Not all corporate meetings; In fact generally very few are meant for the "corporate newsletter" Strategy meetings in particular, are generally on a "need to know" basis.
yep. But in these really confidential meetings, no recording at all is allowed.
From The Fine:-) Article: At 1:18 of the NY Post's sound clip from Jim Romensko: 'Leaking information Patch isn't going to bother me. I'm not changing direction'.
Since Mr. Romensko is not being sued for industrial espionage nor confidential data leaking, I don't see how what you states applies to Mr.Lenz.
They leave before they run the project all the way into the ground (or at least before anyone else realizes it) and are able to list the project as a "success" on their CV.
THESE are the people who are toxic to the company as a whole; duds who just aren't very good (at their job, getting hired, etc) can still be used as effective resources, but the guys who actually play the confidence HR game can destroy a successful company before they realize what's happened.
And once they reach the top positions on the company, they fire people in strategic meetings!
He was probably the lucky one. Anyone with talent at that company is polishing their CV instead of working right now.
As a matter of fact, it's exactly what the bastards wants - leaving people costs less (in money and in PR) that firing people (pun not intended).
I would like very much to see what would happens if a really lot of people started to taking photos of the meeting after this sad event. Would the CEO fire every single one of them publicly too?
The one that's used to make record of all meetings for the internal news site?
A photo on a "strategical meeting" where no graphs or slides are being shown is not a strategic threat. However, I sound recording device is always a threat, and I'm pretty sure that at least one would be active at that time - you can bet your arse I would do it if a colleague of mine were fired that way for a probable grievance.
In some countries, being firing someone this way is the best way to get a good indemnification for moral damages.
I didn't wanted to waste time migrating Desktop, that's was the problem.
Your argument is that it was too difficult to switch to a different linux desktop but then you switched to a Mac with OS X?
Yes. Switching to Mac OS X was almost as difficult as switching to KDE (that I don't like), but less difficult than switching to Gnome 3, this last one I still abhor with all my guts.
Cinnamon was still too green at that time (and frankly, it's not a 100% replacement), and OpenSUSE took almost 2 years to deliver MATE in a usable and maintainable state, so at that time my only choice to use MATE was switching distros - a pain in the arse, as YAST2 is second to no one.
So, basically, yes. My argument is that it would be (and, in fact, it was) easier to switch to MacOS than switch to MATE/Any Other Distro or even KDE (that I hate) on the same OpenSUSE. Gnome 3 just isn't an option.
Mac OS X gives me a User Interface that I think is usable, it's stable and consistent for years and its easily maintainable (as it was my OpenSUSE box with YAST2).
You are plain wrong. People use computers to solve problems, not to get problems.
If switching to MacOS X is easier and less painful than switching a Desktop, people will do it.
In what universe is it easier to switch from Gnome 2 to Mac OS X versus a different linux desktop, say XFCE which was already 90% configured like Gnome 2 out of the box?
On mine, and that's the only one that matters to me.
I don't know your I.T. background, but mine is measured by decades. I used GEOS on an Apple II, and MacOS on the first Macs. I missed the Xerox's STAR wagon, however...:-D
Anyway, I used a lot of U.I. paradigms (damn! I used AmigaOS' WorkBench!!), and it happened that I settled with Gnome 2 on a way it didn't happened for a long time.
XFCE is good, it reminds me OS/2 Warp, that I enjoyed very much. But it's more a Shell than a Desktop - doesn't have full support from the main development tools I use, neither allows the same level of integration between applications (or if it does, nobody tolds me). Shell for a Shell, I would use WindowMaker instead - I like the OpenSTEP metaphors, it's a shame it didn't became more mainstream (perhaps being this the reason I enjoyed Mac OS? - it's a, now remote, descendent of the NextSTEP that Jobs brought to Apple in the 90's).
Let me get this straight, other than the desktop interface, all of your applications and data would be the same if you stuck with linux. With a Mac, you had to transfer data and learn new apps. As for the interface, you stated that
Again, you're wrong!:-)
Other that the price of the box, I had no (too much big) problems with the switch. Eclipse, OpenOffice, Thunderbird (well, almost - I was getting pretty used to use Evolution), GCC and Chrome works perfectly to me, the same way it worked on Linux. I had to install some Linux utils on my Mac Box, but Mac Ports does a beautiful job here. For general text editing Text Wrangler does a nice job (it's even better than the editor I used on Linux, but still behind Notepad++ on Windows).
Aquamacs is very nice, by the way. And GIMP works flawlessly.
One serious drawback is the absolute absence of support to anything that is not sold by Apple. Secondary boot is a nightmare, thanks God for Sun's OpenBOX but for gaming, I had to keep an old AthlonXP desktop here, under my desk. Not a problem, as my favorite games are all from the last decade... =D
That thing was working fine, working well and I was satisfied. My working-flow just works, and the (very few) quirks on Gnome 2 was already know and workarounded. My Gnome 2 Desktop machine was simply the best user experience I ever had on a professional machine, it suited perfec
There are alternatives to gnome 3. Xfce was pretty much like Gnome 2 and KDE could be made to look and work like just about anything.
The problem were that I was already have an usable, useful and enjoyable desktop on my production machine.
That thing was working fine, working well and I was satisfied. My working-flow just works, and the (very few) quirks on Gnome 2 was already know and workarounded. My Gnome 2 Desktop machine was simply the best user experience I ever had on a professional machine, it suited perfectly to my needs and expectations.
I didn't wanted to waste time migrating Desktop, that's was the problem.
When it was clear to me that Gnome 2 was dead, that OpenSUSE would not provide me a Gnome 2 alternative before i had to update my already aging OpenSUSE 11.4, so in order to have MATE (or Cinnamon, but MATE was Gnome 2 already!) I would need to switch distro - another HUGE pain in the ass, as I still in love with YAST2.
So I did what the grand-parent apparently did. If I were going to spend huge time and efforts on a new Professional Setup, better do it on a more stable system. I gone for a MacMini - the cheapest Mac that does the job for me.
Make no mistake about it, I still missing my OpenSUSE 11.4 / Gnome 2 setup. MacOSX *is* a wonderful O.S. to work with, but hostile to hacking. It's the MacOS way, or the highway. However, I can cope with this O.S. idiosyncrasies - and if the worst comes to happen, there's X where I can run that Linux programs I still need.
And now, 2 years later, this does not matter anymore. I already spend the money, the time and the efforts to migrate to MacOSX. Until Apple make some epic fuckup as Gnome Foundation did, I'm in my comfort zone and don't have a single reason to migrate back to Linux (I want YAST2 *and* Gnome2/Make - without them, I don't even consider the idea).
Everything is working fine now.
So, if gnome 3 pushed you away from linux, chances are you were already dissatisfied before gnome 3 and just needed an excuse.
You are plain wrong. People use computers to solve problems, not to get problems.
If switching to MacOS X is easier and less painful than switching a Desktop, people will do it.
There's once a time that Linux were the only viable alternative to a usable and cheap UNIX machine for the common user. That times are gone. I think you should deal with it.
Thanks a lot for the feedback. I found your considerations very informative.
When doing Java EE development, I don't think it will worth even try to replace Eclipse to do the job.
However, I also develop code using Python, ANSI C and C++, and on also on embedded and retro systems (mainly using CC65) as hobby, and I found Eclipse just too much clousy for these tasks, It simply doesn't worths the pain (I found using Notepad++ and a CygWin shell for ASM development easier and faster than to even try to install and use the CC65 plugin for Eclipse).
Aquamacs and XEmacs (I use both Windows and Mac on development), based on your feedback, appears to worth a (new) try.
There's any "EMACS Crash Test Course for Dummies" that you would recommend? (I'm not a newbie on computing, but I have very few time available to try new things - any help on shortening the learning curve is heavily needed, and will be appreciated!).
I tried Eclipse, but the editor is pathetic, and there just wasn't enough other "goodness" to make up for it; same with Visual Studio. Further, Emacs does NOT leave the junk whitespace that bloats version control system repositories and breaks "make" syntax.
Not sure if would be sufficient to you, but I solved this shitty whitespacing problem using a plugin called AnyEdit Tools.
I totally agree with you that it's a lame solution to a problem that should not exist at first place (any other text editor I use, like Notepad++ and TextWrangler, chops trailing white spaces for me automatically), but if there's something else on Eclipse that would help you somehow, at least this specific problem can be solved.
The only real thing it has that separates it from the typical IDE is that it doesn't have windows glued together in MDI style
What counts points to me. I simply HATE MDI. I would choosea "GIMP" style IDE anyday, if I could find one. It would be marvelous be able to use a multi-windowed Eclipse on my two headed system, the same way it's nice to do it with GIMP.
I used Eclipse for four years alongside Emacs, but never got the hang of it. Eclipse wants to take up a huge part of my screen; Emacs has no problem occupying a slice at the edge.
I totally agree. Using Eclpse on a single head machine is a pain in he arse. I confess, I like Eclipse - it works well for my need (not all, but most of them), but it's a huge screen eater.
My current set up is a notebook with a 22 inches monitor attached. Eclipse lives on the big screen, with space enogh to be useful. All other tasks go to the notebook's screen - I miss my old 17" HP Pavillion, but this 14" screen does the job.
I use macros with C-x ( and C-x o all the time; I don't believe similar flexibility is there in Eclipse. Version control integration with Emacs is effortless (although not too bad with Eclipse, either).
You're right. Eclipse don't do macros (or if it does, I never found it! =P). I don't use Eclipse CMS integration, I prefer a dedicate tool to do that. A huge part of my job is legacy systems maintenance, and I don't mind refactoring code to meet my maintenance needs. I understand that most programmers don't fix what's not broken, but on my line of duty I must give a quick and precise response to every system bad-functioning, and bad code prevents me to do that.
Being this the main reason I'm tagging with Eclipse: Java refactoring using Eclipse is almost painless. There's better refactoring tools for Java around, but Eclipse is good enough for my job.
I run Emacs over SSH connections all the time, I mean several hours a day, at work and at home. Eclipse over the network is too slow to be really usable.
Compiling with M-x compile is much more practical than Eclipse. Emacs can integrate with all of the esoteric build scripts you can think of. I never figured out how to teach Eclipse that.
I do a lot of JAVA EE programming, and Eclipse - at least until now - is unbeatable on this task.
For plain Java development of (new) programs, however, sometimes Eclipse just gets in the way. Since I'm writing the code, I don't need all that Error;/Warnings that Eclipse automatically detects on the code (and that save my ass uncountable times)
Where Eclipse beat emacs (at the time, anyway) was Java debugging. Gud mode didn't support Java. So I used emacs for Java editing and Eclipse for debugging
I totally agree. Debugging multi threaded systems is painless with Eclpse. This and refatoring are the main reasons I adopted Eclipse.
I'm not arguing about functionality, VI vs EMACS, or whatever. I'm just asking about the role it's playing on software development in this modern days.
By the way: I'm a Eclipse heavy user, and I use VIM now and them to quick and dirty linux configuration files editing. I flirted with LUCID EMACS some years ago, when I was looking for a good SGML editor - and at that time, EMACS appeared to be the best one available.
The most funny (or not!) part of all this mess is that my Palm LifeDrive already did all that almost 10 years ago.
The only and sorely difference is that it was done using WiFi and not by 3G or GPRS (as my Android does right now, as I don't want to pay the outrageous fess of my countries's 3G services).
A little correction to myself:I switched to Mac OS X one week after OpenSUSE 12.0 with Gnome 3 was released.
I was an OpenSUSE use for years and years. Switching to another disto would be almost a pain as to switching to any other distro without YAST, so I took the jump.
Not sure what the gnome folks were thinking. I've heard it said that they were enamored with OS-X, don't know. However at work I have a very nice brand new iMac with Lion on it, and it is much easier to use and has a very different orientation then gnome3.
No, they're were enamored with iPad - and thought that they can make *everybody* will like the idea of using Desktops as glorified Pads.
I switched to Mac OS X one week after Gnome 3 was released. At that time, no other usable and equivalent option was available. Since it was some of an investment (Mini Macs are not that expensive, but they aren't cheap nevertheless), it works fine and runs everything I need, I can't find a reason to switch back, no matter what.
Switching platforms was a pain in the arse, but it hurt less than trying to adapt myself to Gnome 3.
But since switching platforms is a pain in the arse, I don't see a reason to switch back to Linux/Gnome 3/Whatever - unless it would give me so much more than I have today. (I already brought the damned Mac Mini!)
I dont understand the problems that people have with it.[...]
Ergo, you don't understand the way people uses computers.:-)
I *create* things on my computer. Each "task" is done using a Code Editor (for code), an Text Processor (for requirements), a bunch of Browsers (for references, searches when in doubt and task and bug tracking) and sometimes a graphical editor (for, imagine that, graphics processing).
Some tasks need a subset of all above. Some others, need them all. And having a workspace based on applications is the very dumbest idea of all times - producing content is a multi-hole, multi disciplinar, task.
Gnome 3 tried to force down end-user, consumer solutions into professional's throat. Bad idea - not even Microsoft succeed into this (see Windows 8.1).
My solution to the problem? I just switched for Mac OS X. I found it was easier to work there than to wait 1 or 2 years until Gnome realize the huge mistake they did.
(And NO, I WILL NOT USE KDE - I don't like Windows-like environments, or I would use Windows at the first place!).
All a human operator has to do is say [these are targets] and [weapons free]. Automatic systems do the rest, hell we already have this kind of computer control on guided missles, mobile artillery and naval guns.
You tell that to the British in the Falklands, when a bunch of old flying craps put some of their better vessels on the bottom of the sea!
Slashdot Mirror
Not all corporate meetings; In fact generally very few are meant for the "corporate newsletter" Strategy meetings in particular, are generally on a "need to know" basis.
yep. But in these really confidential meetings, no recording at all is allowed.
From The Fine :-) Article: At 1:18 of the NY Post's sound clip from Jim Romensko: 'Leaking information Patch isn't going to bother me. I'm not changing direction'.
Since Mr. Romensko is not being sued for industrial espionage nor confidential data leaking, I don't see how what you states applies to Mr.Lenz.
They leave before they run the project all the way into the ground (or at least before anyone else realizes it) and are able to list the project as a "success" on their CV.
THESE are the people who are toxic to the company as a whole; duds who just aren't very good (at their job, getting hired, etc) can still be used as effective resources, but the guys who actually play the confidence HR game can destroy a successful company before they realize what's happened.
And once they reach the top positions on the company, they fire people in strategic meetings!
He was probably the lucky one. Anyone with talent at that company is polishing their CV instead of working right now.
As a matter of fact, it's exactly what the bastards wants - leaving people costs less (in money and in PR) that firing people (pun not intended).
I would like very much to see what would happens if a really lot of people started to taking photos of the meeting after this sad event. Would the CEO fire every single one of them publicly too?
The one that's used to make record of all meetings for the internal news site?
A photo on a "strategical meeting" where no graphs or slides are being shown is not a strategic threat. However, I sound recording device is always a threat, and I'm pretty sure that at least one would be active at that time - you can bet your arse I would do it if a colleague of mine were fired that way for a probable grievance.
In some countries, being firing someone this way is the best way to get a good indemnification for moral damages.
I didn't wanted to waste time migrating Desktop, that's was the problem.
Your argument is that it was too difficult to switch to a different linux desktop but then you switched to a Mac with OS X?
Yes. Switching to Mac OS X was almost as difficult as switching to KDE (that I don't like), but less difficult than switching to Gnome 3, this last one I still abhor with all my guts.
Cinnamon was still too green at that time (and frankly, it's not a 100% replacement), and OpenSUSE took almost 2 years to deliver MATE in a usable and maintainable state, so at that time my only choice to use MATE was switching distros - a pain in the arse, as YAST2 is second to no one.
So, basically, yes. My argument is that it would be (and, in fact, it was) easier to switch to MacOS than switch to MATE/Any Other Distro or even KDE (that I hate) on the same OpenSUSE. Gnome 3 just isn't an option.
Mac OS X gives me a User Interface that I think is usable, it's stable and consistent for years and its easily maintainable (as it was my OpenSUSE box with YAST2).
You are plain wrong. People use computers to solve problems, not to get problems.
If switching to MacOS X is easier and less painful than switching a Desktop, people will do it.
In what universe is it easier to switch from Gnome 2 to Mac OS X versus a different linux desktop, say XFCE which was already 90% configured like Gnome 2 out of the box?
On mine, and that's the only one that matters to me.
I don't know your I.T. background, but mine is measured by decades. I used GEOS on an Apple II, and MacOS on the first Macs. I missed the Xerox's STAR wagon, however... :-D
Anyway, I used a lot of U.I. paradigms (damn! I used AmigaOS' WorkBench!!), and it happened that I settled with Gnome 2 on a way it didn't happened for a long time.
XFCE is good, it reminds me OS/2 Warp, that I enjoyed very much. But it's more a Shell than a Desktop - doesn't have full support from the main development tools I use, neither allows the same level of integration between applications (or if it does, nobody tolds me). Shell for a Shell, I would use WindowMaker instead - I like the OpenSTEP metaphors, it's a shame it didn't became more mainstream (perhaps being this the reason I enjoyed Mac OS? - it's a, now remote, descendent of the NextSTEP that Jobs brought to Apple in the 90's).
Let me get this straight, other than the desktop interface, all of your applications and data would be the same if you stuck with linux. With a Mac, you had to transfer data and learn new apps. As for the interface, you stated that
Again, you're wrong! :-)
Other that the price of the box, I had no (too much big) problems with the switch. Eclipse, OpenOffice, Thunderbird (well, almost - I was getting pretty used to use Evolution), GCC and Chrome works perfectly to me, the same way it worked on Linux. I had to install some Linux utils on my Mac Box, but Mac Ports does a beautiful job here. For general text editing Text Wrangler does a nice job (it's even better than the editor I used on Linux, but still behind Notepad++ on Windows).
Aquamacs is very nice, by the way. And GIMP works flawlessly.
One serious drawback is the absolute absence of support to anything that is not sold by Apple. Secondary boot is a nightmare, thanks God for Sun's OpenBOX but for gaming, I had to keep an old AthlonXP desktop here, under my desk. Not a problem, as my favorite games are all from the last decade... =D
That thing was working fine, working well and I was satisfied. My working-flow just works, and the (very few) quirks on Gnome 2 was already know and workarounded. My Gnome 2 Desktop machine was simply the best user experience I ever had on a professional machine, it suited perfec
There are alternatives to gnome 3. Xfce was pretty much like Gnome 2 and KDE could be made to look and work like just about anything.
The problem were that I was already have an usable, useful and enjoyable desktop on my production machine.
That thing was working fine, working well and I was satisfied. My working-flow just works, and the (very few) quirks on Gnome 2 was already know and workarounded. My Gnome 2 Desktop machine was simply the best user experience I ever had on a professional machine, it suited perfectly to my needs and expectations.
I didn't wanted to waste time migrating Desktop, that's was the problem.
When it was clear to me that Gnome 2 was dead, that OpenSUSE would not provide me a Gnome 2 alternative before i had to update my already aging OpenSUSE 11.4, so in order to have MATE (or Cinnamon, but MATE was Gnome 2 already!) I would need to switch distro - another HUGE pain in the ass, as I still in love with YAST2.
So I did what the grand-parent apparently did. If I were going to spend huge time and efforts on a new Professional Setup, better do it on a more stable system. I gone for a MacMini - the cheapest Mac that does the job for me.
Make no mistake about it, I still missing my OpenSUSE 11.4 / Gnome 2 setup. MacOSX *is* a wonderful O.S. to work with, but hostile to hacking. It's the MacOS way, or the highway. However, I can cope with this O.S. idiosyncrasies - and if the worst comes to happen, there's X where I can run that Linux programs I still need.
And now, 2 years later, this does not matter anymore. I already spend the money, the time and the efforts to migrate to MacOSX. Until Apple make some epic fuckup as Gnome Foundation did, I'm in my comfort zone and don't have a single reason to migrate back to Linux (I want YAST2 *and* Gnome2/Make - without them, I don't even consider the idea).
Everything is working fine now.
So, if gnome 3 pushed you away from linux, chances are you were already dissatisfied before gnome 3 and just needed an excuse.
You are plain wrong. People use computers to solve problems, not to get problems.
If switching to MacOS X is easier and less painful than switching a Desktop, people will do it.
There's once a time that Linux were the only viable alternative to a usable and cheap UNIX machine for the common user. That times are gone. I think you should deal with it.
(mostly because I use it on windows where I don't have multiple desktops)
There's a little tool from SysInternals called Desktops that may be of use to you.
It's not Mission Control (very, very far from it), but it can help if you don't need the same program in more than one "Desktop".
Thanks a lot for the feedback. I found your considerations very informative.
When doing Java EE development, I don't think it will worth even try to replace Eclipse to do the job.
However, I also develop code using Python, ANSI C and C++, and on also on embedded and retro systems (mainly using CC65) as hobby, and I found Eclipse just too much clousy for these tasks, It simply doesn't worths the pain (I found using Notepad++ and a CygWin shell for ASM development easier and faster than to even try to install and use the CC65 plugin for Eclipse).
Aquamacs and XEmacs (I use both Windows and Mac on development), based on your feedback, appears to worth a (new) try.
There's any "EMACS Crash Test Course for Dummies" that you would recommend? (I'm not a newbie on computing, but I have very few time available to try new things - any help on shortening the learning curve is heavily needed, and will be appreciated!).
Thanks.
I tried Eclipse, but the editor is pathetic, and there just wasn't enough other "goodness" to make up for it; same with Visual Studio. Further, Emacs does NOT leave the junk whitespace that bloats version control system repositories and breaks "make" syntax.
Not sure if would be sufficient to you, but I solved this shitty whitespacing problem using a plugin called AnyEdit Tools.
I totally agree with you that it's a lame solution to a problem that should not exist at first place (any other text editor I use, like Notepad++ and TextWrangler, chops trailing white spaces for me automatically), but if there's something else on Eclipse that would help you somehow, at least this specific problem can be solved.
The only real thing it has that separates it from the typical IDE is that it doesn't have windows glued together in MDI style
What counts points to me. I simply HATE MDI. I would choosea "GIMP" style IDE anyday, if I could find one. It would be marvelous be able to use a multi-windowed Eclipse on my two headed system, the same way it's nice to do it with GIMP.
I used Eclipse for four years alongside Emacs, but never got the hang of it. Eclipse wants to take up a huge part of my screen; Emacs has no problem occupying a slice at the edge.
I totally agree. Using Eclpse on a single head machine is a pain in he arse. I confess, I like Eclipse - it works well for my need (not all, but most of them), but it's a huge screen eater.
My current set up is a notebook with a 22 inches monitor attached. Eclipse lives on the big screen, with space enogh to be useful. All other tasks go to the notebook's screen - I miss my old 17" HP Pavillion, but this 14" screen does the job.
I use macros with C-x ( and C-x o all the time; I don't believe similar flexibility is there in Eclipse. Version control integration with Emacs is effortless (although not too bad with Eclipse, either).
You're right. Eclipse don't do macros (or if it does, I never found it! =P). I don't use Eclipse CMS integration, I prefer a dedicate tool to do that. A huge part of my job is legacy systems maintenance, and I don't mind refactoring code to meet my maintenance needs. I understand that most programmers don't fix what's not broken, but on my line of duty I must give a quick and precise response to every system bad-functioning, and bad code prevents me to do that.
Being this the main reason I'm tagging with Eclipse: Java refactoring using Eclipse is almost painless. There's better refactoring tools for Java around, but Eclipse is good enough for my job.
I run Emacs over SSH connections all the time, I mean several hours a day, at work and at home. Eclipse over the network is too slow to be really usable.
Compiling with M-x compile is much more practical than Eclipse. Emacs can integrate with all of the esoteric build scripts you can think of. I never figured out how to teach Eclipse that.
I do a lot of JAVA EE programming, and Eclipse - at least until now - is unbeatable on this task.
For plain Java development of (new) programs, however, sometimes Eclipse just gets in the way. Since I'm writing the code, I don't need all that Error;/Warnings that Eclipse automatically detects on the code (and that save my ass uncountable times)
Where Eclipse beat emacs (at the time, anyway) was Java debugging. Gud mode didn't support Java. So I used emacs for Java editing and Eclipse for debugging
I totally agree. Debugging multi threaded systems is painless with Eclpse. This and refatoring are the main reasons I adopted Eclipse.
Given that this is only at two stores, I would bet heavily that this is two managers' policy, not Apple's.
Irrelevant.
As a manager, the guy is representing Apple to the employees under his/her command.
Apple will respond to this actions the same way.
What's the EMACS' relevance nowadays?
I'm not arguing about functionality, VI vs EMACS, or whatever. I'm just asking about the role it's playing on software development in this modern days.
By the way: I'm a Eclipse heavy user, and I use VIM now and them to quick and dirty linux configuration files editing. I flirted with LUCID EMACS some years ago, when I was looking for a good SGML editor - and at that time, EMACS appeared to be the best one available.
Sounds like another fear of the boogyman and more racism are really going to hurt the US in the long run.
Here, I fixed that for you.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
Mahatma Gandhi
Sounds like an rpg: "Balmer's Gate"
Or perhaps, some presidential scandal from the seventies! =D
Probably one of the Balmer's (or Gate's) relatives brought one, and he noticed that on the last weekend's barbecue. =P
The most funny (or not!) part of all this mess is that my Palm LifeDrive already did all that almost 10 years ago.
The only and sorely difference is that it was done using WiFi and not by 3G or GPRS (as my Android does right now, as I don't want to pay the outrageous fess of my countries's 3G services).
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Tell that to Luther King and Mandela. ;-)
CIvil disobedience? From bureaucrats?
Only on your dreams... (And mine too, by the way!)...
A little correction to myself:I switched to Mac OS X one week after OpenSUSE 12.0 with Gnome 3 was released.
I was an OpenSUSE use for years and years. Switching to another disto would be almost a pain as to switching to any other distro without YAST, so I took the jump.
Not sure what the gnome folks were thinking. I've heard it said that they were enamored with OS-X, don't know. However at work I have a very nice brand new iMac with Lion on it, and it is much easier to use and has a very different orientation then gnome3.
No, they're were enamored with iPad - and thought that they can make *everybody* will like the idea of using Desktops as glorified Pads.
I switched to Mac OS X one week after Gnome 3 was released. At that time, no other usable and equivalent option was available. Since it was some of an investment (Mini Macs are not that expensive, but they aren't cheap nevertheless), it works fine and runs everything I need, I can't find a reason to switch back, no matter what.
Switching platforms was a pain in the arse, but it hurt less than trying to adapt myself to Gnome 3.
But since switching platforms is a pain in the arse, I don't see a reason to switch back to Linux/Gnome 3/Whatever - unless it would give me so much more than I have today. (I already brought the damned Mac Mini!)
Please mod parent up. God knows I would do it, but I already commented in this post. :-)
I dont understand the problems that people have with it.[...]
Ergo, you don't understand the way people uses computers. :-)
I *create* things on my computer. Each "task" is done using a Code Editor (for code), an Text Processor (for requirements), a bunch of Browsers (for references, searches when in doubt and task and bug tracking) and sometimes a graphical editor (for, imagine that, graphics processing).
Some tasks need a subset of all above. Some others, need them all. And having a workspace based on applications is the very dumbest idea of all times - producing content is a multi-hole, multi disciplinar, task.
Gnome 3 tried to force down end-user, consumer solutions into professional's throat. Bad idea - not even Microsoft succeed into this (see Windows 8.1).
My solution to the problem? I just switched for Mac OS X. I found it was easier to work there than to wait 1 or 2 years until Gnome realize the huge mistake they did.
(And NO, I WILL NOT USE KDE - I don't like Windows-like environments, or I would use Windows at the first place!).
All a human operator has to do is say [these are targets] and [weapons free]. Automatic systems do the rest, hell we already have this kind of computer control on guided missles, mobile artillery and naval guns.
You tell that to the British in the Falklands, when a bunch of old flying craps put some of their better vessels on the bottom of the sea!