Where does this psychopathic idea that corporate efficiency must be maintained at all cost come from?
work without an absolute *ton* of micromanaging and audits on a constant basis. Most companies don't want that.
Companies don't want that? OH NOES we can't have that!
Of course these same companies want to monitor all of our forms of communication and behaviour to (enhance their marketing and) make sure we don't touch their oh so precious IP.But we can't have companies watching what they are doing, that would be inefficient.
That's why I propose to establish a Sortition system where a body of randomly selected jurors (obviously screened for violent crimes, mental health, etc) would be given governing power over the region the jurors are from. The State Jury might decide to elect one of the State Governor candidates as State Minister, but they will retain power to oversee and override his/her decisions, as well as the power to remove or add members to the Minister's Cabinet. The system could be established at any single level or number of levels but I can see it working from City Juries to Federal Juries replacing the President.
The same should be used for the legislative branch. There is no reason to select 2 rich guys to represent a million average people, specially when these 2 guys aren't even required to follow on their candidacy promises. A representative sample of the people who will actually live under the laws they pass is a much better choice. Heck, a Grand Jury is about 23 people strong and that's just to take a guy to trial.
And yes, the system isn't perfect. The Jury might turn out to be filled with racist, homophobic ass-holes. It might turn out to be composed entirely of ignorant creationist folk who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed. But we already elect people who are racist, homophobic, ignorant creationist people who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed.
And I'm sure blackmailing 23 people is harder than blackmailing just one.
BTW, PCs make everything better. Gaming on PCs means that after finishing the game you can have fun modding or just playing mods for example.
Having a PC is a great experience that no child should be deprived of. In the future, you can bet that most innovation will come from people who run PCs.
To elaborate, checkboxes in native applications for Windows, Mac, Gnome, KDE and even Java, can be toggled by clicking anywhere in the control, including the checkbox proper and its text label. The same is not true for web apps in many browsers, but it's often emulated in JS and is also common in Flash. But I'm talking about windows installers here.
When the option to install Chrome appears, opt-out of course, the checkbox control is customised so clicking the text label does nothing. The install checkbox can be toggled of course, by clicking the square checkbox proper. In windows this implicates disabling the text label as a control making it appear grayed out. So the option to opt-out is not only harder to enter than any other option in the same installer, it also looks disabled unless you pay attention to the smallest section of the control.
Even if it is good, an application that uses such dirty tricks to get installed deserves contempt.
And I've been using Firefox since it was Phoenix, before it was Firebird, and before that I used the Mozilla suite. Every time Mozilla has always provided the browser that respected my wishes.
The same is not true of Chrome, Chrome is so intrusive that even not installed it bothers me! It has tried to sneakily install several times when I deal with windows apps, always appearing somewhere between run of the mill confirmation dialogs in installers, always opt-out by default, most of the time the checkbox control HAS BEEN CUSTOMISED TO BE HARD TO UNCHECK!!
WHAT-THE-FUCK Google!? if Chrome is so good why do they fall so low to make me inadvertently install it? This, coupled with marketing pushing it fucking everywhere including super bowl ads is the real reason Chrome is getting ahead of Firefox.
Now you are just getting silly. You must be joking, it's obvious a person can't make outrageous demands in their TOS and expect them to be fulfilled. A corporation on the other hand...
Things are way past the point of pirating movies although this started that way. On the other hand they could rename themselves the privacy party with little ill effect.
I want to be an entrepreneur of Black Tech! Is it in anyway related to the work of Black Mesa? I wonder, who else parsed that phrase as Entrepreneur of Black Tech rather than Black Entrepreneur of Tech. Does it mean that I'm not racist or super racist?
And why is Black Tech Entrepreneur (or everything else in the title) title cased? (did I just answered myself?)
I don't think Unity is so much of a problem. I mean, it's awful but you can install another DE with relative ease. It is also possible to switch the window buttons to the right again, with the command line. It is also possible to replace banshee with Rhythmbox, it is also possible to remove the half-working "Indicator Applet" for the usual "Notification Area" of Gnome 2. I haven't tried it but I'm pretty much 100% sure that you can still replace Ubuntu's Software Center with Synaptic
Most things in Linux are swappable and configurable. However I think that people in general, and ubuntu users in particular, are attracted to the sense of community and reliance of using a mostly out of the box system. One of the scary things about Linux is that it's every man for himself even though the FOSS model lends itself for community projects. I think the main difference that Ubuntu brought was joining together a lot of people who wanted to be into FOSS but were scared. The free CDs (back when broadband was rare) and easier installers did help of course, but running Ubuntu was more than just using software, it was about the community.
I think, that this pretty much died the moment Mark said "Ubuntu is not a democracy!". And of course we all understood that he was correct. Ubuntu was not paid by us, it wasn't made for us, and it only was made BY us for a very limited definition of "us". But being told that directly, that your opinion didn't matter was unsettling. No matter how you dress it, the individualistic personality cult around Mark that has become Ubuntu is at odds with the original "I am what I am because of who we all are" motto of the brand. Ubuntu used to be about "us" there were lots of user made content for ubuntu, everybody wanted to be part of it. Now Ubuntu is about how awesome is Shuttleworth and how he has a revolutionary vision that mere geeks can't understand.
At this point I don't even think Shuttleworth has anyone around him to challenge him. How long ago was it that he said that the problem with Unity was about "a few users who were too cool to try something that looks really slick"? There is a single word to describe the current situation with Ubuntu: Alienating.
I tried it for 3 months before give up. It had potential but has too many problem areas. The tragedy is that the devs are absolutely uninteresed in fixing Gnome 3 because they think it's perfect like it is.
Goddamit how many times do I have to repeat it? there are actual objective problems with it (I can identify at least 16 problem areas) It's not geek elitism.
In this case, this is one of those cases where the burden of proof is on the other side. I'm talking about features that users actually use. Two good rules of thumb are:
1) Expose as much functionality as possible, let the users tune their desktops to their liking.
The OS X can be placed in any edge of the screen (except top I think), Same with the windows taskbar. And Gnome 2 panels, XFCE panels Plasma panels etc. In fact I'm pretty sure that Gnome-Shell panels supports multiple panels in any edge of the screen, because there is an extension that does just that, using the extension API. They just didn't want to offer the functionality to users.
2) Do what your competition does and improve on that. All the above mentioned desktops are different among themselves yet they all offer some of the same flexibility. Gnome-Shell/Gnome 3 doesn't, and its berated explicitly for this. At this point wondering why users complain is an insult.
Thanks for the pointing out that mayor misspelling.
The analogy is exaggerated as fuck but he's got a point. They force you to give them personally identifiable information for not much good reason. It sells game items, why does it have to know a user's real name home address, phone number etc, etc.
I liked TF2, I was willing to buy hat, actually I am interested in getting some hats. I'm even thinking about getting Portal 2 and Mass Effect. Except Valve doesn't want my money.
I have money, I'm willing to send them a money order, heck I can mail them cash, or a check. Ideally I should be able to buy a prepaid card on some 7/11 as I can do to get music from iTunes.
They don't even need to keep billing me for a continued service, there is a "Steam Wallet" now so why do they need a permanent CC number from me? And I hate Paypal, so the only option for me is a CC. Why does buying a virtual hat require paperwork?
This kind of "people hate everything" mentality is just a cop-out to ignore the very real problems with these GUIs.
My GUI dedicates mayor hotspot to Widget configuration, replaced the desktop with a Widget, and essentially tried to use widgets for everything, despite the fact that Widgets suck, they are crippled versions of mayor apps whose only purpose is being digital paper weights, which wouldn't be so bad except a decent desktop backgrounds outdoes them for me.
Gnome Shell has great promise but right now is a mass of usability blunders that fit neither desktops or tablets, and the real tragedy is that the devs are commited to their ways. At least KDE4 devs adapted folder views to restore the original functionality of the desktop*. Gnome guys revel in contradicting their current userbase.
My mayor gripes with Gnome 3 are not with Shell but the configurability of Gnome 3 itself. Do you remember that old saying about MS Office, that people only use 10% of it's features, but it's always a different 10%? Same happens with the desktop, I have had two non-power users request two perfectly reasonable changes to Gnome 3** my point is, you don't have to be a special case to want to change a setting and they are getting rid of almost all configuration.
Unity, Mostly the same, plus is really slow, this a Gnome Shell are hiding a lot of stuff from users and is perfectly reasonable stuff. One user requested help to find Solitaire game. Moving from Windows to Gnome 2, this user never had a problem finding the games section, not anymore in this new GUI.
And of course there is the problem of the icon docks being fixed to the left side. In about 15 years of desktop usage I have seen all sorts of users push the taskbar to all four sides of the monitor. This even in 1997 with Windows 95. When a modern desktop doesn't let you do what ordinary users casually did with Windows 95 YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.
* What's the problem with folder views? Well the case of folder views is tragic, they ARE more powerful than the traditional desktop methaphor but also more complex, the original desktop can be used thoughtlessly, folder views don't. But folder views are less useful than dolphin windows. So you don't really have a reason folder views ever.
** Two user requests. 1) Disable password prompts, only doable through dconf-editor which is not included in Gnome 3 packages by default. You can achieve the same in Gnome 2 through dialogs alone. 2) The appearance dialog was murdered and replaced by a cheap impostor that doesn't even let you do the simplest thing, in this case display exactly the desktop wallpapers the user wanted. In Gnome 2 she deleted most of the default wallpapers from the appearance window and added some the walls folder inside the Pictures folder. In the new dialog default walls are set in stone, the alternative is the Pictures folder with is not where she stores her walls. As a bonus adding walls to this windows makes it seem like you are moving them to the Pictures folder.
You know what would be nice? Sharing Panorama among windows, or rather having a "Global" panorama view that allowed you to move tab groups between windows (and sessions, with sync.)
I'm sorry, but Gnome 3 general UI is inferior. I dunno about the backend. Maybe it improved, or not. But the UI is a huge disappointment. Gnome 3 is so bad the best thing that could come up from it is that it could motivate more people to join Gnome just to fix it.
I'm actually amazed by the amount of stuff Gnome 3 broke, Trying to walk through it would be very hard (specially as I'm supposed to be at work). You are right, your sample is extremely small. For reference, 2 non tech savvy users I moved to ubuntu recently presented my with 2 complains
How do you make it stop asking for a password on suspend? (This included, how to make it suspend from a single click to the power button) How do you had wallpapers to the wallpaper box?
The first one used to be doable from option settings in gnome, now I had to (install and) run dconf (what was wrong with gconf?) and search for 3 separates keys to change this setting, which btw can be configured froma single dialog in Windows XP.
So yeah, Windows offers better options than Gnome now.
To the second question, about managing wallpapers. It's just impossible now. The "Wallpapers" file list is fixed on a system directory, the other option "Pictures" is fixed on a user option.
Also the file view is tiny and there is a huge cartoon monitor display in the dialog, why? Gnome 2 had a wonderful wallpaper selector that let you independently configure the display settings of individual wallpapers and used bigger thumbnails, what was improved?
I feel bad about only providing 2 examples, there is A LOT of stuff wrong there that is objectively worse than Gnome 2.
And about Shell, there are a few good things about it but it's largely a flawed concept, I see potential but man it is FAR from even just ok.
I'm sure your xenophobic neonazi ass won't care but please stop calling my country a shit-hole. Yes Mexico has problems in its backwater towns. But then again backwater towns are the stuff of legend even in the US. The big cities are still here, have always been, always be. They are for the most part safe. People go about their business as usual. In 2006 Monterrey was rated the safest city in Latin America for perspective. This last 5 years have been an uncomfortable bother, but we are far from the "civil war" situation America's media has been broadcasting.
We know what a civil war is, had we one a hundred years ago. The current situation is comparable to prohibition era Chicago. The Mafia seemed to do as they pleased but in the end got controlled by the government because they were nothing but a small group of thugs. The Zetas are larger, armed with modern guns and modern communication tools so they are more dangerous. But they aren't a threat to national stability.
We are a peaceful society, the policemen/civil ratio is smaller than in the US, their budget is as well smaller compared to other branches of government. The cartels have effectively taken over a few small towns by threatening the police with grenades and drive-by shooting (which by the way, can happen anywhere).
Yet the cartels run from the police when it responds and are shit scared about the military. What's going to happen is that Mexico will have to become a little more like the US, a little more of a police state. Cell phones will have to be taped, cameras increased, and the budget of the police department will have to increase, as is the policemen/civil ratio.
We will get out of this just like you got the Mafia problem under control.
Oh and about the century of peace that the US has gifted to the world. I'm sure the Chileans, Colombians and Hondureans will beg to disagree.
Obviously it's because they are a bunch of cowards. It has nothing to do with the fact that they could have discovered undercover moles, or because they could accidentally damaged innocents, or any of the other reasons Slashdot was hysterically opposed to they doing anything. No, it HAS to be because they are a bunch of cowards.
Anonymous: We are going to release information about corrupt politicians and officers and reveal sensitive data about your bank accounts and properties. Slashdot: NO! DON'T DO THAT! THERE WILL BE BLOODSHED! YOU ARE NOT WORST THAN TERRORISTS! Anonymous: Sigh, fine, we won't. Slashdot: HUR HUR not so tough now, are you?
With every word I become more and more disappointed at Mark.
Of course he can make his ubuntu however he wants. But trying to spin this issue is just deplorable.
No one ever said that Unity is bad because it's not cool enough. Basically, he's lying.
People complain about Unity because of specific and objective reasons. - It increases the number of clicks to get anything. - It increases mouse travel distance. - It is the sluggiest desktop of any OS. Slower than Gnome Shell and KDE. Slower than Gnome 2 + Gnome-Do or any other keyboard launcher. - It is not configurable. When Windows 7 and OS-fucking-X provide more options than a Linux desktop you know something went wrong.
These are the main reasons people complain and there are other, but they are actual, observable, objective issues. Where is this "crowd that is just too cool to use something that looks really slick" he's talking about? I'm sorry, but Shuttleworth is just full of shit. He has jumped the shark for me.
Meaning of ubuntu: "I am what I am because of all the money I made so I call the all the shots and don't care what everyone else says."
Slashdot Mirror
Where does this psychopathic idea that corporate efficiency must be maintained at all cost come from?
work without an absolute *ton* of micromanaging and audits on a constant basis. Most companies don't want that.
Companies don't want that? OH NOES we can't have that!
Of course these same companies want to monitor all of our forms of communication and behaviour to (enhance their marketing and) make sure we don't touch their oh so precious IP.But we can't have companies watching what they are doing, that would be inefficient.
That's why I propose to establish a Sortition system where a body of randomly selected jurors (obviously screened for violent crimes, mental health, etc) would be given governing power over the region the jurors are from. The State Jury might decide to elect one of the State Governor candidates as State Minister, but they will retain power to oversee and override his/her decisions, as well as the power to remove or add members to the Minister's Cabinet. The system could be established at any single level or number of levels but I can see it working from City Juries to Federal Juries replacing the President.
The same should be used for the legislative branch. There is no reason to select 2 rich guys to represent a million average people, specially when these 2 guys aren't even required to follow on their candidacy promises. A representative sample of the people who will actually live under the laws they pass is a much better choice. Heck, a Grand Jury is about 23 people strong and that's just to take a guy to trial.
And yes, the system isn't perfect. The Jury might turn out to be filled with racist, homophobic ass-holes. It might turn out to be composed entirely of ignorant creationist folk who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed. But we already elect people who are racist, homophobic, ignorant creationist people who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed.
And I'm sure blackmailing 23 people is harder than blackmailing just one.
Bullshit, future generation won't be reading it in history books, they'll be reading up to date, approved versions of history in their iDevices.
BTW, PCs make everything better. Gaming on PCs means that after finishing the game you can have fun modding or just playing mods for example.
Having a PC is a great experience that no child should be deprived of. In the future, you can bet that most innovation will come from people who run PCs.
Depressing, I wanted have a PC for a phone, now soon I'll have to settle for having a phone for a computer.
To elaborate, checkboxes in native applications for Windows, Mac, Gnome, KDE and even Java, can be toggled by clicking anywhere in the control, including the checkbox proper and its text label. The same is not true for web apps in many browsers, but it's often emulated in JS and is also common in Flash. But I'm talking about windows installers here.
When the option to install Chrome appears, opt-out of course, the checkbox control is customised so clicking the text label does nothing. The install checkbox can be toggled of course, by clicking the square checkbox proper. In windows this implicates disabling the text label as a control making it appear grayed out. So the option to opt-out is not only harder to enter than any other option in the same installer, it also looks disabled unless you pay attention to the smallest section of the control.
Even if it is good, an application that uses such dirty tricks to get installed deserves contempt.
And I've been using Firefox since it was Phoenix, before it was Firebird, and before that I used the Mozilla suite. Every time Mozilla has always provided the browser that respected my wishes.
The same is not true of Chrome, Chrome is so intrusive that even not installed it bothers me! It has tried to sneakily install several times when I deal with windows apps, always appearing somewhere between run of the mill confirmation dialogs in installers, always opt-out by default, most of the time the checkbox control HAS BEEN CUSTOMISED TO BE HARD TO UNCHECK!!
WHAT-THE-FUCK Google!? if Chrome is so good why do they fall so low to make me inadvertently install it? This, coupled with marketing pushing it fucking everywhere including super bowl ads is the real reason Chrome is getting ahead of Firefox.
Best browser my ass.
Now you are just getting silly. You must be joking, it's obvious a person can't make outrageous demands in their TOS and expect them to be fulfilled. A corporation on the other hand...
I think the real question here is why all UIDs under 2,000,000 don't do marketing for MS.
Authenticity.
Things are way past the point of pirating movies although this started that way. On the other hand they could rename themselves the privacy party with little ill effect.
I want to be an entrepreneur of Black Tech! Is it in anyway related to the work of Black Mesa? I wonder, who else parsed that phrase as Entrepreneur of Black Tech rather than Black Entrepreneur of Tech. Does it mean that I'm not racist or super racist?
And why is Black Tech Entrepreneur (or everything else in the title) title cased? (did I just answered myself?)
I don't think Unity is so much of a problem. I mean, it's awful but you can install another DE with relative ease. It is also possible to switch the window buttons to the right again, with the command line. It is also possible to replace banshee with Rhythmbox, it is also possible to remove the half-working "Indicator Applet" for the usual "Notification Area" of Gnome 2. I haven't tried it but I'm pretty much 100% sure that you can still replace Ubuntu's Software Center with Synaptic
Most things in Linux are swappable and configurable. However I think that people in general, and ubuntu users in particular, are attracted to the sense of community and reliance of using a mostly out of the box system. One of the scary things about Linux is that it's every man for himself even though the FOSS model lends itself for community projects. I think the main difference that Ubuntu brought was joining together a lot of people who wanted to be into FOSS but were scared. The free CDs (back when broadband was rare) and easier installers did help of course, but running Ubuntu was more than just using software, it was about the community.
I think, that this pretty much died the moment Mark said "Ubuntu is not a democracy!". And of course we all understood that he was correct. Ubuntu was not paid by us, it wasn't made for us, and it only was made BY us for a very limited definition of "us". But being told that directly, that your opinion didn't matter was unsettling. No matter how you dress it, the individualistic personality cult around Mark that has become Ubuntu is at odds with the original "I am what I am because of who we all are" motto of the brand. Ubuntu used to be about "us" there were lots of user made content for ubuntu, everybody wanted to be part of it. Now Ubuntu is about how awesome is Shuttleworth and how he has a revolutionary vision that mere geeks can't understand.
At this point I don't even think Shuttleworth has anyone around him to challenge him. How long ago was it that he said that the problem with Unity was about "a few users who were too cool to try something that looks really slick"? There is a single word to describe the current situation with Ubuntu: Alienating.
I tried it for 3 months before give up. It had potential but has too many problem areas. The tragedy is that the devs are absolutely uninteresed in fixing Gnome 3 because they think it's perfect like it is.
Goddamit how many times do I have to repeat it? there are actual objective problems with it (I can identify at least 16 problem areas) It's not geek elitism.
In this case, this is one of those cases where the burden of proof is on the other side. I'm talking about features that users actually use. Two good rules of thumb are:
1) Expose as much functionality as possible, let the users tune their desktops to their liking.
The OS X can be placed in any edge of the screen (except top I think), Same with the windows taskbar. And Gnome 2 panels, XFCE panels Plasma panels etc. In fact I'm pretty sure that Gnome-Shell panels supports multiple panels in any edge of the screen, because there is an extension that does just that, using the extension API. They just didn't want to offer the functionality to users.
2) Do what your competition does and improve on that. All the above mentioned desktops are different among themselves yet they all offer some of the same flexibility. Gnome-Shell/Gnome 3 doesn't, and its berated explicitly for this. At this point wondering why users complain is an insult.
Thanks for the pointing out that mayor misspelling.
The analogy is exaggerated as fuck but he's got a point. They force you to give them personally identifiable information for not much good reason. It sells game items, why does it have to know a user's real name home address, phone number etc, etc.
I liked TF2, I was willing to buy hat, actually I am interested in getting some hats. I'm even thinking about getting Portal 2 and Mass Effect. Except Valve doesn't want my money.
I have money, I'm willing to send them a money order, heck I can mail them cash, or a check. Ideally I should be able to buy a prepaid card on some 7/11 as I can do to get music from iTunes.
They don't even need to keep billing me for a continued service, there is a "Steam Wallet" now so why do they need a permanent CC number from me? And I hate Paypal, so the only option for me is a CC. Why does buying a virtual hat require paperwork?
This kind of "people hate everything" mentality is just a cop-out to ignore the very real problems with these GUIs.
My GUI dedicates mayor hotspot to Widget configuration, replaced the desktop with a Widget, and essentially tried to use widgets for everything, despite the fact that Widgets suck, they are crippled versions of mayor apps whose only purpose is being digital paper weights, which wouldn't be so bad except a decent desktop backgrounds outdoes them for me.
Gnome Shell has great promise but right now is a mass of usability blunders that fit neither desktops or tablets, and the real tragedy is that the devs are commited to their ways. At least KDE4 devs adapted folder views to restore the original functionality of the desktop*. Gnome guys revel in contradicting their current userbase.
My mayor gripes with Gnome 3 are not with Shell but the configurability of Gnome 3 itself. Do you remember that old saying about MS Office, that people only use 10% of it's features, but it's always a different 10%? Same happens with the desktop, I have had two non-power users request two perfectly reasonable changes to Gnome 3** my point is, you don't have to be a special case to want to change a setting and they are getting rid of almost all configuration.
Unity, Mostly the same, plus is really slow, this a Gnome Shell are hiding a lot of stuff from users and is perfectly reasonable stuff. One user requested help to find Solitaire game. Moving from Windows to Gnome 2, this user never had a problem finding the games section, not anymore in this new GUI.
And of course there is the problem of the icon docks being fixed to the left side. In about 15 years of desktop usage I have seen all sorts of users push the taskbar to all four sides of the monitor. This even in 1997 with Windows 95. When a modern desktop doesn't let you do what ordinary users casually did with Windows 95 YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.
* What's the problem with folder views? Well the case of folder views is tragic, they ARE more powerful than the traditional desktop methaphor but also more complex, the original desktop can be used thoughtlessly, folder views don't. But folder views are less useful than dolphin windows. So you don't really have a reason folder views ever.
** Two user requests.
1) Disable password prompts, only doable through dconf-editor which is not included in Gnome 3 packages by default. You can achieve the same in Gnome 2 through dialogs alone.
2) The appearance dialog was murdered and replaced by a cheap impostor that doesn't even let you do the simplest thing, in this case display exactly the desktop wallpapers the user wanted. In Gnome 2 she deleted most of the default wallpapers from the appearance window and added some the walls folder inside the Pictures folder. In the new dialog default walls are set in stone, the alternative is the Pictures folder with is not where she stores her walls. As a bonus adding walls to this windows makes it seem like you are moving them to the Pictures folder.
You know what would be nice? Sharing Panorama among windows, or rather having a "Global" panorama view that allowed you to move tab groups between windows (and sessions, with sync.)
I'm sorry, but Gnome 3 general UI is inferior. I dunno about the backend. Maybe it improved, or not. But the UI is a huge disappointment. Gnome 3 is so bad the best thing that could come up from it is that it could motivate more people to join Gnome just to fix it.
I'm actually amazed by the amount of stuff Gnome 3 broke, Trying to walk through it would be very hard (specially as I'm supposed to be at work). You are right, your sample is extremely small. For reference, 2 non tech savvy users I moved to ubuntu recently presented my with 2 complains
How do you make it stop asking for a password on suspend? (This included, how to make it suspend from a single click to the power button)
How do you had wallpapers to the wallpaper box?
The first one used to be doable from option settings in gnome, now I had to (install and) run dconf (what was wrong with gconf?) and search for 3 separates keys to change this setting, which btw can be configured froma single dialog in Windows XP.
So yeah, Windows offers better options than Gnome now.
To the second question, about managing wallpapers. It's just impossible now. The "Wallpapers" file list is fixed on a system directory, the other option "Pictures" is fixed on a user option.
Also the file view is tiny and there is a huge cartoon monitor display in the dialog, why? Gnome 2 had a wonderful wallpaper selector that let you independently configure the display settings of individual wallpapers and used bigger thumbnails, what was improved?
I feel bad about only providing 2 examples, there is A LOT of stuff wrong there that is objectively worse than Gnome 2.
And about Shell, there are a few good things about it but it's largely a flawed concept, I see potential but man it is FAR from even just ok.
I'm sure your xenophobic neonazi ass won't care but please stop calling my country a shit-hole. Yes Mexico has problems in its backwater towns. But then again backwater towns are the stuff of legend even in the US. The big cities are still here, have always been, always be. They are for the most part safe. People go about their business as usual. In 2006 Monterrey was rated the safest city in Latin America for perspective. This last 5 years have been an uncomfortable bother, but we are far from the "civil war" situation America's media has been broadcasting.
We know what a civil war is, had we one a hundred years ago. The current situation is comparable to prohibition era Chicago. The Mafia seemed to do as they pleased but in the end got controlled by the government because they were nothing but a small group of thugs. The Zetas are larger, armed with modern guns and modern communication tools so they are more dangerous. But they aren't a threat to national stability.
We are a peaceful society, the policemen/civil ratio is smaller than in the US, their budget is as well smaller compared to other branches of government. The cartels have effectively taken over a few small towns by threatening the police with grenades and drive-by shooting (which by the way, can happen anywhere).
Yet the cartels run from the police when it responds and are shit scared about the military. What's going to happen is that Mexico will have to become a little more like the US, a little more of a police state. Cell phones will have to be taped, cameras increased, and the budget of the police department will have to increase, as is the policemen/civil ratio.
We will get out of this just like you got the Mafia problem under control.
Oh and about the century of peace that the US has gifted to the world. I'm sure the Chileans, Colombians and Hondureans will beg to disagree.
Another one I have to direct to my post about how Mexico is not like Afghanistan: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2499980&cid=37885206 [slashdot.org].
And please do excuse my grammar.
Sigh. No it is not. But I have said this already so here's a link: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2499980&cid=37885206.
Please excuse my grammar.
Obviously it's because they are a bunch of cowards. It has nothing to do with the fact that they could have discovered undercover moles, or because they could accidentally damaged innocents, or any of the other reasons Slashdot was hysterically opposed to they doing anything. No, it HAS to be because they are a bunch of cowards.
Anonymous: We are going to release information about corrupt politicians and officers and reveal sensitive data about your bank accounts and properties.
Slashdot: NO! DON'T DO THAT! THERE WILL BE BLOODSHED! YOU ARE NOT WORST THAN TERRORISTS!
Anonymous: Sigh, fine, we won't.
Slashdot: HUR HUR not so tough now, are you?
With every word I become more and more disappointed at Mark.
Of course he can make his ubuntu however he wants. But trying to spin this issue is just deplorable.
No one ever said that Unity is bad because it's not cool enough. Basically, he's lying.
People complain about Unity because of specific and objective reasons.
- It increases the number of clicks to get anything.
- It increases mouse travel distance.
- It is the sluggiest desktop of any OS. Slower than Gnome Shell and KDE. Slower than Gnome 2 + Gnome-Do or any other keyboard launcher.
- It is not configurable. When Windows 7 and OS-fucking-X provide more options than a Linux desktop you know something went wrong.
These are the main reasons people complain and there are other, but they are actual, observable, objective issues. Where is this "crowd that is just too cool to use something that looks really slick" he's talking about? I'm sorry, but Shuttleworth is just full of shit. He has jumped the shark for me.
Meaning of ubuntu: "I am what I am because of all the money I made so I call the all the shots and don't care what everyone else says."