GNOME 3 is extensible and there are already extensions that turn it into an experience that resemble GNOME 2 so I really don't get where the hate comes from. Stick with GNOME 2 or add extensions to GNOME 3 to make it resemble GNOME 2. The latter choice still allows you to benefit from the compositing desktop which isn't just for eyecandy.
As for the "if it isn't busted, don't fix it" comment, problem is that GNOME (and KDE) were busted. Both were essentially a cobbled together pastiche of like Windows and OS X circa year 2002 built on top of X11. Fast forward a decade and they're looking increasingly mouldy partly due to technological limitations (X11, drivers) and partly because they ignore usability innovations that have occurred during that time. Furthermore, being pastiches they often imperfectly copied the notes of their inspiration without understanding the tune. At least GNOME appears to be going off and trying to do something its own way and IMO it is succeeding.
Perhaps some people prefer to be technological Amish, drawing a line in the sand circa 2002 and deciding that's the way their desktop should behave and no different. So fine, stick with GNOME 2 / MATE or KDE 3 or Xfce and get that experience. I do not see that as being healthy for Linux going forward though. Personally I believe GNOME 3.x is going the right way. It has a few rough edges but its still at the start of its lifecycle and it will continue to improve with each iteration.
They are clearly on track to eliminate that in favor of maximized windows. These people spend their lives studying Microsoft Window users, where a ridiculously high percentage of users have to close their browser to read their email, because nobody ever explained to them that you can do more than one thing at a time.
I don't think they're on track to eliminate them. De-emphasize yes, eliminate no. Why not eliminate? Because it's not hard to conjure up scenarios where you need to copy something from one window to another, or want to keep an eye on one app while you do something in the other (e.g. debugging). Or maximizing the app is a waste of space. Or the app has undesirable behaviour when maximized such as scaling content (e.g. video / pictures). Or your screen is so big you can comfortably run various apps without maximizing them. Some windows also have a fixed size or a maximum size and therefore cannot be enlarged more than that.
I see nothing wrong in de-emphasizing resizing behaviour. Most of the time users probably do want to use their whole screen and one app in the foreground so is it wrong to better support that behaviour and perhaps even encourage it?
Had Gnome not gone out of their way to kill off (or at least bury) the historical multiple desktop that 'Nixes have had for decades they would not now find themselves chasing after the most incompetent of users, and trying to dumb down the interface to the point where productive people are just as helpless as your grandmother.
GNOME 3 hasn't killed or buried multiple desktops. It's on the activities screen. I'm sure someone could write an extension (and maybe it already exists) to add a GNOME 2 style virtual screen icon to the top of the workspace. GNOME is extensible that way to cater for power users.
Not content with that, they are now aiming at a full screen environment, where even the simplest tasks require all the real estate you have.
You keep saying that but I see no evidence for it.
Yes, you can run multiple non-maximized windows, and yes you can have more than one desktop. These are not the norm any more for Gnome. And reading the design documents at the posted link makes it clear what they think of your intelligence level, and makes it clear they would just as soon hide that capability even deeper than they buried it in past releases.
So you can run multiple non-maximized windows. One minute you assert it is going one way and then admit this is not the case at all. GNOME even has explicit support for tiling windows by dragging them to the left or right. And again, if you don't like the default behaviour then extensions will come in time which modify it. That's all that the likes of Mint are doing.
Well clearly religions are immature given how they have fostered war, intolerance and murder throughout history.
Tell me again which religion developed and USED the atomic bomb??
A Christian one? Though there are many rational reasons the bomb was used.
You have _faith_ that the sun will come up tomorrow. That is "grounded faith". You can't prove it until AFTER the event happens, at which point it becomes FACT.
That's a bizarre argument. The fundamental laws of physics would have to break down for it to not happen. It is most certainly not equivalent to blindly believing the supernatural assertions made by one bronze age tribe or another.
EVERY scripture / bible / "holy book" teaches the same thing: "Respect ALL THINGS."
Well that's a lot of horseshit. It's not hard to find the most appalling cruelties and intolerance in the bible and I daresay most other scriptures too. Usually aimed at unbelievers or threatening dire punishment for those who dare defy their god's arbitrary laws of what constitutes the proper way to live.
It is only when people become addicted to power that they twist "good intentions" to suit THEIR wants, desires, and needs.
And you know what's a good way to obtain power? For someone to tell others they've received revelations from some magical being, that we must all follow this person and his divine message, that we must cast out or kill the followers of some other god etc. etc. Basically religions put lunatics on a pedestal and has people follow and die for them. The words are put to paper as inerrant and further embelished by disciples to make them look more miraculous. Look at any modern day cult and you will see this happen time and again. The only thing separating a religion from a cult is a few hundred years of existence.
While to a Christian, the astronomical odds against everything in the universe happening in such a way as to form life and so on is proof of a god, obviously it isn't to you.
No because that would not be evidence, it would be incredulity. "I cannot believe the universe happened in such a way as to form life except through god". It's a non explanation.
In fact, if Jesus existed and came down from the sky right now to talk to you, you'd just justify it as a hallucination. There is no evidence that will convince you.
That's a big if. And when it happens (a huge assumption) we'll be able to judge the event on the merits rather than your straw man assumption of what I might do.
Microsoft used hungarian notation most likely because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Various BASIC dialects were untyped or only loosely typed ($, % etc.) and C/C++ development environments weren't (and still aren't) very good at reflection / refactoring. So it was a useful hint to the programmer to save them hunting around to find the declaration. Microsoft's book series, e.g. Code Complete also pushed the idea onto external developers.
Nowadays I think the reasons for hungarian have largely disappeared. Modern IDEs for Java or.NET provide enough assistance that you can find out the type of something by hovering over it. You'll get the type and any documentation. And ctrl clicking the type takes you to the definition. There is no need to decorate the type because it just adds noise. Personally I don't even like scoping which some Java devs seem to do with _ on the front of member variables because it usually confuses the IDE.
It may still have some use in JavaScript or Perl or other polymorphic environments where the editor / IDE and the runtime is pretty useless at assisting developers though it should probably be done in a limited way, e.g. s for string, n for number, a for array etc.
Of course there are irrational non-religious movements, I don't dispute that at all. One only has to look at the cult of personality that often springs up in dictatorships which wish to elevate their beloved leader to godlike status. It doesn't mean all ideologies are irrational. Some of them are extremely rational such as secularism & humanism.
However all religion is by definition irrational - an act of faith in the supernatural. There is no evidence to support their beliefs. Instead there is plenty of dogma and ritual to rein in followers and rally them around those beliefs. It is no wonder that things get a little murdery when one group's preciously held delusions collide with another group's preciously held (and contradictory) delusions. People use the promise of an afterlife to justify murdering another human being. Neither group can claim to be right because in the absence of evidence none of them are. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pitiful and cruel.
What is absurd about the FBI having a file on someone who was a potential presidential appointee?
And by the looks of the material, he filled in the forms, he agreed to be interviewed and he probably nominated associates to talk with. He could have flat out said no and none of this would have happened. I expect in the end it was the administration who said no. Hard working and driven are positives, being a narcissist, liar and deadbeat father are negatives and I suspect they tipped the scales.
Well it is a Facebook game. No point enriching your main competitor. I would have thought they'd try and shift it lock stock and barrel to Google+ though. That's assuming it weren't see as anti-competitive which it may well have been.
Some sad people have spent a lot of money on virtual goods, believe the service should be run in perpetuity and have failed to read the terms and conditions which doubtless say otherwise.
The problem with JavaScript / ECMAScript is that it's shapeless. It doesn't enforce any particular programming style, it doesn't offer much in the way of OO programming except poor man's prototypes, it's difficult to maintain, it's easy to break at runtime, it comes in multiple subtly broken dialects, and its usually invoked from multiple not so subtly broken browsers. Programming JS is an exercise in trial and error.
I'm not surprised that so many things attempt to work around JS as much as possible. AJAX libs attempt to hide the utterly arcane, often buggy ways of accessing the DOM. CoffeeScript attempts to reduce the bloat even further. And other tools like GWT, Emscripten attempt to do away with JS as a problem for the developer altogether. What all seem to implicitly admit is that once JS is employed not just as some HTML glue but as the application code, it becomes an unmanageable pig to develop against.
or if there were something that the police thought the public should be aware of for their own safety then perhaps they could just i dunno, tell the media?
As is the case in other countries. In the UK for example you can listen to the police radio (assuming it isn't encrypted which is the default), but you can't act on anything you hear. So the TV couldn't report a chase was in progress unless the police had issued a warning to that effect.
The cop may not know this stuff but he knows people that do. When the police raid your house in connection to any computer related crime the first thing they'll do is seize your equipment and send it off to a forensics laboratory. You must assume these people are experts at their jobs and if you have something to hide then you really shouldn't be doing it in some half-assed way because you're going to be caught.
We'll see about price but I will not be surprised at all if its $50 when all said and done. $15 postage and packing from the UK to the US is almost justifiable and an easy way to rake in some extra profit.
GWT's GUI is sitting on top of HTML so it's basically widgetized HTML elements. Some of the layouts are also not without their own dangers in terms of styling and stuff. For example the vertical / horizontal panels use html TABLE elements so you can easily find that some things you would expect to work don't unless you use another kind of layout.
GWT works extremely well. You can write most of the code in Java but there are some hooks to invoke JS if you have to. Biggest issue with GWT is it is a subset of Java and things in Java that you might expect to be there by default simply isn't. For example Class.forName() isn't there, dependency injection / introspection isn't there, threading (understandably perhaps) isn't there, references aren't there, whole chunks of collections aren't there. It means if you have legacy code then chances are it needs work to get it to run client side but usually it can be worked around.
I spent a few days porting an Android app to GWT and was pleasantly surprised by how much I could reuse. Some of my code had to be refactored to make it pluggable (e.g. I had logging statements peppered all over the place which I had to refactor and some Class.forNames) but usually it just means using a pattern of some kind like a factory and providing an Android / GWT impl. I had to write the UI from scratch though and with GWT that basically means using GWT or a binding XML to describe the elements and CSS to style them. I found GWT's canvas support to be pretty good these days too so I was able to do some pretty painting widgets.
Unity IMO does suck but that's Ubuntu's problem to fix. Now imagine in addition to Unity's problems that Ubuntu also have to fix problems in GNOME, KDE, xfce etc. That's the point. Supporting more than one desktop is a distraction and burden on limited resources. Better to stick with one thing and support it.
It doesn't make for less choice. You can pick another dist, or go get your own packages to make the dist work the way you need it to work. I mentioned I got GNOME shell and xfce working just fine with Ubuntu. The point for the dist of picking one desktop is so it is not lumbered with the time and expense of diluting its experience and dealing with 2x, 3x etc. as many bugs because it chooses to support GNOME, KDE, xfce etc. Out of the box a dist should support one desktop and concentrate all its efforts into polishing it.
I also don't know who this upstream you speak of is. I expect most administrators just wish the dist works out of the box in a sensible and sane manner so they don't have to screw around with it, or have their users falling through large usability holes and bothering the admin to fix them. The same for most users. Doesn't stop tweakers from doing their own thing post-install.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a non standard which is still supported by virtually every mainstream compiler - gcc, msvc, clang, icc etc.
As for the "if it isn't busted, don't fix it" comment, problem is that GNOME (and KDE) were busted. Both were essentially a cobbled together pastiche of like Windows and OS X circa year 2002 built on top of X11. Fast forward a decade and they're looking increasingly mouldy partly due to technological limitations (X11, drivers) and partly because they ignore usability innovations that have occurred during that time. Furthermore, being pastiches they often imperfectly copied the notes of their inspiration without understanding the tune. At least GNOME appears to be going off and trying to do something its own way and IMO it is succeeding.
Perhaps some people prefer to be technological Amish, drawing a line in the sand circa 2002 and deciding that's the way their desktop should behave and no different. So fine, stick with GNOME 2 / MATE or KDE 3 or Xfce and get that experience. I do not see that as being healthy for Linux going forward though. Personally I believe GNOME 3.x is going the right way. It has a few rough edges but its still at the start of its lifecycle and it will continue to improve with each iteration.
They are clearly on track to eliminate that in favor of maximized windows. These people spend their lives studying Microsoft Window users, where a ridiculously high percentage of users have to close their browser to read their email, because nobody ever explained to them that you can do more than one thing at a time.
I don't think they're on track to eliminate them. De-emphasize yes, eliminate no. Why not eliminate? Because it's not hard to conjure up scenarios where you need to copy something from one window to another, or want to keep an eye on one app while you do something in the other (e.g. debugging). Or maximizing the app is a waste of space. Or the app has undesirable behaviour when maximized such as scaling content (e.g. video / pictures). Or your screen is so big you can comfortably run various apps without maximizing them. Some windows also have a fixed size or a maximum size and therefore cannot be enlarged more than that.
I see nothing wrong in de-emphasizing resizing behaviour. Most of the time users probably do want to use their whole screen and one app in the foreground so is it wrong to better support that behaviour and perhaps even encourage it?
Had Gnome not gone out of their way to kill off (or at least bury) the historical multiple desktop that 'Nixes have had for decades they would not now find themselves chasing after the most incompetent of users, and trying to dumb down the interface to the point where productive people are just as helpless as your grandmother.
GNOME 3 hasn't killed or buried multiple desktops. It's on the activities screen. I'm sure someone could write an extension (and maybe it already exists) to add a GNOME 2 style virtual screen icon to the top of the workspace. GNOME is extensible that way to cater for power users.
Not content with that, they are now aiming at a full screen environment, where even the simplest tasks require all the real estate you have.
You keep saying that but I see no evidence for it.
Yes, you can run multiple non-maximized windows, and yes you can have more than one desktop. These are not the norm any more for Gnome. And reading the design documents at the posted link makes it clear what they think of your intelligence level, and makes it clear they would just as soon hide that capability even deeper than they buried it in past releases.
So you can run multiple non-maximized windows. One minute you assert it is going one way and then admit this is not the case at all. GNOME even has explicit support for tiling windows by dragging them to the left or right. And again, if you don't like the default behaviour then extensions will come in time which modify it. That's all that the likes of Mint are doing.
It's more an example of Internet Bullying.
A good case could be made that Santorum started it by preaching intolerance.
Oh wait, it is IMMATURE ACTIONS.
Well clearly religions are immature given how they have fostered war, intolerance and murder throughout history.
Tell me again which religion developed and USED the atomic bomb??
A Christian one? Though there are many rational reasons the bomb was used.
You have _faith_ that the sun will come up tomorrow. That is "grounded faith". You can't prove it until AFTER the event happens, at which point it becomes FACT.
That's a bizarre argument. The fundamental laws of physics would have to break down for it to not happen. It is most certainly not equivalent to blindly believing the supernatural assertions made by one bronze age tribe or another.
EVERY scripture / bible / "holy book" teaches the same thing: "Respect ALL THINGS."
Well that's a lot of horseshit. It's not hard to find the most appalling cruelties and intolerance in the bible and I daresay most other scriptures too. Usually aimed at unbelievers or threatening dire punishment for those who dare defy their god's arbitrary laws of what constitutes the proper way to live.
It is only when people become addicted to power that they twist "good intentions" to suit THEIR wants, desires, and needs.
And you know what's a good way to obtain power? For someone to tell others they've received revelations from some magical being, that we must all follow this person and his divine message, that we must cast out or kill the followers of some other god etc. etc. Basically religions put lunatics on a pedestal and has people follow and die for them. The words are put to paper as inerrant and further embelished by disciples to make them look more miraculous. Look at any modern day cult and you will see this happen time and again. The only thing separating a religion from a cult is a few hundred years of existence.
While to a Christian, the astronomical odds against everything in the universe happening in such a way as to form life and so on is proof of a god, obviously it isn't to you.
No because that would not be evidence, it would be incredulity. "I cannot believe the universe happened in such a way as to form life except through god". It's a non explanation.
In fact, if Jesus existed and came down from the sky right now to talk to you, you'd just justify it as a hallucination. There is no evidence that will convince you.
That's a big if. And when it happens (a huge assumption) we'll be able to judge the event on the merits rather than your straw man assumption of what I might do.
"#pragma once" gets around the need for that
Nowadays I think the reasons for hungarian have largely disappeared. Modern IDEs for Java or .NET provide enough assistance that you can find out the type of something by hovering over it. You'll get the type and any documentation. And ctrl clicking the type takes you to the definition. There is no need to decorate the type because it just adds noise. Personally I don't even like scoping which some Java devs seem to do with _ on the front of member variables because it usually confuses the IDE.
It may still have some use in JavaScript or Perl or other polymorphic environments where the editor / IDE and the runtime is pretty useless at assisting developers though it should probably be done in a limited way, e.g. s for string, n for number, a for array etc.
However all religion is by definition irrational - an act of faith in the supernatural. There is no evidence to support their beliefs. Instead there is plenty of dogma and ritual to rein in followers and rally them around those beliefs. It is no wonder that things get a little murdery when one group's preciously held delusions collide with another group's preciously held (and contradictory) delusions. People use the promise of an afterlife to justify murdering another human being. Neither group can claim to be right because in the absence of evidence none of them are. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pitiful and cruel.
Every religion is a plague on the world. Irrational beliefs spawn irrational behaviour.
What is absurd about the FBI having a file on someone who was a potential presidential appointee?
And by the looks of the material, he filled in the forms, he agreed to be interviewed and he probably nominated associates to talk with. He could have flat out said no and none of this would have happened. I expect in the end it was the administration who said no. Hard working and driven are positives, being a narcissist, liar and deadbeat father are negatives and I suspect they tipped the scales.
Not as funny as people who make their own lightsabres for stage performances.
If its illegal in the UK show me the law. And I know it's encrypted, hence "assuming it isn't encrypted which is the default".
Well it is a Facebook game. No point enriching your main competitor. I would have thought they'd try and shift it lock stock and barrel to Google+ though. That's assuming it weren't see as anti-competitive which it may well have been.
Some sad people have spent a lot of money on virtual goods, believe the service should be run in perpetuity and have failed to read the terms and conditions which doubtless say otherwise.
I'm not surprised that so many things attempt to work around JS as much as possible. AJAX libs attempt to hide the utterly arcane, often buggy ways of accessing the DOM. CoffeeScript attempts to reduce the bloat even further. And other tools like GWT, Emscripten attempt to do away with JS as a problem for the developer altogether. What all seem to implicitly admit is that once JS is employed not just as some HTML glue but as the application code, it becomes an unmanageable pig to develop against.
I can do no such thing as what? Please be specific.
or if there were something that the police thought the public should be aware of for their own safety then perhaps they could just i dunno, tell the media?
As is the case in other countries. In the UK for example you can listen to the police radio (assuming it isn't encrypted which is the default), but you can't act on anything you hear. So the TV couldn't report a chase was in progress unless the police had issued a warning to that effect.
The cop may not know this stuff but he knows people that do. When the police raid your house in connection to any computer related crime the first thing they'll do is seize your equipment and send it off to a forensics laboratory. You must assume these people are experts at their jobs and if you have something to hide then you really shouldn't be doing it in some half-assed way because you're going to be caught.
We'll see about price but I will not be surprised at all if its $50 when all said and done. $15 postage and packing from the UK to the US is almost justifiable and an easy way to rake in some extra profit.
GWT's GUI is sitting on top of HTML so it's basically widgetized HTML elements. Some of the layouts are also not without their own dangers in terms of styling and stuff. For example the vertical / horizontal panels use html TABLE elements so you can easily find that some things you would expect to work don't unless you use another kind of layout.
I spent a few days porting an Android app to GWT and was pleasantly surprised by how much I could reuse. Some of my code had to be refactored to make it pluggable (e.g. I had logging statements peppered all over the place which I had to refactor and some Class.forNames) but usually it just means using a pattern of some kind like a factory and providing an Android / GWT impl. I had to write the UI from scratch though and with GWT that basically means using GWT or a binding XML to describe the elements and CSS to style them. I found GWT's canvas support to be pretty good these days too so I was able to do some pretty painting widgets.
Model A versions are $25. The model B with the ethernet and more memory are $35. Throw in taxes, shipping & packing and it's likely to be $50 or more.
Unity IMO does suck but that's Ubuntu's problem to fix. Now imagine in addition to Unity's problems that Ubuntu also have to fix problems in GNOME, KDE, xfce etc. That's the point. Supporting more than one desktop is a distraction and burden on limited resources. Better to stick with one thing and support it.
I also don't know who this upstream you speak of is. I expect most administrators just wish the dist works out of the box in a sensible and sane manner so they don't have to screw around with it, or have their users falling through large usability holes and bothering the admin to fix them. The same for most users. Doesn't stop tweakers from doing their own thing post-install.