That's the best you can do? Well, rest assured that you are quite wrong. Besides, your answer was so broad that it's next to useless. And with your utter failure at guessing my level of education (so much for "it's very easy to determine level of education". HAH!), I think it's safe to end this discussion. Besides, you probably have some important stuff to do, as opposed to trying to spread your knowledge and skills to an "uneducated buffoon", right?
I've given you several pushes in the right direction to educate yourself, and you've scoffed at them.
That's very generous of you. No, really. I think it's really great that you took the time to climb down from your ivory tower and did your best to educate us moronic mortals.
I appear arrogant to you because we are not peers
Awww, isn't that a shame? I would still like to thank you for allowing me to bask in the light that is your gigantic intellect. In fact, I think it gave me a nice tan!
Again, take a basic class on the philosophy of science, or ask a librarian to help you find literature suited to your level of understanding.
I believe that the "my level of understanding" is where they keep the comics. Thanks for the tip, oh wise one! I bet I will be the topic of discussion at your next Mensa-meeting, right? Hell, you could use me as a subject of your bi-monthly debate on "why are other people such a morons, whereas we are so smart?".
Maybe you really are right: maybe we are not peers. Maybe you are significantly BELOW me? After all, since you have no idea who I am, how could you know for sure? At the very least I can take comfort in the fact that I'm not a gigantic ass, unlike you. Cheerio, chap!
But seriously, Apple is no more a monopoly than Nokia is. Yes, Apple sells hardware and software as a single unit, and some might say that that's a monopoly. But it's not. If it were, then ANYTHING that shipped with such a bundle would be a monopoly. But they aren't. Nokia E61 + Series 60 3rd Edition form a coherent whole, like Mac + Mac OS does. But that doesn't mean that Nokia is a monopoly, since there are loads of other phones the consumer could choose from. And Apple is not a monopoly, since the consumer is free to choose some other computer instead.
So the state of California doesn't thing Apple ISN'T a monopoly.
That is to be decided by the court, and not by the state. And that particular lawsuit has not reached it's conclusion yet.
Regardless of your attempts at spin, Apple is a monopoly.
Why? Because some AC on/. said so?
And regarding their computing platform, they have ALWAYS been a monopoly
And Nokia is a monopoly, since they do not allow anyone to make clones of Nokia-phones. Rrrrrright.
The funny, and sad, thing about Microsoft and the lawsuits they settled on (there were no verdicts), was that they WERE WINNING their market share WITHOUT the unfair practices.
The MS antitrust-trials? It was discovered that MS blackmailed OEM's to not ship Netscape. Microsoft also pre-installed IE with their OS, completely saturating the market. And two separate courts found that to be ILLEGAL and MONOPOLISTIC. But I guess that just pales in comparison to Apple who dares to *drum roll*: sell a computer and an OS as a coherent whole! How dare they?!?!?! Yes yes yes, no court has found Apple to be a monopoly, but they ARE! Since this AC on Slahdot says so!
Then there is also the issue of Apple's "for rent" operating system, which has a yearly service pack (we should just call them Expansions like they do in the game industry) that they can use to milk everyone for $150.
First, I do believe that the price is $129, not $150. Second: if you feel that the new version of the OS doesn't give you anything worthwhile, you are in no shape or form required to buy it! So what the FUCK are you blathering about! "Renting software"? That would imply that the software stops working if the user does not pay. Well, there are lots of users who do not pay, and their software is still working fine.
And why would someone want to buy an Apple computer without OS X? How about to put Windows on it?
I did not say that, you fucking retard. What I asked was that what would buying a Mac without OS give you that you wouldn't get from simply wiping the HD. I never implied that "Getting a Mac and not running OS X? That's retarded!". Hell, I have used my Mac Mini as a Linux-server, so I HAVE used something else than OS X on a Mac. And if you want to run WIndows on it, go right ahead. I have no problem with that. But since you apparently hate Apple and everything they do, why would you actually want to buy one of their products? It just boggles the mind!
They just talked about a study, MSNBC is not the place where the study in question was released. If you want to to go the source, maybe you should contact the researchers at Harvard?
"It doesn't claim what you think it does, in fact it is almost diametrically opposed to your point."
OK, so what does it claim then? did YOU read the study? Because I have real difficulties deciphering what "Long-term study eases concerns about risk of Atkins, other low-carb diets" could mean. According to you, it means that Atkins is dangerous. And if I happened to think that it means that dangers of Atkins are overblown, I'm an "uneducated buffoon"? Is this the bizarro-world?
"What I've run out of is patience for an uneducated buffoon who shows no interest in improving himself."
And what I have run out of is patience for your arrogance and condecending attitude. Being a arrogant asshole with superiority-complex does not get you very far in life.
Because there's basically nothing in the ruling of the judge that says "Apple is a monopoly". It just says that the plaintiff (Thomas Slattery) can proceed with the lawsuit where he accuses Apple of being a monopoly. THAT is the lawsuit which determines whether Apple is a monopoly or not.
So no, California does not think that Apple is a monopoly. Some guy in California does, and the courts just told him that "yes, you can proceed with your lawsuit".
Apple sells the hardware and the software as a single unit. Don't like that? Well, there are dozens of other companies that are willing to sell you computers, some of them might even sell you a naked PC. so what's the problem? Because you want some specific computer? And I want a pony.
And, like I said, why aren't you guys whining because there are LOTS of equipment that come bundled with software, and the two can't be separated? If I want to buy a Nokia E61, I'm absolutely required to buy the Series 60 OS with it. Why isn't that unfair? And how would you determine the cost of the software in a hardware/software-combo? Apple basically sells products that are composed of hardware (the computer) and software (OS X and iLife). And you are now getting all annoyed because they are not selling you the product that you want. Well, tough. Can't please them all.
Every single company wants to get as big market-share as possible. But, as it happens, Apple has no monopoly in any market.
"Currently that seems to be online music (at least to the same extent that MS ever had a monopoly.)"
Nope, Apple does not have a monopoly there. Besides, MS has been REPEATEDLY found to be a monopoly by various courts of law. There has been no such judgement passed about Apple.
"Maybe I already own the OS and I'm disposing of my old Mac? If you believe that the price for the OS isn't built in to every Mac sold then I have a bridge that I'd like to sell you."
So, you basically want to get a Mac for less money and without OS X? And since you can't, you complain? Well, I want to get a phone without OS as well, but I can't. Why aren't you complaining about that? Or how about your mp3-player, it shipped with OS as well? Can you get a Dell without OS?
What is Apple sold macs without OS but at the same price? How would you determine the amount of money Apple should discount their machines without OS? And why should Apple sell computers without OS?
Ah, very clever! That way you don't have to make any comments to my other points (like the other study I linked to)! Bravo sir! Of course, that could also mean that you are basically running out of arguments, if your only argument at this point is "what is unicorn and what is not".
Nope. They are the biggest player in those markets for sure, but that does not mean that they are a monopoly. There's practically nothing that would tie me to an iPod, I could easily buy some other player instead. And there are several other music stores that sell more or less the same content as ITMS is selling, for more or less similar prices. So what's the problem here?
Is there a ruling by a court of law that states that Apple is a monopoly? I don't think so.
"Because that's not how medical science works. If you want to sell your snake oil as healthy, it's up to you to prove it has the effects you claim without any detractions."
We already have people on Atkins diet. Have had them for years. But studying the health-effects on the diet on them is "not how medical science works"? Then what are we supposed to do then? If it's wrong to study whether Atkins is dangerous or not, then there's not much to be done, is there? That way people could keep on claiming that it might be dangerous. And if someone tried to actually study the issue, we would get complaints saying "That's not how medical science works".
"I'm not interested in spending my time debunking crackpot diets any more than historians want to spend time debunking moon landing or holocaust deniers."
First you compared Atkins to anorexia, and now you are comparing it to Holocaust-deniers? Is it just me, or are you starting to lose it? And if you are "not interested in spending my time debunking crackpot diets", why are you taking part in this discussion then?
And what makes it a "crackpot diet"? It obviously works. As to health-concerns... The best you came up with is "it MIGHT be dangerous". Hardly a damning evidence I was looking for. As to evidence to the contrary:
I have now linked to one study that showed that Atkins IS effective method of losing weight. I also linked to a study that disputes the claim that it's dangerous. What next?
"They are, and always have been, an insanely brutal monopolist."
In what market does Apple have a monopoly?
"which is why Apple is getting sued by the European Union."
um, no they are not. And what would they be sued for?
"Want to see fair use? Try buying an Apple computer without OS X on it."
I also can't buy a Nokia phone without the Nokia OS in it. Oh the humanity! And why would you want to get a Mac without OS X? What would you gain from that that you couldn't gain from simply buying the computer and erasing the HD? And what does your question have to do with "fair use"? You are not in any shape or form prevented from running some other OS on the Mac.
"The MoAB shattered a lot of illusions"
MoAB was a flop, IMO. They stuffed their numbers by adding bugs in applications that had nothing to do with Apple (like VLC).
Just about all cars in here (Finland) are fourbangers, and they seem to be holding out just fine. My previous car (Saab 900 with 2 liter fourbanger) had 480.000km behind it before finally being retired. My current car (VW Passat with 2-liter fourbanger) has 183.000km behind it, and I expect it to last well beyond 300.000km. My first car (Opel Kadett with 1.3 liter fourbanger) had something like 200.000 kilometers behind it before I sold it close to ten years ago. And to my knowledge, the new owner drove the car for years to come.
"By your standards, anorexia is a far more effective diet."
Anorexia is not "diet", it's starvation. And go on, prove that it's dangerous. There's nothing inherintly dangerous in the diet. It's the same food we eat every day. And now you are comparing Atkins' to anorexia? Um, OK. You REALLY seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to Atkins. Why?
"It's pretty easy to conclusively prove there are no unicorns in my trash bin."
OK, prove it. By looking in to the bin? They are just hiding really well, so you just can't see them.
"If that's the case, and it's been around since the 70's, it sounds like it's proponents have deliberately decided not to perform them."
Why haven't it's detractors performed them? Surely they would just LOVE to show to the world what a crummy diet Atkins is? And why wouldn't the proponents want to test the long-term effects of the diet? Do you think that they WANT people to suffer? That they might have thought that the diet might be dangerous, but they would prefer to hide that fact from others?
You asked for proof that show that Atkins' diet if "effective". I linked to a study that shows that it's in fact the most effective diet for losing weight. Then you shift the argument from effectivenenss to "it MIGHT be dangerous". Instead of asking someone to prove that it's NOT dangerous (proving a negative can be very, very hard), how about you proving to us that it IS in fact dangerous? Go on, do it. Instead of telling someone to prove a negative, why don't you prove a positive? No, "we don't know" is not good enough. Besides, the diet was introduced in the seventies, if it were really that dangerous, then surely they would be visible by now?
Why is it so hard to admit that Atkins can be very good at losing weight? Because it's not what Weight Watchers have been telling us? Because it's "wrong" to eat well, and still lose weight?
"Look, kid, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say GNOME rules. What I said is that the functionality you want isn't in metacity and you're going to need Beryl to get there. It's all Free and free, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about."
The original question was that "is GNOME stagnating?". And the question stands. Yes, I could get Expose with Beryl. But Beryl is a totally separate project from GNOME, so it doesn't change the fact that _GNOME_ has been standing relatively still. It's a good thing that Beryl-guyes have been busy, but that does not change the fact that GNOME has been pretty damn boring recently. I'm not talking about Beryl, I'm not talking about KDE and I'm not talking about Ubuntu. I'm talking about GNOME. Only relevant thing to this discussion is the code that GNOME-project releases, period.
"In fact, I don't think you really understand the Unix mindset,"
I understand the UNIX-way just fine, thankyouverymuch. And all that UNIXness does not change the fact that recent few releases of GNOME have been downright BORING. Improvements have been marginal at best.
"In other words, you're complaining about a non-issue."
I'm not. Fact is that whereas GNOME progressed quite nicely just a while ago, it has clearly slowed down recently. Yes, distros have been progressing, but we are not talking about distros, we are talking about GNOME, and code that particular project provides. And last few releases they have made are a bit.... boring.
"You can complain all you want about how GNOME doesn't do everything you want it to, but what you're missing is that if you use Free Software instead of Apple or Microsoft proprietary stuff, you have the ability to swap in any window manager you like instead of being stuck with what you're provided."
Ah, the old argument of "don't like it? Use something else then!". And that argument does absolutely NOTHING to dispute my claim that last few releases of GNOME are lame. It merely tries to go around it ("you can use something else"). I'm not talking about some other desktops or WM's, I'm talking about _GNOME_.
Only thing I have said is that GNOME has been sorely lacking in new features recently. Looking at the release-notes makes that quite obvious. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that? Instead, you just start telling me to use something else and you also blather about the "UNIX-way". Go on, just admit it. It's not THAT hard.
"You get a wonderful expose-like functionality with Beryl."
Beryl is not part of GNOME, so I fail to see how Beryl makes GNOME better.
"Gnome doesn't force you to use metacity, you know."
GNOME rules because it doesn't stop me from running third-party software that provides functionality GNOME is missing? Well, isn't that mighty nice of them?
I have made lists with asterisks and dashes with Tomboy even before it was officially part of GNOME. So what new functionality does the new version offer? Some preset formatting? Well whooppee.
And are you seriously claiming that this feature in Tomboy is bigger than Expose would be?
"Amazingly, the diesel is not right for everyone."
For all intents and purposes, diesel does everything gasoline can do. You obviously know of some use for gasoline-engine that couldn't be done with a diesel-engine. Lets hear it.
Well, there were no major new features in 2.16 either. Is it just me or is GNOME.... stagnating? How about continuous versioning backup-tool? Infrastructure already exists, someone just has to create a GUI and tie it to the desktop. How about something like OS X's Expose? How about being able to re-arrange items in the Taskbar? How about looking in to Gimmie as a Taskbar-replacement? There are tons of useful features they could add to the desktop, but no. What do we get instead? "Using Tomboy to create lists is now as simple as adding a * or a -." Ooooooh, I have been waiting for THAT feature for a long time!
This release gets a big fat yawn from me. Like 2.16 did as well.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the best you can do? Well, rest assured that you are quite wrong. Besides, your answer was so broad that it's next to useless. And with your utter failure at guessing my level of education (so much for "it's very easy to determine level of education". HAH!), I think it's safe to end this discussion. Besides, you probably have some important stuff to do, as opposed to trying to spread your knowledge and skills to an "uneducated buffoon", right?
Still talking, eh? And you STILL have that aura of superiority-complex surrounding you. You REALLY are an ass, right?
"Raw intelligence can be difficult to determine, but level of education isn't"
So what is my "level of education" then? Go on, it should be obvious, right?
That's very generous of you. No, really. I think it's really great that you took the time to climb down from your ivory tower and did your best to educate us moronic mortals.
Awww, isn't that a shame? I would still like to thank you for allowing me to bask in the light that is your gigantic intellect. In fact, I think it gave me a nice tan!
I believe that the "my level of understanding" is where they keep the comics. Thanks for the tip, oh wise one! I bet I will be the topic of discussion at your next Mensa-meeting, right? Hell, you could use me as a subject of your bi-monthly debate on "why are other people such a morons, whereas we are so smart?".
Maybe you really are right: maybe we are not peers. Maybe you are significantly BELOW me? After all, since you have no idea who I am, how could you know for sure? At the very least I can take comfort in the fact that I'm not a gigantic ass, unlike you. Cheerio, chap!
And Dell has a monopoly in Dell-computers. Duh!
But seriously, Apple is no more a monopoly than Nokia is. Yes, Apple sells hardware and software as a single unit, and some might say that that's a monopoly. But it's not. If it were, then ANYTHING that shipped with such a bundle would be a monopoly. But they aren't. Nokia E61 + Series 60 3rd Edition form a coherent whole, like Mac + Mac OS does. But that doesn't mean that Nokia is a monopoly, since there are loads of other phones the consumer could choose from. And Apple is not a monopoly, since the consumer is free to choose some other computer instead.
That is to be decided by the court, and not by the state. And that particular lawsuit has not reached it's conclusion yet.
Why? Because some AC on
And Nokia is a monopoly, since they do not allow anyone to make clones of Nokia-phones. Rrrrrright.
The MS antitrust-trials? It was discovered that MS blackmailed OEM's to not ship Netscape. Microsoft also pre-installed IE with their OS, completely saturating the market. And two separate courts found that to be ILLEGAL and MONOPOLISTIC. But I guess that just pales in comparison to Apple who dares to *drum roll*: sell a computer and an OS as a coherent whole! How dare they?!?!?! Yes yes yes, no court has found Apple to be a monopoly, but they ARE! Since this AC on Slahdot says so!
First, I do believe that the price is $129, not $150. Second: if you feel that the new version of the OS doesn't give you anything worthwhile, you are in no shape or form required to buy it! So what the FUCK are you blathering about! "Renting software"? That would imply that the software stops working if the user does not pay. Well, there are lots of users who do not pay, and their software is still working fine.
I did not say that, you fucking retard. What I asked was that what would buying a Mac without OS give you that you wouldn't get from simply wiping the HD. I never implied that "Getting a Mac and not running OS X? That's retarded!". Hell, I have used my Mac Mini as a Linux-server, so I HAVE used something else than OS X on a Mac. And if you want to run WIndows on it, go right ahead. I have no problem with that. But since you apparently hate Apple and everything they do, why would you actually want to buy one of their products? It just boggles the mind!
Jesus, am I really wasting my time on this shit?
"MSNBC is not a reputable scientific journal"
They just talked about a study, MSNBC is not the place where the study in question was released. If you want to to go the source, maybe you should contact the researchers at Harvard?
"It doesn't claim what you think it does, in fact it is almost diametrically opposed to your point."
OK, so what does it claim then? did YOU read the study? Because I have real difficulties deciphering what "Long-term study eases concerns about risk of Atkins, other low-carb diets" could mean. According to you, it means that Atkins is dangerous. And if I happened to think that it means that dangers of Atkins are overblown, I'm an "uneducated buffoon"? Is this the bizarro-world?
"What I've run out of is patience for an uneducated buffoon who shows no interest in improving himself."
And what I have run out of is patience for your arrogance and condecending attitude. Being a arrogant asshole with superiority-complex does not get you very far in life.
Are you talking about this:
a lifornia_judge
http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/2095/northern_c
??
Because there's basically nothing in the ruling of the judge that says "Apple is a monopoly". It just says that the plaintiff (Thomas Slattery) can proceed with the lawsuit where he accuses Apple of being a monopoly. THAT is the lawsuit which determines whether Apple is a monopoly or not.
So no, California does not think that Apple is a monopoly. Some guy in California does, and the courts just told him that "yes, you can proceed with your lawsuit".
Apple sells the hardware and the software as a single unit. Don't like that? Well, there are dozens of other companies that are willing to sell you computers, some of them might even sell you a naked PC. so what's the problem? Because you want some specific computer? And I want a pony.
And, like I said, why aren't you guys whining because there are LOTS of equipment that come bundled with software, and the two can't be separated? If I want to buy a Nokia E61, I'm absolutely required to buy the Series 60 OS with it. Why isn't that unfair? And how would you determine the cost of the software in a hardware/software-combo? Apple basically sells products that are composed of hardware (the computer) and software (OS X and iLife). And you are now getting all annoyed because they are not selling you the product that you want. Well, tough. Can't please them all.
"Any market they can get a foothold in."
Every single company wants to get as big market-share as possible. But, as it happens, Apple has no monopoly in any market.
"Currently that seems to be online music (at least to the same extent that MS ever had a monopoly.)"
Nope, Apple does not have a monopoly there. Besides, MS has been REPEATEDLY found to be a monopoly by various courts of law. There has been no such judgement passed about Apple.
"Maybe I already own the OS and I'm disposing of my old Mac? If you believe that the price for the OS isn't built in to every Mac sold then I have a bridge that I'd like to sell you."
So, you basically want to get a Mac for less money and without OS X? And since you can't, you complain? Well, I want to get a phone without OS as well, but I can't. Why aren't you complaining about that? Or how about your mp3-player, it shipped with OS as well? Can you get a Dell without OS?
What is Apple sold macs without OS but at the same price? How would you determine the amount of money Apple should discount their machines without OS? And why should Apple sell computers without OS?
Ah, very clever! That way you don't have to make any comments to my other points (like the other study I linked to)! Bravo sir! Of course, that could also mean that you are basically running out of arguments, if your only argument at this point is "what is unicorn and what is not".
"MP3 players and online music sales?"
Nope. They are the biggest player in those markets for sure, but that does not mean that they are a monopoly. There's practically nothing that would tie me to an iPod, I could easily buy some other player instead. And there are several other music stores that sell more or less the same content as ITMS is selling, for more or less similar prices. So what's the problem here?
Is there a ruling by a court of law that states that Apple is a monopoly? I don't think so.
"You're shifting the definition of "unicorn"."
Nope. They are just really small unicorns.
"Because that's not how medical science works. If you want to sell your snake oil as healthy, it's up to you to prove it has the effects you claim without any detractions."
We already have people on Atkins diet. Have had them for years. But studying the health-effects on the diet on them is "not how medical science works"? Then what are we supposed to do then? If it's wrong to study whether Atkins is dangerous or not, then there's not much to be done, is there? That way people could keep on claiming that it might be dangerous. And if someone tried to actually study the issue, we would get complaints saying "That's not how medical science works".
"I'm not interested in spending my time debunking crackpot diets any more than historians want to spend time debunking moon landing or holocaust deniers."
First you compared Atkins to anorexia, and now you are comparing it to Holocaust-deniers? Is it just me, or are you starting to lose it? And if you are "not interested in spending my time debunking crackpot diets", why are you taking part in this discussion then?
And what makes it a "crackpot diet"? It obviously works. As to health-concerns... The best you came up with is "it MIGHT be dangerous". Hardly a damning evidence I was looking for. As to evidence to the contrary:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15625548/
I have now linked to one study that showed that Atkins IS effective method of losing weight. I also linked to a study that disputes the claim that it's dangerous. What next?
"They are, and always have been, an insanely brutal monopolist."
In what market does Apple have a monopoly?
"which is why Apple is getting sued by the European Union."
um, no they are not. And what would they be sued for?
"Want to see fair use? Try buying an Apple computer without OS X on it."
I also can't buy a Nokia phone without the Nokia OS in it. Oh the humanity! And why would you want to get a Mac without OS X? What would you gain from that that you couldn't gain from simply buying the computer and erasing the HD? And what does your question have to do with "fair use"? You are not in any shape or form prevented from running some other OS on the Mac.
"The MoAB shattered a lot of illusions"
MoAB was a flop, IMO. They stuffed their numbers by adding bugs in applications that had nothing to do with Apple (like VLC).
Just about all cars in here (Finland) are fourbangers, and they seem to be holding out just fine. My previous car (Saab 900 with 2 liter fourbanger) had 480.000km behind it before finally being retired. My current car (VW Passat with 2-liter fourbanger) has 183.000km behind it, and I expect it to last well beyond 300.000km. My first car (Opel Kadett with 1.3 liter fourbanger) had something like 200.000 kilometers behind it before I sold it close to ten years ago. And to my knowledge, the new owner drove the car for years to come.
"By your standards, anorexia is a far more effective diet."
Anorexia is not "diet", it's starvation. And go on, prove that it's dangerous. There's nothing inherintly dangerous in the diet. It's the same food we eat every day. And now you are comparing Atkins' to anorexia? Um, OK. You REALLY seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to Atkins. Why?
"It's pretty easy to conclusively prove there are no unicorns in my trash bin."
OK, prove it. By looking in to the bin? They are just hiding really well, so you just can't see them.
"If that's the case, and it's been around since the 70's, it sounds like it's proponents have deliberately decided not to perform them."
Why haven't it's detractors performed them? Surely they would just LOVE to show to the world what a crummy diet Atkins is? And why wouldn't the proponents want to test the long-term effects of the diet? Do you think that they WANT people to suffer? That they might have thought that the diet might be dangerous, but they would prefer to hide that fact from others?
You asked for proof that show that Atkins' diet if "effective". I linked to a study that shows that it's in fact the most effective diet for losing weight. Then you shift the argument from effectivenenss to "it MIGHT be dangerous". Instead of asking someone to prove that it's NOT dangerous (proving a negative can be very, very hard), how about you proving to us that it IS in fact dangerous? Go on, do it. Instead of telling someone to prove a negative, why don't you prove a positive? No, "we don't know" is not good enough. Besides, the diet was introduced in the seventies, if it were really that dangerous, then surely they would be visible by now?
Why is it so hard to admit that Atkins can be very good at losing weight? Because it's not what Weight Watchers have been telling us? Because it's "wrong" to eat well, and still lose weight?
"Atkin's diet need not be debunked to be criticized. The burden of proof is on it's proponents to show that it is effective"
You mean something like this?
"Look, kid, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say GNOME rules. What I said is that the functionality you want isn't in metacity and you're going to need Beryl to get there. It's all Free and free, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about."
The original question was that "is GNOME stagnating?". And the question stands. Yes, I could get Expose with Beryl. But Beryl is a totally separate project from GNOME, so it doesn't change the fact that _GNOME_ has been standing relatively still. It's a good thing that Beryl-guyes have been busy, but that does not change the fact that GNOME has been pretty damn boring recently. I'm not talking about Beryl, I'm not talking about KDE and I'm not talking about Ubuntu. I'm talking about GNOME. Only relevant thing to this discussion is the code that GNOME-project releases, period.
"In fact, I don't think you really understand the Unix mindset,"
I understand the UNIX-way just fine, thankyouverymuch. And all that UNIXness does not change the fact that recent few releases of GNOME have been downright BORING. Improvements have been marginal at best.
"In other words, you're complaining about a non-issue."
I'm not. Fact is that whereas GNOME progressed quite nicely just a while ago, it has clearly slowed down recently. Yes, distros have been progressing, but we are not talking about distros, we are talking about GNOME, and code that particular project provides. And last few releases they have made are a bit.... boring.
"You can complain all you want about how GNOME doesn't do everything you want it to, but what you're missing is that if you use Free Software instead of Apple or Microsoft proprietary stuff, you have the ability to swap in any window manager you like instead of being stuck with what you're provided."
Ah, the old argument of "don't like it? Use something else then!". And that argument does absolutely NOTHING to dispute my claim that last few releases of GNOME are lame. It merely tries to go around it ("you can use something else"). I'm not talking about some other desktops or WM's, I'm talking about _GNOME_.
Only thing I have said is that GNOME has been sorely lacking in new features recently. Looking at the release-notes makes that quite obvious. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that? Instead, you just start telling me to use something else and you also blather about the "UNIX-way". Go on, just admit it. It's not THAT hard.
"You get a wonderful expose-like functionality with Beryl."
Beryl is not part of GNOME, so I fail to see how Beryl makes GNOME better.
"Gnome doesn't force you to use metacity, you know."
GNOME rules because it doesn't stop me from running third-party software that provides functionality GNOME is missing? Well, isn't that mighty nice of them?
I have made lists with asterisks and dashes with Tomboy even before it was officially part of GNOME. So what new functionality does the new version offer? Some preset formatting? Well whooppee.
And are you seriously claiming that this feature in Tomboy is bigger than Expose would be?
"Yes it is! It means "without lack of regard"!"
"Amazingly, the diesel is not right for everyone."
For all intents and purposes, diesel does everything gasoline can do. You obviously know of some use for gasoline-engine that couldn't be done with a diesel-engine. Lets hear it.
Well, there were no major new features in 2.16 either. Is it just me or is GNOME.... stagnating? How about continuous versioning backup-tool? Infrastructure already exists, someone just has to create a GUI and tie it to the desktop. How about something like OS X's Expose? How about being able to re-arrange items in the Taskbar? How about looking in to Gimmie as a Taskbar-replacement? There are tons of useful features they could add to the desktop, but no. What do we get instead? "Using Tomboy to create lists is now as simple as adding a * or a -." Ooooooh, I have been waiting for THAT feature for a long time!
This release gets a big fat yawn from me. Like 2.16 did as well.
"This can't be right! This man has 104% body fat! Hey, no eating in the tank!"
"But fat children also tend to be more muscular than thin ones."
Also, they have bigger bones.