From my point of view Gnome3 is in every measurable way inferior to Gnome1 (well, the final version of Gnome1). I've got to assume you are using some different metric than anything I do.
OTOH, my opinion of Gnome3 is based on a version over a year old. I was just checking to see if it had improved to the point where I should try it again. Answers that others have given have clearly indicated that the flaws that caused me to remove it have not been addressed, so I'm guessing that you don't consider them flaws. This, however, does not change *my* evaluation of them.
P.S.: There are even features I don't currently use that I consider the absence of to be a flaw. I don't want to need to change my window manager every time I change my hardware setup or work-flow...so lack of flexibility is a flaw, even if flexing in a particular direction is not currently used. I do understand that flexible software is more verbose and often trickier to create. This doesn't, however, directly effect my evaluation of it against competitors, especially when the competitor is an earlier version of the same software. Presumably the newer versions have some desirable features that are just invisible to me. My normal use case is most ideally served by a window manager with features in between those of Gnome2 and KDE3, though I must admit that I've now gotten used to KDE4. And also that a large part of the usability has to do the the interaction of third party software within the environment of the window manager. (An actual re-implementation of KDE3 within the context of current software did not work well.) Still, the basic functionality needs to be present, or the manager is not suitable.
FWIW, I'm rather certain that Gnome1 was acceptable as I run a virtual machine to handle old software that won't work on a Linux 2.4 system, and it runs Gnome1. That's also why I'm certain that it was superior, for my use case, to Gnome3.
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.
But this kind of unsustainable dependency management is baked into Go and Rust, and even considered an advantage.
In fact, the same thing is baked into every system that depends on the cloud.
N.B.: If you don't find this trivially obvious, then you're abstracting from this example in a different way than I am. The basic problem is depending on access to particular remote resources at runtime. The specific nature of those resources is almost irrelevant.
It's not that simple. The evidence tends to support models that forecast lots of unpleasant things, and most people don't want to hear unpleasant things, so their tendency is to ignore it. This goes for scientists as well as other people. In the area of expertise, people tend to learn to overcome this effect, but climate forecasting involves a multitude of expertises, and someone who's expert in one area won't be an expert in another area, and so will tend to overlook unpleasant possibilities coming from there. (Others, of course, will ONLY see the unpleasant possibilities.)
This whole thing add a lot of noise to a prediction system that already has a lot of inherent uncertainty. And, or course, there are also those paid spokesmen you mentioned pushing their sponsor's point of view, the funding committees who have agendas about what deserves funding, and the "official report compositors" who tend to exclude anything deemed "to alarming" or "politically unacceptable" from the official reports.
It's not just a matter of "VILLAINS ARE STEALING OUR FUTURE!", though that's one of the things that are happening. Most of it is bureaucracy politics as usual.
What do you mean Celtic? At the time of the Roman Empire the Celts lived throughout the Danube valley. They migrated then to Spain, and the sons of Mil came over the sea to Ireland. (That's always sounded strange to me, but that's what's reported.) There they met the current inhabitants and fought them in bloody battles, after which they divided the country, The part above ground went to the sons of Mil and the part underground went to the Tuatha de Danaan (i.e., the people under the hills). Nodbody talks about the daughters. I've alway read that last part as "The winners burried the losers", but it was the *SONS* of Mil that came over the sea. Nobody talks about the daughters. But there were, obviously, descendants.
That leaves out a whole bunch of other invasions, and I don't know where to put the Formorrians, not being studied in Irish Celtic lore. But the DNA of three people just isn't much to make a decision about who the ancestors were. And I see no reason to doubt that many of the ancestors of the current Irish were called Celtic by the Romans. That others of them were called something else also isn't surprising.
It would give us *different* problems. It would allow the carbon dioxide level in the air to return to lower levels, which would make the radiation of heat more effective, but it would add increased heat to they system. But how much? You'd want to choose your frequencies for optimal transmission effectiveness, which means water is transparent, and so are rain drops and fog, but you'd also want efficient absorption at the receiver. Something just longer than microwaves is probably about right, but I'm no expert. Still, get the wavelength too short and it's either blocked or absorbed by the atmosphere. Light doesn't work on cloudy days. Radio bounces off the heaviside layer, but TV (a higher frequency) goes through. Still, we don't want to interfere with TV reception, so a bit higher than UHF.
IIUC, a well designed transmitter receiver pair is over 95% efficient. That sounds good until you start dealing with significant amounts of power, and in space radiating away the excess heat is difficult.
So I'm not sure. I really like the idea, but I think the appropriate use of Solar Space Power Satellites is powering other space craft. With a good source of power an ion-rocket can fire for years without running out of fuel. It may have less than a pound of thrust, but unless you're directly fighting gravity that rapidly adds up to significant speed. And IIRC the Vasimir engine could produce 30 lbs of thrust, enough to make a manned voyage to Mars, or even further out, feasible.
Well, this time some major corporations are tying their names to it. Lockheed, e.g. It could be just PR fluff, but they could be serious. (Of course, they say "apartment building", but the mean "military base", but that's still fusion power.)
IIUC they've got special terms on the college loans that mean you can't recover by going bankrupt. While this makes some sense (if they didn't have such terms, who would loan?) it allows financial pressures that are inhumane.
Computer Scientists rarely need to know much physics, but they frequently need Numerical Analysis, which means a lot of Calculus, and, guess what, college physics tests and reinforces the Calculus that you learn in college math classes. So taking physics is a good idea.
N.B.: As a programmer I've never needed to know much of either physics or numerical analysis. But I've never regretted learning them.
Actually, as originally interpreted the only restriction on states was that they were required to have a republican form of government. The Bill or Rights was not a restriction on the states, for all of being lifted from the constitution of Virginia. Each state had it's own constitution, and THAT was what set the powers and limits of that state.
The revised interpretation, where the amendments in general (as opposed to when they specifically mention that they were applying to state governments) did not apply to the individual states until after the Civil War (though I forget exactly when, it could have been as late as the 1950's, though I doubt it). This was a part of what the 9th amendment was about.
Those actions would help, but the real thing they need to do is stop doing things like that from now on. At this point I look at the way they treat their own customers who don't want to upgrade to MSWind 10, and say "Why should I even consider working with someone who acts like that?".
It's no longer even just that I can't trust them, it's that I CAN, and what I can trust them to do.
It's not that simple. You can't avoid an unspecified patent, so when Microsoft comes up and says "Nice business you've got there, be a pity if something were to happen to it." and accuses you of violating a patent, but won't tell you what patent, well...
FAT could be avoided, but it wouldn't help. You license the patent they want you to license at the price they want to charge, or else.
I could see arguments that Comcast is more evil than Microsoft, but for all the others you named, I have to think you are turning a blind eye to the evils (plural, large in number, both distant past, recent past, and on-going) done by Microsoft.
P.S.: I'm not whitewashing any of those others you mentioned, but I haven't seen any information that puts them even temporarily level up to Microsoft in the evil department.
The stuffing of the ISO meetings on word processor document formats wasn't that long ago. The Android patent extortion is on-going now. There was something else just last year where I said to myself, "OK, Microsoft hasn't reformed.", but I can't remember it in particular because it's been drowned in the noise of all the other vile things they've done.
Distrusting Microsoft isn't only about what they've done in the distant past, it's maintained by things that I run across every year. And then there's Windowns 10, which they are forcing on people who don't want it. It's not directly open source related, but it sure relates to how trustworthy Microsoft is. And that's in current time.
The Android royalties are based around threats of suits for undisclosed patents. Whenever any specific one of them has been disclosed (see China) it has turned out to be either trivially work around-able or intrinsically invalid (i.e., invalid when issued because of, e.g., prior art). But if they don't tell you what the patent is, you can't avoid it, and a lawsuit to expose the patent as invalid it too expensive for most companies to afford AND too dangerous to risk. (Courts have made some very peculiar patent decisions.)
So trusting anyone who is suing people, but refuses to tell them over what, seems extremely unwise. To put it in the most polite terms.
No, the truth isn't somewhere in between those to extremes, it's off in a different direction. And nobody knows what it is.
I find it quite ominous that Trump has been taking so much from Hitler's playbook, but it's not at all certain how much he means it. My suspicion is that he isn't an actual racist, except in a very specialized meaning of the term in which all other people are of a different race than he is. But this doesn't mean I can say anything complimentary about Hillary. I'm going to need to vote Other, even if I don't know exactly which party yet. (Probably Green, but I haven't bothered to read their platform or look at their candidate yet this time.) I could have voted for Sanders, but I couldn't vote for Hillary unless she made a speech on national TV where she explicitly committed herself to veto the TPP or any similar legislation. Even then I'd have a hard time. And waffling doesn't count. Neither does having other people say she's opposed to the TPP. She was a partial author of that monstrosity.
If you go for stock options, determine to what extent they can be diluted through the issuance of additional stock, and who gets the money when that additional stock is sold. You may be surprised.
Personally, I think that a list of all qualified candidates should be made, and a name selected from that list at random. The pickiness should be in what the qualifications are, but it should be around 100-200 persons long minimum. But then I think legislators should be chosen by and analogous process. Perhaps not the president.
Yes, Microsoft has again lied for PR purposes. I'm not surprised. In fact at this point I'd be surprised if they said something that WASN'T a lie, at least by implication.
And as in this case there are obvious ways in which this could be avoided, so you can hardly say it was forced. E.g., I have an unupgraded MSWind95 machine that I just don't attach to the Internet. That's a technique that would work, and which I have in the past been driven to. (From the model you can tell it was quite awhile ago.) I'm sure there are less extreme approaches. So one can say that what is being argued about here is the meaning of the term "forced".
A more accurate statement would probably be something along the lines of "
Unwary users of Microsoft Windows 7 risk being upgraded to Windows 10 without warning and against their will.
" Even that doesn't say specifically how wary you need to be.
And I've got a Windows 95 machine and it hasn't happened to me. Of course, the machine isn't connected to the Internet.
Now I'm rather certain that not your explanation, but I also suspect that you have some kind of analogous protection that you just aren't happening to mention.
While your point is accurate, the Feds often don't want to do what the foreign agencies require in order to get the exchange. So it's not pointless. And there are legal liability issues, so again it's not pointless.
Now if what you mean is that the customer's data isn't being protected anyway, you're probably right. But that's not what you said.
Given my Senators (Democratic?) pressure would be worthless. I've written, but I know better than to expect it to have any effect. I believe that my Representative, who I've also written to, is already opposed, but what good does that do.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming that you are a Gnome3 developer.
From my point of view Gnome3 is in every measurable way inferior to Gnome1 (well, the final version of Gnome1). I've got to assume you are using some different metric than anything I do.
OTOH, my opinion of Gnome3 is based on a version over a year old. I was just checking to see if it had improved to the point where I should try it again. Answers that others have given have clearly indicated that the flaws that caused me to remove it have not been addressed, so I'm guessing that you don't consider them flaws. This, however, does not change *my* evaluation of them.
P.S.: There are even features I don't currently use that I consider the absence of to be a flaw. I don't want to need to change my window manager every time I change my hardware setup or work-flow...so lack of flexibility is a flaw, even if flexing in a particular direction is not currently used. I do understand that flexible software is more verbose and often trickier to create. This doesn't, however, directly effect my evaluation of it against competitors, especially when the competitor is an earlier version of the same software. Presumably the newer versions have some desirable features that are just invisible to me. My normal use case is most ideally served by a window manager with features in between those of Gnome2 and KDE3, though I must admit that I've now gotten used to KDE4. And also that a large part of the usability has to do the the interaction of third party software within the environment of the window manager. (An actual re-implementation of KDE3 within the context of current software did not work well.) Still, the basic functionality needs to be present, or the manager is not suitable.
FWIW, I'm rather certain that Gnome1 was acceptable as I run a virtual machine to handle old software that won't work on a Linux 2.4 system, and it runs Gnome1. That's also why I'm certain that it was superior, for my use case, to Gnome3.
Thank you. I don't need to do those things very often, but I need to do them too often to need to change window managers before doing them.
So your answer to me is that for me Gnome3 isn't worth installing.
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.
But this kind of unsustainable dependency management is baked into Go and Rust, and even considered an advantage.
In fact, the same thing is baked into every system that depends on the cloud.
N.B.: If you don't find this trivially obvious, then you're abstracting from this example in a different way than I am. The basic problem is depending on access to particular remote resources at runtime. The specific nature of those resources is almost irrelevant.
It's not that simple. The evidence tends to support models that forecast lots of unpleasant things, and most people don't want to hear unpleasant things, so their tendency is to ignore it. This goes for scientists as well as other people. In the area of expertise, people tend to learn to overcome this effect, but climate forecasting involves a multitude of expertises, and someone who's expert in one area won't be an expert in another area, and so will tend to overlook unpleasant possibilities coming from there. (Others, of course, will ONLY see the unpleasant possibilities.)
This whole thing add a lot of noise to a prediction system that already has a lot of inherent uncertainty. And, or course, there are also those paid spokesmen you mentioned pushing their sponsor's point of view, the funding committees who have agendas about what deserves funding, and the "official report compositors" who tend to exclude anything deemed "to alarming" or "politically unacceptable" from the official reports.
It's not just a matter of "VILLAINS ARE STEALING OUR FUTURE!", though that's one of the things that are happening. Most of it is bureaucracy politics as usual.
What do you mean Celtic? At the time of the Roman Empire the Celts lived throughout the Danube valley. They migrated then to Spain, and the sons of Mil came over the sea to Ireland. (That's always sounded strange to me, but that's what's reported.) There they met the current inhabitants and fought them in bloody battles, after which they divided the country, The part above ground went to the sons of Mil and the part underground went to the Tuatha de Danaan (i.e., the people under the hills). Nodbody talks about the daughters. I've alway read that last part as "The winners burried the losers", but it was the *SONS* of Mil that came over the sea. Nobody talks about the daughters. But there were, obviously, descendants.
That leaves out a whole bunch of other invasions, and I don't know where to put the Formorrians, not being studied in Irish Celtic lore. But the DNA of three people just isn't much to make a decision about who the ancestors were. And I see no reason to doubt that many of the ancestors of the current Irish were called Celtic by the Romans. That others of them were called something else also isn't surprising.
It would give us *different* problems. It would allow the carbon dioxide level in the air to return to lower levels, which would make the radiation of heat more effective, but it would add increased heat to they system. But how much? You'd want to choose your frequencies for optimal transmission effectiveness, which means water is transparent, and so are rain drops and fog, but you'd also want efficient absorption at the receiver. Something just longer than microwaves is probably about right, but I'm no expert. Still, get the wavelength too short and it's either blocked or absorbed by the atmosphere. Light doesn't work on cloudy days. Radio bounces off the heaviside layer, but TV (a higher frequency) goes through. Still, we don't want to interfere with TV reception, so a bit higher than UHF.
IIUC, a well designed transmitter receiver pair is over 95% efficient. That sounds good until you start dealing with significant amounts of power, and in space radiating away the excess heat is difficult.
So I'm not sure. I really like the idea, but I think the appropriate use of Solar Space Power Satellites is powering other space craft. With a good source of power an ion-rocket can fire for years without running out of fuel. It may have less than a pound of thrust, but unless you're directly fighting gravity that rapidly adds up to significant speed. And IIRC the Vasimir engine could produce 30 lbs of thrust, enough to make a manned voyage to Mars, or even further out, feasible.
Well, this time some major corporations are tying their names to it. Lockheed, e.g. It could be just PR fluff, but they could be serious. (Of course, they say "apartment building", but the mean "military base", but that's still fusion power.)
IIUC they've got special terms on the college loans that mean you can't recover by going bankrupt. While this makes some sense (if they didn't have such terms, who would loan?) it allows financial pressures that are inhumane.
Computer Scientists rarely need to know much physics, but they frequently need Numerical Analysis, which means a lot of Calculus, and, guess what, college physics tests and reinforces the Calculus that you learn in college math classes. So taking physics is a good idea.
N.B.: As a programmer I've never needed to know much of either physics or numerical analysis. But I've never regretted learning them.
Use binary cards without sequence numbers, so that if the punch cards get dropped there's no easy way to resequence them.
Actually, as originally interpreted the only restriction on states was that they were required to have a republican form of government. The Bill or Rights was not a restriction on the states, for all of being lifted from the constitution of Virginia. Each state had it's own constitution, and THAT was what set the powers and limits of that state.
The revised interpretation, where the amendments in general (as opposed to when they specifically mention that they were applying to state governments) did not apply to the individual states until after the Civil War (though I forget exactly when, it could have been as late as the 1950's, though I doubt it). This was a part of what the 9th amendment was about.
Those actions would help, but the real thing they need to do is stop doing things like that from now on. At this point I look at the way they treat their own customers who don't want to upgrade to MSWind 10, and say "Why should I even consider working with someone who acts like that?".
It's no longer even just that I can't trust them, it's that I CAN, and what I can trust them to do.
It's not that simple. You can't avoid an unspecified patent, so when Microsoft comes up and says "Nice business you've got there, be a pity if something were to happen to it." and accuses you of violating a patent, but won't tell you what patent, well...
FAT could be avoided, but it wouldn't help. You license the patent they want you to license at the price they want to charge, or else.
I could see arguments that Comcast is more evil than Microsoft, but for all the others you named, I have to think you are turning a blind eye to the evils (plural, large in number, both distant past, recent past, and on-going) done by Microsoft.
P.S.: I'm not whitewashing any of those others you mentioned, but I haven't seen any information that puts them even temporarily level up to Microsoft in the evil department.
The stuffing of the ISO meetings on word processor document formats wasn't that long ago. The Android patent extortion is on-going now. There was something else just last year where I said to myself, "OK, Microsoft hasn't reformed.", but I can't remember it in particular because it's been drowned in the noise of all the other vile things they've done.
Distrusting Microsoft isn't only about what they've done in the distant past, it's maintained by things that I run across every year. And then there's Windowns 10, which they are forcing on people who don't want it. It's not directly open source related, but it sure relates to how trustworthy Microsoft is. And that's in current time.
The Android royalties are based around threats of suits for undisclosed patents. Whenever any specific one of them has been disclosed (see China) it has turned out to be either trivially work around-able or intrinsically invalid (i.e., invalid when issued because of, e.g., prior art). But if they don't tell you what the patent is, you can't avoid it, and a lawsuit to expose the patent as invalid it too expensive for most companies to afford AND too dangerous to risk. (Courts have made some very peculiar patent decisions.)
So trusting anyone who is suing people, but refuses to tell them over what, seems extremely unwise. To put it in the most polite terms.
Ummmm....just that the FBI *claims* they can't do it on their own. They may be telling the truth, but that's not the only possibility.
No, the truth isn't somewhere in between those to extremes, it's off in a different direction. And nobody knows what it is.
I find it quite ominous that Trump has been taking so much from Hitler's playbook, but it's not at all certain how much he means it. My suspicion is that he isn't an actual racist, except in a very specialized meaning of the term in which all other people are of a different race than he is. But this doesn't mean I can say anything complimentary about Hillary. I'm going to need to vote Other, even if I don't know exactly which party yet. (Probably Green, but I haven't bothered to read their platform or look at their candidate yet this time.) I could have voted for Sanders, but I couldn't vote for Hillary unless she made a speech on national TV where she explicitly committed herself to veto the TPP or any similar legislation. Even then I'd have a hard time. And waffling doesn't count. Neither does having other people say she's opposed to the TPP. She was a partial author of that monstrosity.
If you go for stock options, determine to what extent they can be diluted through the issuance of additional stock, and who gets the money when that additional stock is sold. You may be surprised.
What does that even mean?
Personally, I think that a list of all qualified candidates should be made, and a name selected from that list at random. The pickiness should be in what the qualifications are, but it should be around 100-200 persons long minimum. But then I think legislators should be chosen by and analogous process. Perhaps not the president.
Yes, Microsoft has again lied for PR purposes. I'm not surprised. In fact at this point I'd be surprised if they said something that WASN'T a lie, at least by implication.
And as in this case there are obvious ways in which this could be avoided, so you can hardly say it was forced. E.g., I have an unupgraded MSWind95 machine that I just don't attach to the Internet. That's a technique that would work, and which I have in the past been driven to. (From the model you can tell it was quite awhile ago.) I'm sure there are less extreme approaches. So one can say that what is being argued about here is the meaning of the term "forced".
A more accurate statement would probably be something along the lines of "
" Even that doesn't say specifically how wary you need to be.
And I've got a Windows 95 machine and it hasn't happened to me. Of course, the machine isn't connected to the Internet.
Now I'm rather certain that not your explanation, but I also suspect that you have some kind of analogous protection that you just aren't happening to mention.
While your point is accurate, the Feds often don't want to do what the foreign agencies require in order to get the exchange. So it's not pointless. And there are legal liability issues, so again it's not pointless.
Now if what you mean is that the customer's data isn't being protected anyway, you're probably right. But that's not what you said.
Given my Senators (Democratic?) pressure would be worthless. I've written, but I know better than to expect it to have any effect. I believe that my Representative, who I've also written to, is already opposed, but what good does that do.