After Unity, I think Ubuntu is no longer anyone's favorite.
If Unity pisses you off then I wouldn't go looking to FC 15 for answers. At least with Unity you can fallback on Ubuntu Classic mode which is a GNOME 2.x desktop. In FC 15 the default is GNOME 3 which arguably has it's own annoyances and the fallback is a desktop-ish GNOME 3 missing a pile of functionality found in GNOME 2.x. A simple example being making shortcuts on your desktop - you can't.
The point about compositing is its more efficient for more reasons than eye candy. I just stated one obvious way it can improve the desktop experience and performance assuming you have a modern GPU.
As for remoting, I still haven't heard any adequate reason that the entire local desktop should be hobbled by an antiquated technology and half a dozen band aid extensions for the sake of running some remote apps. X can run on top of Wayland and there will be other ways from VNC on up that will work with native Wayland and apps.
I'd also point out that remoting is not some exclusive feature that X has and no other desktop has. There are numerous ways to remotely share desktops, some built-in, some open source, some proprietary. Some even do seamless application windows.
Compositing window management is a minor feature and certainly one which should not impede the network experience.
It's not a minor feature in a modern desktop. In the old world when you moved a window the WM had to work out the damage to the ones it fell over, send off invalidation messages, incur a bunch of context switches so the windows could repaint and draw through clip regions so the lower z-order window didn't inadvertantly paint over windows above it. If every window is a surface then you don't need to invalidate / repaint damaged windows when one moves over the top of another, just recompose.
And Wayland isn't just about compositing, it's about removing context switches and other bottlenecks.
I don't know what XFLDs are, but I don't consider the X server rendering fonts and providing graphics primitives a bad idea.
It wouldn't be a bad idea if core X11 fonts were truetype fonts with support for anti-aliasing / clear type, paths, rotation, scaling etc. but they're not. They're really, really crappy bitmap fonts which are utterly useless for any modern GUI. So apps use freetype (Xft + xrender extension) to get those things and the original font support sits there.
Same issue goes for the drawing primitives. They're crappy and clunky so apps and widget sets use Cairo (or an analog like QPainter) to ensure rich antialiased rendering.
Everything bypasses X as much as possible already and at this point the framework is a problem to work around. That's why it deserves to die. Remoting and other things can be worked into a replacement and shouldn't be seen as a reason to do nothing at all.
RE4 on the Wii wasn't laughable, but drawing comparison to some last gen versions is more or less confirming the point that the Wii isn't a great console. It's literally Gamecube 1.5. It's also clear that by appealing to the mainstream for sales the Wii has doomed itself to shovelware hell which explains why sales are so precipitously taking a dive.
Network transparency is a minor feature and certainly one which should not impede the local experience. Besides, why do you think Wayland makes network transparency impossible? It's not infeasible that someone could design a protocol over the top that allowed remote rendering of apps by sending mouse / keyboard / microphone events one way and window draw & audio instructions in the other. That's in addition to all the existing ways of network transparency - X, VNC etc.
Quite. That's the problem. They've been working on X for ages and are bored and fed up with it. It's time for them to move on. Which is fine, but it doesn't mean it's time to kill off X.
No they recognize the horrible kludges required to achieve modern effects like composition & video, the context switches that degrade performance, X'sstrictly 2D worldview which impedes coord translation & mapping, all the extensions, and all the redundant functionality that no modern dist uses. Then they reasonably ask why they even need X at all.
This is one of the disingenuous arguments trotted out like clockwork every time. You can get X servers for Windows and OSX. They both suck compared to Linux because the X clients are always second class programsn and don't integrate properly. It will be the same with Wayland.
Integrate with what now? If a dist goes with Wayland then most apps running over QT & GTK are going to run natively. It's not infeasible that GTK / QT could even detect when they're running locally or remotely and link to the appropriate wayland / X libs. That's pretty much all common apps right there. And for the remainder you can run X over the top or even contemplate some kind of limited X emulation layer. I assume Linux is in a far better position to make X run seamlessly than either OS X or Windows.
I don't accept either that network transparency is a reason to not switch. Remote apps could still be served with X if necessary and arguably Wayland would provide the foundation for a vastly superior remote desktop experience than either NX or VNC could manage.
Of course there is nothing to force you using Wayland. I expect even if it comes to pass that Ubuntu, Fedora or some other dist makes the leap that X will live for a long time yet.
I think its quite likely that if Apple go through with an ARM mac that they'll release tools so devs just build the one time to LLVM and the same code will run on Intel or ARM with no changes. It means recompiling what they have now but going forward it makes apps completely architecture agnostic. Think about the potential of that - no reliance on hardware architecture means they can ship on what's most appropriate / cheapest and there is no lock-in. LLVM is far more elegant than the fat binary approach they took with the PowerPC -> Intel transtion.
What DRM plug? Apple has no way to stop people from downloading software from a website.
They don't now. Who's to say what they have in mind for their rumoured ARM based Macbooks? They might lamely claim that they need to "curate" apps because it's a new platform hence locked down to the app store and before you know it the same thing happens to all new macs.
I think the first is remembered so well because it has a good script, strong chemistry, good villains and an exciting story. I think the second one had a great premise but sunk because the chemistry between the leads was nonexistent. Kate Capshaw played a stupid screamy bimbo who Indiana probably derived a few casual screws from before being dumping her ass in Calcutta or somewhere. The third installment was okay but almost holed by execrable CG effects and retreading somewhat back into the same domain as episode 1 - Nazi's, deserts, holy relics and so on. I didn't even bother watching the fourth. It got such a panning from reviews that I never felt motivated to ever watch it. Someday I'll catch it on TV I guess.
I think the problem with Spielberg and Lucas over time is their movies have gotten more by the numbers and there is that feeling that they have so much creative control that no one is in a position to rein them in from mediocrity or really stupid ideas.
While we're at it, the JavaScript engines are all single-threaded per server? So you get no benefit from having multiple cores or multiple CPUs in your server? What a colossal train wreck of a design.
Fire up a different process per core and route each request through a load balancer. Alternatively use web workers to service the requests with the main thread acting as the conductor which spins them up and services common functionality.
Microsoft could equally argue they were making the web more open. After all they went through the motions to have their stuff blessed by the w3c, published the working drafts and apis to their extensions etc. It's just those standards were superfluous, flawed, bound to an OS, bound to the browser or otherwise a bad idea. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it is desirable. Just because Google offers up some tech means we should blindly accept it despite its shortcomings or danger to the web.
And yes there should be a process whereby a standard is turned over to a working group be it w3c, WHATWG or something else. A standard should solve a real world problem, be well defined, fit for purpose (i.e. secure, cross platform, as simple as it needs to be), be better than what already exists and stand a good chance of being adopted by every major browser. If it can't satisfy those criteria it really has no business even existing.
Remember the uproar when MS introduced a bunch of proprietary "standards" to IE - VML, VBScript, ActiveX, behaviours etc.? There was uproar. Microsoft were fragmenting / subverting the web, building incompatibility into a hitherto open platform. etc.
Google are basically doing the same thing here with WebM, WebP, NaCl, SPDY etc. It may well be these products (or some of them) are open source, it may well be that some have technical merits and require serious consideration. But the way that Google is rapidly reinventing the web in its own image and unilaterally declaring support for formats of its own making is not good for anyone at all. Chrome will be the reference standard for browsers and all the rest are going to look inferior by comparison, forever chasing a moving target and risking second class status. There needs to be a process that should be followed before formats are adopted and it's not just the case of printing a spec, or releasing source code. These things need to be subjected to scrutiny and all major browsers need to be stakeholders. If they're not then Google will surely attempt to hijack the web as did Microsoft before it.
Ignore the haters. I, and many others, concur. Android is a deathtrap of viruses, harvesting, trojans and misinformation. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. The opposite of a walled garden is surely an entirely open one, and unless you go round with the hoe, the weeds will grow. Apologies for rhyming; 'cause it's true. Equip Gran with a new 'droid tablet, and watch her money slowly be sapped from her account, or give her a new iPad and watch her shop at the App Store. Super stuff - no credit card drainage, no worries about trojans, no viruses. Sorted.
That's very melodramatic and utterly ludicrous. You make it sound like Android is infested with malware when it's a tiny problem, probably contracted by idiots getting their apps from some dodgy Chinese app store. More fool them.
Get your apps from the standard marketplace, exercise a little common sense and you will be perfectly safe. If you don't think granny is capable of managing a smart phone, don't buy her one, or install the apps for her, or educate her on common ways that malware may masquerade as useful software.
I'd add that neither both Apple or Google could ever be safe from malware. It would be trivial to write a seemingly useful app, wait for it to gather a lot of users and then prime it with a command during its normal cloud based calls which activates its malicious behaviour.
All big companies have internal accounting so if PSN gives free games away there is doubtless money changing hands with SCEE / SCEA / SCEJ which corresponds as profit. I expect those groups would demand it because even if games are Sony in-house there would be people who potentially would have purchase LBP / Infamous etc. through the platinum label or through PSN. So I expect there is a loss through sales that could have been but won't be now but it's obviously way less that the list price of these items.
Also... how are they going to "add a bunch more PSN subscribers" magically after the PSN's image has been screwed so fantastically? Even my girlfriend had heard of the PSN fiasco. People are (maybe) going to be much more careful with their data now.
By giving free shit away, as they're doing for existing subscribers. I could well see them printing out voucher codes and packing them in with new PS3s, good for 1 free game. Yes it will cost them money but seeing as these are largely Sony games I'm sure it's a lot less than their face value and probably deductible too in some way as a writeoff.
Eggs are printed with the information of their country / farm of origin, grade, use by date with a red dye. So I expect any fraud involving packaged goods sold through supermarkets would be quickly uncovered. It doesn't stop occasional incidents of dodgy food entering the market but it is usually through dodgy wholesalers selling to fast food places rather than suppliers / supermarkets would tend to be more stringent.
I don't live in Japan and have no idea how their food labelling works. However in the EU all food stuffs display a country of origin and in the case of unprocessed meats, eggs you can usually trace the product right back to the farm the animal was reared on.
It's called a difference of opinion. I've explained my reasons for preferring task oriented desktop and why it's an important goal to pursue. Then you just pissed and moaned about your beloved wmaker and started hurling insults that I'm a n00b, a troll etc. Grow up will ya. A more reasonable person might wonder why the likes of OS X even exists if it's progenitor (and lookalike clone) was the be all and end all of desktops as you seem to pretend.
Geiger counters are useless for someone without at least a basic education in nuclear physics.
I wouldn't go that far. If you have two cans of beans in front of you and pointing the geiger counter at one gives you the same reading as background and pointing it at the other makes the thing go crazy then I think it's pretty clear which is the safer[1] one to eat.
Likewise, with a geiger counter it should be easy to tell the difference between a lettuce still full of radioactive fallout and one that's at least been rinsed off:)
[1] that's 'safer', which doesn't necessarily imply safe...
In the former case what is the likelihood of that? Has the food even been canned in an affected region? If so, choose one which wasn't. I assume even if it was then there would be restrictions and possibly an outright ban on contaminated food. In the latter, if the remedy is simply rinsing the food, then rinse the food again. It wouldn't be a bad idea to rinse cans too since it would be dust that is the issue. Also buy foods which are unlikely to be affected by the outbreak, e.g. imported meat & fish & vegetables.
Buying a geiger counter seems like an absurd overreaction.
.NET is usually performant enough for most applications because the performance impact of using the CLR is dwarfed by other latencies such as network / database lag. The problem with.NET is you have to write code from scratch. If you have C++ code you're looking at a complete rewrite not a port to make it work on.NET. There is something called C++/CLI which in theory allows you to write C++ for.NET but it's so far removed from regular C++ that it's not really C++ at all.
CLR is a high level VM. LLVM is low level which more or less means it's a register based assembly language and packaging format. It doesn't do stuff like garbage collection or anything like that. It's just a bunch of asm instructions to load, store, jump, compare etc. It's somewhat similar in purpose to RTL in gcc except it is designed for deferred compilation or even JIT interpretation at runtime.
So what I'm suggesting is a new target for DevStudio. You target something analogous to LLVM. Your MFC / ATL / QT / random C++ app builds away like it always has but it spits out byte codes. These byte codes are architecture neutral. When a user invokes your app on ARM / x86 / Itanium / whatever, the operating system uses llc (or the analogue) to compile the byte code into a native executable and caches it for future use. Then your app runs at full native speed but it runs on an OS / Architecture which supports LLVM and whatever APIs you are hitting.
I think Apple will be using it when they straddle architectures with ARM & x86 MacBooks. I'm suggesting Microsoft should do something similar. Expecting developers to build, qa, deploy and maintain a different binary for architecture simply doesn't work.
Don't be ridiculous. I've used wmaker numerous times in the past (Google shows me first commenting on it 12 years ago). And grow up your self rather than starting with the ad hominems.
My sentiments too. The perennial problem with Linux is usability, that users are expected to have in depth knowledge of their operating system just to use a desktop and work around its flaws. It makes no sense at all. If Linux is more usable, it becomes more productive. If Linux is more usable, more people will use it which is a net benefit to the platform and people who make a living from the platform. I suspect there are people who see Linux as an exclusive clique and that attempts to open it up are somehow a threat to that.
Calling users of lean, efficient interfaces (who often script in additional functionality to fit our needs) "masochists" just makes you look like a n00b.
Actually it's because I've endured numerous desktops under UNIX / Linux over the 20+ years I've been using them and I dislike those that make me spend more time fixing & tweaking the desktop than doing the things I'm running the desktop for in the first place. The desktop's job is to facilitate stuff the user wants to do, to adopt a sensible set of defaults, to provide a reasonable amount of customization, to be forgiving of errors, to provide all the functionality a normal user needs through a GUI (i.e. no trips to bash to edit files), to provide services & facilities to apps such as drag & drop, notifications etc., to allow users to efficiently managed files and apps and to generally stay the fuck out of the way thereafter.
Which is why I suggest that people who use desktops which don't do those things are masochists. Maybe you like your wmaker, and you're free to run it. It doesn't mean it's suitable for the majority of users however. It is very clear that while GNOME 3 and Unity have glaring flaws that both are going in the right direction and a point release or two will address those flaws.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll stick with ceiling cat if it's all the same.
After Unity, I think Ubuntu is no longer anyone's favorite.
If Unity pisses you off then I wouldn't go looking to FC 15 for answers. At least with Unity you can fallback on Ubuntu Classic mode which is a GNOME 2.x desktop. In FC 15 the default is GNOME 3 which arguably has it's own annoyances and the fallback is a desktop-ish GNOME 3 missing a pile of functionality found in GNOME 2.x. A simple example being making shortcuts on your desktop - you can't.
As for remoting, I still haven't heard any adequate reason that the entire local desktop should be hobbled by an antiquated technology and half a dozen band aid extensions for the sake of running some remote apps. X can run on top of Wayland and there will be other ways from VNC on up that will work with native Wayland and apps.
I'd also point out that remoting is not some exclusive feature that X has and no other desktop has. There are numerous ways to remotely share desktops, some built-in, some open source, some proprietary. Some even do seamless application windows.
Compositing window management is a minor feature and certainly one which should not impede the network experience.
It's not a minor feature in a modern desktop. In the old world when you moved a window the WM had to work out the damage to the ones it fell over, send off invalidation messages, incur a bunch of context switches so the windows could repaint and draw through clip regions so the lower z-order window didn't inadvertantly paint over windows above it. If every window is a surface then you don't need to invalidate / repaint damaged windows when one moves over the top of another, just recompose.
And Wayland isn't just about compositing, it's about removing context switches and other bottlenecks.
I don't know what XFLDs are, but I don't consider the X server rendering fonts and providing graphics primitives a bad idea.
It wouldn't be a bad idea if core X11 fonts were truetype fonts with support for anti-aliasing / clear type, paths, rotation, scaling etc. but they're not. They're really, really crappy bitmap fonts which are utterly useless for any modern GUI. So apps use freetype (Xft + xrender extension) to get those things and the original font support sits there.
Same issue goes for the drawing primitives. They're crappy and clunky so apps and widget sets use Cairo (or an analog like QPainter) to ensure rich antialiased rendering.
Everything bypasses X as much as possible already and at this point the framework is a problem to work around. That's why it deserves to die. Remoting and other things can be worked into a replacement and shouldn't be seen as a reason to do nothing at all.
RE4 on the Wii wasn't laughable, but drawing comparison to some last gen versions is more or less confirming the point that the Wii isn't a great console. It's literally Gamecube 1.5. It's also clear that by appealing to the mainstream for sales the Wii has doomed itself to shovelware hell which explains why sales are so precipitously taking a dive.
Network transparency is a minor feature and certainly one which should not impede the local experience. Besides, why do you think Wayland makes network transparency impossible? It's not infeasible that someone could design a protocol over the top that allowed remote rendering of apps by sending mouse / keyboard / microphone events one way and window draw & audio instructions in the other. That's in addition to all the existing ways of network transparency - X, VNC etc.
Quite. That's the problem. They've been working on X for ages and are bored and fed up with it. It's time for them to move on. Which is fine, but it doesn't mean it's time to kill off X.
No they recognize the horrible kludges required to achieve modern effects like composition & video, the context switches that degrade performance, X'sstrictly 2D worldview which impedes coord translation & mapping, all the extensions, and all the redundant functionality that no modern dist uses. Then they reasonably ask why they even need X at all.
This is one of the disingenuous arguments trotted out like clockwork every time. You can get X servers for Windows and OSX. They both suck compared to Linux because the X clients are always second class programsn and don't integrate properly. It will be the same with Wayland.
Integrate with what now? If a dist goes with Wayland then most apps running over QT & GTK are going to run natively. It's not infeasible that GTK / QT could even detect when they're running locally or remotely and link to the appropriate wayland / X libs. That's pretty much all common apps right there. And for the remainder you can run X over the top or even contemplate some kind of limited X emulation layer. I assume Linux is in a far better position to make X run seamlessly than either OS X or Windows.
I don't accept either that network transparency is a reason to not switch. Remote apps could still be served with X if necessary and arguably Wayland would provide the foundation for a vastly superior remote desktop experience than either NX or VNC could manage.
Of course there is nothing to force you using Wayland. I expect even if it comes to pass that Ubuntu, Fedora or some other dist makes the leap that X will live for a long time yet.
I think its quite likely that if Apple go through with an ARM mac that they'll release tools so devs just build the one time to LLVM and the same code will run on Intel or ARM with no changes. It means recompiling what they have now but going forward it makes apps completely architecture agnostic. Think about the potential of that - no reliance on hardware architecture means they can ship on what's most appropriate / cheapest and there is no lock-in. LLVM is far more elegant than the fat binary approach they took with the PowerPC -> Intel transtion.
What DRM plug? Apple has no way to stop people from downloading software from a website.
They don't now. Who's to say what they have in mind for their rumoured ARM based Macbooks? They might lamely claim that they need to "curate" apps because it's a new platform hence locked down to the app store and before you know it the same thing happens to all new macs.
I think the problem with Spielberg and Lucas over time is their movies have gotten more by the numbers and there is that feeling that they have so much creative control that no one is in a position to rein them in from mediocrity or really stupid ideas.
While we're at it, the JavaScript engines are all single-threaded per server? So you get no benefit from having multiple cores or multiple CPUs in your server? What a colossal train wreck of a design.
Fire up a different process per core and route each request through a load balancer. Alternatively use web workers to service the requests with the main thread acting as the conductor which spins them up and services common functionality.
And yes there should be a process whereby a standard is turned over to a working group be it w3c, WHATWG or something else. A standard should solve a real world problem, be well defined, fit for purpose (i.e. secure, cross platform, as simple as it needs to be), be better than what already exists and stand a good chance of being adopted by every major browser. If it can't satisfy those criteria it really has no business even existing.
Google are basically doing the same thing here with WebM, WebP, NaCl, SPDY etc. It may well be these products (or some of them) are open source, it may well be that some have technical merits and require serious consideration. But the way that Google is rapidly reinventing the web in its own image and unilaterally declaring support for formats of its own making is not good for anyone at all. Chrome will be the reference standard for browsers and all the rest are going to look inferior by comparison, forever chasing a moving target and risking second class status. There needs to be a process that should be followed before formats are adopted and it's not just the case of printing a spec, or releasing source code. These things need to be subjected to scrutiny and all major browsers need to be stakeholders. If they're not then Google will surely attempt to hijack the web as did Microsoft before it.
Ignore the haters. I, and many others, concur. Android is a deathtrap of viruses, harvesting, trojans and misinformation. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. The opposite of a walled garden is surely an entirely open one, and unless you go round with the hoe, the weeds will grow. Apologies for rhyming; 'cause it's true. Equip Gran with a new 'droid tablet, and watch her money slowly be sapped from her account, or give her a new iPad and watch her shop at the App Store. Super stuff - no credit card drainage, no worries about trojans, no viruses. Sorted.
That's very melodramatic and utterly ludicrous. You make it sound like Android is infested with malware when it's a tiny problem, probably contracted by idiots getting their apps from some dodgy Chinese app store. More fool them.
Get your apps from the standard marketplace, exercise a little common sense and you will be perfectly safe. If you don't think granny is capable of managing a smart phone, don't buy her one, or install the apps for her, or educate her on common ways that malware may masquerade as useful software.
I'd add that neither both Apple or Google could ever be safe from malware. It would be trivial to write a seemingly useful app, wait for it to gather a lot of users and then prime it with a command during its normal cloud based calls which activates its malicious behaviour.
All big companies have internal accounting so if PSN gives free games away there is doubtless money changing hands with SCEE / SCEA / SCEJ which corresponds as profit. I expect those groups would demand it because even if games are Sony in-house there would be people who potentially would have purchase LBP / Infamous etc. through the platinum label or through PSN. So I expect there is a loss through sales that could have been but won't be now but it's obviously way less that the list price of these items.
That's probably true. I still expect people to still be all over the free games which are not bad titles at all.
Also... how are they going to "add a bunch more PSN subscribers" magically after the PSN's image has been screwed so fantastically? Even my girlfriend had heard of the PSN fiasco. People are (maybe) going to be much more careful with their data now.
By giving free shit away, as they're doing for existing subscribers. I could well see them printing out voucher codes and packing them in with new PS3s, good for 1 free game. Yes it will cost them money but seeing as these are largely Sony games I'm sure it's a lot less than their face value and probably deductible too in some way as a writeoff.
Eggs are printed with the information of their country / farm of origin, grade, use by date with a red dye. So I expect any fraud involving packaged goods sold through supermarkets would be quickly uncovered. It doesn't stop occasional incidents of dodgy food entering the market but it is usually through dodgy wholesalers selling to fast food places rather than suppliers / supermarkets would tend to be more stringent.
I don't live in Japan and have no idea how their food labelling works. However in the EU all food stuffs display a country of origin and in the case of unprocessed meats, eggs you can usually trace the product right back to the farm the animal was reared on.
It's called a difference of opinion. I've explained my reasons for preferring task oriented desktop and why it's an important goal to pursue. Then you just pissed and moaned about your beloved wmaker and started hurling insults that I'm a n00b, a troll etc. Grow up will ya. A more reasonable person might wonder why the likes of OS X even exists if it's progenitor (and lookalike clone) was the be all and end all of desktops as you seem to pretend.
Geiger counters are useless for someone without at least a basic education in nuclear physics.
I wouldn't go that far. If you have two cans of beans in front of you and pointing the geiger counter at one gives you the same reading as background and pointing it at the other makes the thing go crazy then I think it's pretty clear which is the safer[1] one to eat.
Likewise, with a geiger counter it should be easy to tell the difference between a lettuce still full of radioactive fallout and one that's at least been rinsed off :)
[1] that's 'safer', which doesn't necessarily imply safe...
In the former case what is the likelihood of that? Has the food even been canned in an affected region? If so, choose one which wasn't. I assume even if it was then there would be restrictions and possibly an outright ban on contaminated food. In the latter, if the remedy is simply rinsing the food, then rinse the food again. It wouldn't be a bad idea to rinse cans too since it would be dust that is the issue. Also buy foods which are unlikely to be affected by the outbreak, e.g. imported meat & fish & vegetables.
Buying a geiger counter seems like an absurd overreaction.
CLR is a high level VM. LLVM is low level which more or less means it's a register based assembly language and packaging format. It doesn't do stuff like garbage collection or anything like that. It's just a bunch of asm instructions to load, store, jump, compare etc. It's somewhat similar in purpose to RTL in gcc except it is designed for deferred compilation or even JIT interpretation at runtime.
So what I'm suggesting is a new target for DevStudio. You target something analogous to LLVM. Your MFC / ATL / QT / random C++ app builds away like it always has but it spits out byte codes. These byte codes are architecture neutral. When a user invokes your app on ARM / x86 / Itanium / whatever, the operating system uses llc (or the analogue) to compile the byte code into a native executable and caches it for future use. Then your app runs at full native speed but it runs on an OS / Architecture which supports LLVM and whatever APIs you are hitting.
I think Apple will be using it when they straddle architectures with ARM & x86 MacBooks. I'm suggesting Microsoft should do something similar. Expecting developers to build, qa, deploy and maintain a different binary for architecture simply doesn't work.
Don't be ridiculous. I've used wmaker numerous times in the past (Google shows me first commenting on it 12 years ago). And grow up your self rather than starting with the ad hominems.
My sentiments too. The perennial problem with Linux is usability, that users are expected to have in depth knowledge of their operating system just to use a desktop and work around its flaws. It makes no sense at all. If Linux is more usable, it becomes more productive. If Linux is more usable, more people will use it which is a net benefit to the platform and people who make a living from the platform. I suspect there are people who see Linux as an exclusive clique and that attempts to open it up are somehow a threat to that.
Calling users of lean, efficient interfaces (who often script in additional functionality to fit our needs) "masochists" just makes you look like a n00b.
Actually it's because I've endured numerous desktops under UNIX / Linux over the 20+ years I've been using them and I dislike those that make me spend more time fixing & tweaking the desktop than doing the things I'm running the desktop for in the first place. The desktop's job is to facilitate stuff the user wants to do, to adopt a sensible set of defaults, to provide a reasonable amount of customization, to be forgiving of errors, to provide all the functionality a normal user needs through a GUI (i.e. no trips to bash to edit files), to provide services & facilities to apps such as drag & drop, notifications etc., to allow users to efficiently managed files and apps and to generally stay the fuck out of the way thereafter.
Which is why I suggest that people who use desktops which don't do those things are masochists. Maybe you like your wmaker, and you're free to run it. It doesn't mean it's suitable for the majority of users however. It is very clear that while GNOME 3 and Unity have glaring flaws that both are going in the right direction and a point release or two will address those flaws.