There's no direction to topple that one without hitting something expensive. Fortunately there are a lot of them on farming fields in the middle of nowhere.
"Installing a whole OS inside a VM" is not exactly difficult.
I didn't say it was difficult. It is however an impact on performance especially when that VM is likely to run an application that will demand most of the system RAM. Beside that you're advocating a mental barrier for Linux. You want the year of the Linux on desktop? I know I do. The first step to that is getting rid of suggestions of: "Run Linux! It's Awesome! Then install Windows anyway because you *need* it!"
The idea that Photoshop on Linux would be trouble free is somewhat hilarious
I know man. I'd never recommend anyone install Linux. It's complicated to partition, you need to compile a custom kernel for yourself, setting up X involves pouring through text files if you're lucky enough to have drivers for your.... wait a second we solved all those too!. The idea of Linux being used by anyone other than the most hardest core of geeks a decade ago was what was hilarious. Look where we are now.
See yourself asking people to be reasonable when you weren't.
As a matter of interest, what are you talking about? You think it's unreasonable for a case that involves the highest level of government to go for 2 years? Maybe look into how long watergate went for. While you're at it look how long some cases if disputes with local developers go for.
We are well within the bounds of normal at this point.
He didn't say the hate wasn't real. He said the hate is a vocal minority.
And THAT is why additional distros coming along without systemd is newsworthy... (Well, by slashdot standards I guess).
Nope. Slashdot's standards being a group of that vocal minority is why they consider this newsworthy and the editors know it. Clicks baby Clicks. This story has more comments on it than most others on the front page.
The original purpose of systemd was to replace System V init.
No it wasn't. People just think it was because that's the first place they see it. Systemd's original purpose was the manage the system, with an event driven model. When you realise that you may actually understand the project a bit better.
It seems like so many people think mature software is bad or something.
No one thinks that. People who don't see problems and are affected by solutions will often refuse to understand the problems experienced in the first place.
Sure, Sys-init/Upstart/whatever had its issues at times (and usually in very small ways), but there were solutions to those warts
The solution was bolting together a frankenstein's monster of a mess that didn't solve the underlying issue. You wouldn't be talking about the benefit of bandaids and patchwork while shitting on Windows, so why do you think it's a good idea on a piece of linux software? Biased?
it's just that no one really put all the parts together
People have put these parts together in the past and they have broken in some horrible ways. Fundamentally shoehorning a modern event based requirement into the linear mishmash of scripts that is sysvinit didn't work. (not didn't work well, just flat out didn't solve the problems).
I've had Systemd fail me in mysterious ways where the system refused to come up
Yes that happened a lot in the early days of people setting up systems by treating systemd as something that executes a mishmash of scripts rather than actually using the features it has to solve a problem, distribution packagers have long since gotten past this. If your system is failing to boot then it's a good time to bust out the manual and find out what you've done wrong.
but I've never had Sys-init/Upstart/whatever fail to boot far enough I couldn't do something with it
Define something, if your kernel is up, systemd will at the very least get you to a console. Are you expecting a fully functional system after a failed boot?
To me as a *user*, Systemd feels like a solution in search of a problem.
A user of what? Users come in various flavours. A user of a server that boots up and then hums away in a corner for the next year would come to that conclusion. A user of a laptop who's system is in a completely broken state due sleeping and waking on different networks on the other hand will likely have a different conclusion. If you want a list of problems with sysvinit go to the debian mailing list. They were discussed in great detail along with why systemd was chosen.
forgotten at least 1 of their goals: to make it easier on the user
Funny, I find it much easier to work with systemd than I ever did with long list of initscript, symbolic links, PID files, and the inevitable orphaned processes.
Given your inability to get it working vs the literally countless cases where it works just fine as a scientists and an engineer I am beginning to see a common trend in all your systemd installations.
It is like Windows: Unless you do exactly what the "developers" ("cretins" would be a more appropriate term...) expect
Funny most people don't have problems with Windows either. I was about to say maybe this Linux thing is too complicated for you, but really maybe you should stop using computers altogether.
SysVInit worked fine for me, and no it doesn't boot slower.
Lets leave aside that this wasn't the reason for getting rid of it, but given your assertion that it doesn't boot slower is actually easily proven false in any benchmark and even when you conceptually think about the approach of sysvinit vs all the other systems that attempted to replace it, why did you decide to post this? Why make the opening sentence of your argument not only irrelevant but something very easily proven false? Anyway lets look at the rest:
See what systemD does if you've got stuff waiting for network and for whatever reason there's no network or it's flakey. No warning at all - just no boot, or eventually a boot with no warning.
"Dear user: I'm still working on this problem" I guess you prefer a completely dumb senseless warning compared to waiting for the boot order to complete? Or maybe you prefer the sysvinit approach where half the services end up in a failed or various other states.
See what systemd does about share mounting in fstab or even the.share way.
The perfectly sane thing. Boot to emergency console when a core system partition failed to mount. Worried about something non-core or network related? Why would you automount it through fstab rather than listing a mount requirement in the systemd unit file?
Why do I have to learn it's log and status tools after already having had to learn the other way of just using a text editor and knowing some filenames? I have other stuff to learn.
Well if learning a single command is hard for you... you don't. You can simply install syslog and go back to the way you were doing it years ago. The only downside is that you actually get more information in syslog now since it will show logs from before syslogd actually starts. Did I say downside? I meant upside. Do you know how to use apt to install a syslog daemon or do you want that spoon fed to you too?
All the arguments for that boil down to "not invented here".
So you are very clearly ignorant of the arguments then. Especially since many of the systemd replacements which by your assertion were NIH were actually replaced by something else NIH.
Why is it that so many tech people cannot let things that work well the fuck alone?
When you show us something that works well we will. But I understand why you are unable to comprehend this question given your total ignorance of why sysvinit was replaced (not just by systemd but by various attempts by various projects over the years).
gweihir: Claims to be a scientist, but turns out to be just a knight who saaaaaays NIH!
Funny, I am a scientist and an engineer, and I can evolve. But since I am a good scientist and a good engineer, I will not evolve in a bad direction, and hence I will not use systemd.
Let's get to that in a second.
Live is just to short to use crappy unnecessary improvements made by people with small skills and huge egos.
Well given the necessity of the improvements were publicly discussed on various mailing lists and then adopted across a range of projects, let's just assume that you don't know or care about them and are too busy with ad hominem attacks on the project author to actually form a rational arguement.
Incidentally, if you cannot recognize and build on things that are in a finished state and are more than good enough, then you are most definitely not a scientist or an engineer. Then you are just a hack.
Indeed. What we needed to do was use evolution to build stronger horses, not throw away the concept entirely on the slow and noisy combustion engine.
Now where was I...
Funny, I am a scientist and an engineer, and I can evolve. But since I am a good scientist and a good engineer, I will not evolve in a bad direction, and hence I will not use systemd.
No the funny thing here is how certain you are of you post, but you have demonstrated to be is a good example of an appeal to authority along with a red herring. You are an amazing person achieving a perfect trifecta of logical fallacies without actually ever making a point.
But I have no sympathy for people wasting my time by breaking standard tools or conventions with no good reason.
As a scientist you would spend your time looking an analysing data. It's a shame you can't apply your appeal to authority rigor to a religious discussion on software. If you want to claim there's no good reason you need to first refute the many reasons given during the very public discussions on the mailing lists on the distribution. Closing your eyes and declaring there are none is not science, it's childish.
What "democracy" really needs is a meaningful "none of the above" box on the voting papers.
No it doesn't. You just need a preferential voting system so you don't end up throwing away a protest vote. Combine that with compulsory voting if you want to, but really there are many voting systems around the world that work just fine without having to cast the word "democracy" in quotes.
Pretty much every wind farm I've seen has nothing else around it for hundreds of feet
Do you live in the desert? Pretty much every windfarm I've seen has highways under it, waterways beside it, or my own personal favourite: sits in the middle of a crude oil terminal (though that dumb idea is hopefully quite rare).
That said after you salvage the cost of raw materials you sure as hell won't be $200000 in the red, even if you did for some stupid reason decide to rip down something that could continue to work hundreds of years with a bit of maintenance and replacement of key parts.
Oh LOL. Something that you realise you won't care about, yet get worked up already being classified as a "Chilling Effect" despite the fact that the result would be perfectly inline with every other legal basis that already exists is a bit off the rails, even for you Mr Poo, even for you.
Now please don't devalue the term "chilling effects" with your misstuned and clearly non-functional tin foil hat.
"What does not: - Character panel overlaps font previews. - Sometimes a click on font preview window brings it to front, sometimes it doesn’t. - Font preview window only flashes, if Character panel is docked to the rightmost column or to the next to it. - OpenCL is greyed out."
Maybe some of us would prefer working software rather than half-baked buggy workarounds that break functionality or the UI, or involve having to install a whole OS inside a VM.
Which begs the question of why they would accuse someone.
No it doesn't. The accusation and not expecting a defence are not at all related to it. That was a blunder to be sure but it certainly doesn't beg this question.
The question of why they would accuse someone who doesn't normally defend is that it has nothing to do with the people they are accusing. Their end game is not to go after some Russian meddling spies in another country. Their end game is to build a case against the American side, and having indictments against co-conspirators solidly helps this case when it comes to light.
Why in fact, has everything to do with this cloud of issues not been done according to standard protocol?
There's a standard protocol here? FBI has a : Do this in case off mass conspiracy for election fraud protocol? To answer your question: exceptional circumstances require exceptional approaches, and they are more than welcome to keep using those approaches. The only thing that ultimately matters is that the law is correctly upheld be it the courts find someone guilty, innocent, or throw out the resulting case due to a Mueller fuckup.
Because it is a political game.
Of course it is. Politicians are involved.
We know who most of the bad apples are in the justice department just by seeing whether or not they follow protocol.
No we don't. That is still dependent on the outcome. The method used to drag people in front of the court doesn't weed out bad apples unless that method is intentionally designed to hinder prosecution by way of declaring mistrial or mishandling of evidence.
Please write your rule down in a concise, clear, easy to understand, easy to implement and easy to adjudicate terms in order to achieve your desired outcome.
There is a real clock. Just because its not shown on the screen doesn't mean there isn't a real clock. Speaking of that clock, between HD TV and the ever increasing size of the official timepiece you can almost read the official time from the ref's wrist at this point.
Why? A discussion of how a technology can fundamentally change the style of play in a game is not news for nerds?
currently the referree has to ASK for VAR
This is by design. If you didn't need to ask for VAR then the ultimate authority of the referee is diminished. This would certainly have and affect on the ability to control a game. In games where players request for VAR (e.g. Tennis) even then the ref has the ability to overrule the decision.
PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way
Really? I have *lived* in 3 countries that call it soccer. I'm sure there are others too. Calling it soccer is nothing more than ensuring you don't confuse the term football which already covers several different sports.
Taking the player out for tests means either effectively punishing the injured players team
In order for that to be relevant someone needs to actually be injured. Punishing the teams in question sounds like a great idea. How many times have we see Neymar with an "injury" so severe that they brought a stretcher on the field, only for the ref to not award a card and him to jump up and sprint back into play.
Punish the player, and punish the team. Bonus points if you also punish the coach somehow.
The number of injured players who actually come off the game are incredibly small.
Also, the fact that few goals are scored means that luck is more important than skill
People who fundamentally don't understand the game often come to that conclusion. There is very little luck involved. A typically goal keeper may directly defend upwards of 20 shots at the goal. It may seem like like luck of the draw if it gets passed him, but ultimately he doesn't have a big area to defend. He can get to pretty much any part of goal to defend providing he's not outnumbered.
And that's where the skill comes in. If you're relying on "luck" of a goalkeeper you've already displayed a lack of skills needed to win the game, which is done by defending your side of the field.
Saw a rugby match this week that was 6 to 12. Does the fact that they count faster mean it is less lucky by your definition?
That sounds like a tool for the job complaint rather than a general engine is slow complaint. Also I agree the panorama functionality in Lightroom leaves a lot to desire, but so does the one in Photoshop. Personally I export them into Autopano using the relevant plugins.
Granted, I cull through those as fast as I can
And that's what I was talking about. The process of culling and selection is critical (workflow). The ability to with a quick shortcut display side-by-side images and reject one is far more important than raw speed while making an edit.
Now I have never used Affinity so chances are it has a perfectly fine workflow. I was just trying to understand your reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. I was just offering an extreme counter view to the GP. Check out this one here: https://www.google.nl/maps/pla...
There's no direction to topple that one without hitting something expensive. Fortunately there are a lot of them on farming fields in the middle of nowhere.
"Installing a whole OS inside a VM" is not exactly difficult.
I didn't say it was difficult. It is however an impact on performance especially when that VM is likely to run an application that will demand most of the system RAM. Beside that you're advocating a mental barrier for Linux. You want the year of the Linux on desktop? I know I do. The first step to that is getting rid of suggestions of: "Run Linux! It's Awesome! Then install Windows anyway because you *need* it!"
The idea that Photoshop on Linux would be trouble free is somewhat hilarious
I know man. I'd never recommend anyone install Linux. It's complicated to partition, you need to compile a custom kernel for yourself, setting up X involves pouring through text files if you're lucky enough to have drivers for your.... wait a second we solved all those too!. The idea of Linux being used by anyone other than the most hardest core of geeks a decade ago was what was hilarious. Look where we are now.
Don't laugh in the face of progress.
See yourself asking people to be reasonable when you weren't.
As a matter of interest, what are you talking about? You think it's unreasonable for a case that involves the highest level of government to go for 2 years? Maybe look into how long watergate went for. While you're at it look how long some cases if disputes with local developers go for.
We are well within the bounds of normal at this point.
Funny. My empty head can use systemd without problems. Maybe it's just too complicated for you :-P
The hate is real
He didn't say the hate wasn't real. He said the hate is a vocal minority.
And THAT is why additional distros coming along without systemd is newsworthy... (Well, by slashdot standards I guess).
Nope. Slashdot's standards being a group of that vocal minority is why they consider this newsworthy and the editors know it. Clicks baby Clicks. This story has more comments on it than most others on the front page.
Feed the outrage!
The original purpose of systemd was to replace System V init.
No it wasn't. People just think it was because that's the first place they see it. Systemd's original purpose was the manage the system, with an event driven model. When you realise that you may actually understand the project a bit better.
It seems like so many people think mature software is bad or something.
No one thinks that. People who don't see problems and are affected by solutions will often refuse to understand the problems experienced in the first place.
Sure, Sys-init/Upstart/whatever had its issues at times (and usually in very small ways), but there were solutions to those warts
The solution was bolting together a frankenstein's monster of a mess that didn't solve the underlying issue. You wouldn't be talking about the benefit of bandaids and patchwork while shitting on Windows, so why do you think it's a good idea on a piece of linux software? Biased?
it's just that no one really put all the parts together
People have put these parts together in the past and they have broken in some horrible ways. Fundamentally shoehorning a modern event based requirement into the linear mishmash of scripts that is sysvinit didn't work. (not didn't work well, just flat out didn't solve the problems).
I've had Systemd fail me in mysterious ways where the system refused to come up
Yes that happened a lot in the early days of people setting up systems by treating systemd as something that executes a mishmash of scripts rather than actually using the features it has to solve a problem, distribution packagers have long since gotten past this. If your system is failing to boot then it's a good time to bust out the manual and find out what you've done wrong.
but I've never had Sys-init/Upstart/whatever fail to boot far enough I couldn't do something with it
Define something, if your kernel is up, systemd will at the very least get you to a console. Are you expecting a fully functional system after a failed boot?
To me as a *user*, Systemd feels like a solution in search of a problem.
A user of what? Users come in various flavours. A user of a server that boots up and then hums away in a corner for the next year would come to that conclusion. A user of a laptop who's system is in a completely broken state due sleeping and waking on different networks on the other hand will likely have a different conclusion. If you want a list of problems with sysvinit go to the debian mailing list. They were discussed in great detail along with why systemd was chosen.
forgotten at least 1 of their goals: to make it easier on the user
Funny, I find it much easier to work with systemd than I ever did with long list of initscript, symbolic links, PID files, and the inevitable orphaned processes.
I had systemd run maybe for a combined 10h so far
Wow we have an expert here!
Nothing but problems.
Given your inability to get it working vs the literally countless cases where it works just fine as a scientists and an engineer I am beginning to see a common trend in all your systemd installations.
It is like Windows: Unless you do exactly what the "developers" ("cretins" would be a more appropriate term...) expect
Funny most people don't have problems with Windows either. I was about to say maybe this Linux thing is too complicated for you, but really maybe you should stop using computers altogether.
SysVInit worked fine for me, and no it doesn't boot slower.
Lets leave aside that this wasn't the reason for getting rid of it, but given your assertion that it doesn't boot slower is actually easily proven false in any benchmark and even when you conceptually think about the approach of sysvinit vs all the other systems that attempted to replace it, why did you decide to post this? Why make the opening sentence of your argument not only irrelevant but something very easily proven false? Anyway lets look at the rest:
See what systemD does if you've got stuff waiting for network and for whatever reason there's no network or it's flakey. No warning at all - just no boot, or eventually a boot with no warning.
"Dear user: I'm still working on this problem" I guess you prefer a completely dumb senseless warning compared to waiting for the boot order to complete? Or maybe you prefer the sysvinit approach where half the services end up in a failed or various other states.
See what systemd does about share mounting in fstab or even the .share way.
The perfectly sane thing. Boot to emergency console when a core system partition failed to mount. Worried about something non-core or network related? Why would you automount it through fstab rather than listing a mount requirement in the systemd unit file?
Why do I have to learn it's log and status tools after already having had to learn the other way of just using a text editor and knowing some filenames? I have other stuff to learn.
Well if learning a single command is hard for you ... you don't. You can simply install syslog and go back to the way you were doing it years ago. The only downside is that you actually get more information in syslog now since it will show logs from before syslogd actually starts. Did I say downside? I meant upside. Do you know how to use apt to install a syslog daemon or do you want that spoon fed to you too?
All the arguments for that boil down to "not invented here".
So you are very clearly ignorant of the arguments then. Especially since many of the systemd replacements which by your assertion were NIH were actually replaced by something else NIH.
Why is it that so many tech people cannot let things that work well the fuck alone?
When you show us something that works well we will. But I understand why you are unable to comprehend this question given your total ignorance of why sysvinit was replaced (not just by systemd but by various attempts by various projects over the years).
gweihir: Claims to be a scientist, but turns out to be just a knight who saaaaaays NIH!
Funny, I am a scientist and an engineer, and I can evolve. But since I am a good scientist and a good engineer, I will not evolve in a bad direction, and hence I will not use systemd.
Let's get to that in a second.
Live is just to short to use crappy unnecessary improvements made by people with small skills and huge egos.
Well given the necessity of the improvements were publicly discussed on various mailing lists and then adopted across a range of projects, let's just assume that you don't know or care about them and are too busy with ad hominem attacks on the project author to actually form a rational arguement.
Incidentally, if you cannot recognize and build on things that are in a finished state and are more than good enough, then you are most definitely not a scientist or an engineer. Then you are just a hack.
Indeed. What we needed to do was use evolution to build stronger horses, not throw away the concept entirely on the slow and noisy combustion engine.
Now where was I...
Funny, I am a scientist and an engineer, and I can evolve. But since I am a good scientist and a good engineer, I will not evolve in a bad direction, and hence I will not use systemd.
No the funny thing here is how certain you are of you post, but you have demonstrated to be is a good example of an appeal to authority along with a red herring. You are an amazing person achieving a perfect trifecta of logical fallacies without actually ever making a point.
I weep for science and engineering.
But I have no sympathy for people wasting my time by breaking standard tools or conventions with no good reason.
As a scientist you would spend your time looking an analysing data. It's a shame you can't apply your appeal to authority rigor to a religious discussion on software. If you want to claim there's no good reason you need to first refute the many reasons given during the very public discussions on the mailing lists on the distribution. Closing your eyes and declaring there are none is not science, it's childish.
What "democracy" really needs is a meaningful "none of the above" box on the voting papers.
No it doesn't. You just need a preferential voting system so you don't end up throwing away a protest vote. Combine that with compulsory voting if you want to, but really there are many voting systems around the world that work just fine without having to cast the word "democracy" in quotes.
Pretty much every wind farm I've seen has nothing else around it for hundreds of feet
Do you live in the desert? Pretty much every windfarm I've seen has highways under it, waterways beside it, or my own personal favourite: sits in the middle of a crude oil terminal (though that dumb idea is hopefully quite rare).
That said after you salvage the cost of raw materials you sure as hell won't be $200000 in the red, even if you did for some stupid reason decide to rip down something that could continue to work hundreds of years with a bit of maintenance and replacement of key parts.
Oh LOL. Something that you realise you won't care about, yet get worked up already being classified as a "Chilling Effect" despite the fact that the result would be perfectly inline with every other legal basis that already exists is a bit off the rails, even for you Mr Poo, even for you.
Now please don't devalue the term "chilling effects" with your misstuned and clearly non-functional tin foil hat.
but can also not figure out how to get Wine going
"What does not:
- Character panel overlaps font previews.
- Sometimes a click on font preview window brings it to front, sometimes it doesn’t.
- Font preview window only flashes, if Character panel is docked to the rightmost column or to the next to it.
- OpenCL is greyed out."
Maybe some of us would prefer working software rather than half-baked buggy workarounds that break functionality or the UI, or involve having to install a whole OS inside a VM.
At what point will you be able to do a trial?
When it's ready. 2 years? Laughably short time span for a case like this.
Which begs the question of why they would accuse someone.
No it doesn't. The accusation and not expecting a defence are not at all related to it. That was a blunder to be sure but it certainly doesn't beg this question.
The question of why they would accuse someone who doesn't normally defend is that it has nothing to do with the people they are accusing. Their end game is not to go after some Russian meddling spies in another country. Their end game is to build a case against the American side, and having indictments against co-conspirators solidly helps this case when it comes to light.
Why in fact, has everything to do with this cloud of issues not been done according to standard protocol?
There's a standard protocol here? FBI has a : Do this in case off mass conspiracy for election fraud protocol? To answer your question: exceptional circumstances require exceptional approaches, and they are more than welcome to keep using those approaches. The only thing that ultimately matters is that the law is correctly upheld be it the courts find someone guilty, innocent, or throw out the resulting case due to a Mueller fuckup.
Because it is a political game.
Of course it is. Politicians are involved.
We know who most of the bad apples are in the justice department just by seeing whether or not they follow protocol.
No we don't. That is still dependent on the outcome. The method used to drag people in front of the court doesn't weed out bad apples unless that method is intentionally designed to hinder prosecution by way of declaring mistrial or mishandling of evidence.
Please write your rule down in a concise, clear, easy to understand, easy to implement and easy to adjudicate terms in order to achieve your desired outcome.
There is a real clock. Just because its not shown on the screen doesn't mean there isn't a real clock. Speaking of that clock, between HD TV and the ever increasing size of the official timepiece you can almost read the official time from the ref's wrist at this point.
Not sure this is /. material
Why? A discussion of how a technology can fundamentally change the style of play in a game is not news for nerds?
currently the referree has to ASK for VAR
This is by design. If you didn't need to ask for VAR then the ultimate authority of the referee is diminished. This would certainly have and affect on the ability to control a game. In games where players request for VAR (e.g. Tennis) even then the ref has the ability to overrule the decision.
PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way
Really? I have *lived* in 3 countries that call it soccer. I'm sure there are others too. Calling it soccer is nothing more than ensuring you don't confuse the term football which already covers several different sports.
Taking the player out for tests means either effectively punishing the injured players team
In order for that to be relevant someone needs to actually be injured. Punishing the teams in question sounds like a great idea. How many times have we see Neymar with an "injury" so severe that they brought a stretcher on the field, only for the ref to not award a card and him to jump up and sprint back into play.
Punish the player, and punish the team. Bonus points if you also punish the coach somehow.
The number of injured players who actually come off the game are incredibly small.
Also, the fact that few goals are scored means that luck is more important than skill
People who fundamentally don't understand the game often come to that conclusion. There is very little luck involved. A typically goal keeper may directly defend upwards of 20 shots at the goal. It may seem like like luck of the draw if it gets passed him, but ultimately he doesn't have a big area to defend. He can get to pretty much any part of goal to defend providing he's not outnumbered.
And that's where the skill comes in. If you're relying on "luck" of a goalkeeper you've already displayed a lack of skills needed to win the game, which is done by defending your side of the field.
Saw a rugby match this week that was 6 to 12. Does the fact that they count faster mean it is less lucky by your definition?
The last thing I want to happen after I die is my shitty family that has never given a shit about me to be in control of my online identity.
I'm willing to bet when you're actually dead you won't have such a strong opinion on the matter.
That sounds like a tool for the job complaint rather than a general engine is slow complaint. Also I agree the panorama functionality in Lightroom leaves a lot to desire, but so does the one in Photoshop. Personally I export them into Autopano using the relevant plugins.
Granted, I cull through those as fast as I can
And that's what I was talking about. The process of culling and selection is critical (workflow). The ability to with a quick shortcut display side-by-side images and reject one is far more important than raw speed while making an edit.
Now I have never used Affinity so chances are it has a perfectly fine workflow. I was just trying to understand your reasoning.