that carefully measures the way that people respond to information presented in various ways. Of course, you may be an outlier in the way that you process visual information, and you may genuinely cope with a higher level of information density than the average member of the population. But that doesn't mean that designers who seek to lower information density are stupid, fashion-chasing sheep. It just means that you're different, and that an alternative desktop environment might suit you better.
If you have an interest in some of the theory behind this, try reading works by Tufte or Few. They have both popularised much of the science, and, although their work tends to be focussed on the printed word rather than computer interfaces, much of their writing is transferable to any medium
I really don't understand what you mean. I have multiple windows open all the time.
Say you want three different gnome-terminals. Not one parent and two children, but three separate ones, so if one dies, it doesn't take the others with it.
Or say you want to open a single document in two windows, so you can scroll to separate parts and compare them, or make different changes to the two copies before saving them separately.
Gnome 3 makes stuff like this really hard to achieve.
I'm still really confused. I've never noticed the problem you described before, so I flipped open my Gnome 3 laptop to check. I found four separate ways to open a new (different) terminal window within a few seconds. I have multiple terminal windows neatly tiled across my desktop in the way you describe. To be fair, though, I have never known Gnome Terminal to crash, so I have no way of testing whether one window failing would bring the others to an ignominious end.
Only one of those four ways needed more than two mouse clicks. How was that really hard to achieve?
Aren't those extensions the things they promised would be going away in a later release?
I notice you didn't answer whether more than one window can be running at once, so I'm going to guess that means only if you add some other addons....which are likely not to work with the next release.
FWIW, I was just browsing to see if Gnome was again worth installing. Your post did not encourage me, but maybe some other will.
I really don't understand what you mean. I have multiple windows open all the time. Window management in Gnome is pretty good, IMV.
I tried Gnome 3 on my MacBook about 6 months ago. I instantly loved it and it's now my preferred desktop.
And why the *** is there so much empty space all over the place?! I bought a 28" monitor so that it could be filled with useful content, not just empty gray areas with nothing in them!
Pick up a book. Any book will do so long as it's been professionally published. Look at the white space around the text, and reflect on why the publisher made you purchase all of that expensive blank paper.
White space can communicate effectively. Hostile vulgarity rarely does.
I wonder, have they discovered in gnome 3.x that real people need to open real applications on the same screen?
Or on multiple screens, for that matter.
Or run the desktop environment in a window on a bigger screen (e.g. a VM).
Relying on pointing devices not going past the edge of the screen takes a certain kind of talent.
You could always press the Super key as an alternative to the hot corner. Or you could install one of the many extensions https://extensions.gnome.org/ that gives you an alternative way to launch applications. Neither of these things would take as much time out of your day as your slightly odd /. post.
Why should the lack of corners on your virtual machine prevent me from having access to useful features?
I've run a Raspberry Pi as a server (DNS, DHCP, LDAP, Kerberos, SMTP/IMAP, webmail, MediaWiki) for 3 years with only one restart necessitated by stability issues, when my DHCP server inexplicably stopped dishing out IP addresses and refused to play until the box was restarted.
That's much better stability than our ops guys ever seem to manage in the office.