They should put a blur on the nose. Having it in focus just seems wrong and perhaps distracting from their goal of giving the brain what it expects. Heck, I just tried right now and I'm now old enough that I can't even get my nose into focus at all anymore (pretty sure I could when I was a child, lenses are getting harder to flex I guess).
The other reply says as much, but it bears repeating as what you said is so extremely incorrect. The GPL is and always has been a license that limits the rights of programmers in order to ensure the rights of users.
This is one of those, frankly, pretty rare cases where the users actually feel a limitation of the GPL (mostly because people that use Emacs has a significant overlap with programmers where the line between developer and end user is very blurry).
Yes, because non-copyleft Free licenses precisely grant this right. By contributing to that project (and licensing those changes under that license) you are saying that this is allowed.
Not many people are capable of fixing their car personally, but they do benefit from not being required to go to Toyota whenever it breaks. Nonfree software is like an appliance which you're legally forbidden from modifying without permission from the original maker.
They could always hire other programmers to do that. And there's real value in having that option, or getting software from a community that works like that, most famously the Linux distro scene.
Actually it is pretty irrelevant how many non-programmers are capable of compiling or meaningfully editing the C program. The point is that a programmer cannot (reasonably) edit to restrict you freedom.
However, after rethinking what I wrote, I should clarify that while the underlying principles are the same regarding what RMS is trying to do here (limit programmers to protect users), the GPL has nothing really to with this particular fiasco.
Yeah, happens for me too but I never noticed until now. I guess I just always thought that this was the way it was designed to look. The UI is more than a little bit jumbled/ugly.
Hey, that is an interesting idea that I have often thought about before, but have not been able to wrap my head around how this could be done. Are there any links/literature you can point to for techniques that sort of fit this bill?
I almost imagine doing something like this in a physical system is easier than at the cryptographic level, but that probably is to be expected considering my physics background. I mean, using quantum phenomena seems to be an obvious way to do it this albeit completely infeasible at this time.
I guess my question is, does using Firefox mean that you support Mozilla, much less the opinions of Mozilla's CEO? If I switch to IceWeasel, do I still support it? Is using Gecko the sin here? When did I sign on for supporting these beliefs. My wife and I don't eat at Chik-fil-a anymore due to their beliefs, but the financial support is clear there. Here I pick and chose from the things that Mozilla creates that I endorse and I never installed the bigot extension on Firefox.
This person probably deserves the ridicule, maybe he needs to step down, maybe we should all switch to IceWeasel to really show them (by the way, that would be a much more positive route to take as opposed to putting all our eggs in the webkit basket), but one of the nice things about Free Software is that you can have a reprehensible person in charge of it and there is something that you can do about it besides simply not using it.
I guess that is why this statement feels weird. It seems akin to finding out that the inventor of the hammer, all those millennia ago, had slaves, so you decide that from now on you are going to use screws and that you will try to get other people to turn their backs on hammers as well.
I just watched a video overview of the changes. It seems like you must still mouse over to reveal the menus, even with the new option to put menus in the title bar of the window instead of at the top.
I think this is a reminder that different interfaces work for different people. I think that the Unity interface, with its hidden menu bars, application menus, scroll bars, etc. is almost perfect and a clear step in the right direction (with the huge exception that it crashes frequently, hopefully this will be fixed for me in the 14.04 release). The idea that I would ever access a drop down menu by mouse is in some way ridiculous and signifies a failure of the application's user interface. Again, that is what I think and it is obvious that other people think drastically different things.
Typically via holding alt and pressing short cut keys. That is the old way to do it. Unity introduced a new way to do it where you use the alt key and a text box comes up which allows you to search the options by keyword. It could be done better in Unity, but I still like it better than searching though the hierarchy that mostly never made sense to me.
The real answer is that things like Vim and Emacs long ago came up with interfaces that don't require toolbars/menubars. They were added a long time ago, but I am amongst the people that turn them off and don't use them even though they are available. For many of us, mousing is less efficient than well tuned muscle memory.
Perhaps so. I tried Ubuntu with Unity a little while ago and didn't like it much--I'm used to minimizing to the taskbar and seeing the names of the programs. I settled on Linux Mint as it offers a clean and "classical" way of doing things.
I'll consider trying out Ubuntu again when 14.04 LTS comes out this month. Maybe I'll get used to it, who knows.
To me Unity just made sense and if not for it crashing entirely too often and incurring a performance hit due to all the eye candy, I wouldn't look further.
To me the nice thing about GNU/Linux on the desktop is that each person can have the interface they want. This has secondary benefits where if you have your interface which is significantly different from my preferred interface, it forces application developers that really care about supporting their users to develop high quality abstraction layers that support both. The same goes for software packaging, driver support, general compatibility of proprietary software, etc. So, by all means, keep using Mint, it is in my best interest if you do (and yours, and everybody elses).
This makes me hopeful for my future. I have 4GB and am in the constant cycle of "close firefox so I can start my VM, close the VM so I can start Inkscape (with a big file), close inkscape so I can start firefox, and if you want to play one of these new GNU/Linux games: _close_ _everything_".
It honestly feels like there is some kind of problem with the system swapping (or failing to swap some memory) or some memory leak that I can't quite track down. Maybe something got fixed somewhere in the last two years...
I decided to go the LTS route as well. I actually don't know when they will actually release the new version, but I assume it will be before the end of April (do they always hit their target release month?).
I will be upgrading fairly early; probably at the end of April. I have a big deadline in late April and upgrading Ubuntu will be my reward/punishment. I suppose I will listen for any disgruntled users before I make the plunge, however, and reassess if things look too problematic.
Note: this is for a work machine, but a PC, not a server or something like that.
I know that many "Linux gamers" scoff at the prospect of official support for running games under Wine... I don't. I think GOG in particular should jump at the chance to partner with the PlayOnLinux project and some the numerous other projects that allow older games (and some new games) to run via some emulation layer, engine rewrite, or reimplementation of Windows library/runtime support. Judging from what I have seen Wine do these days (which is by far the most fickle of methods above), I would not be surprised if a year of work or so could get %90+ of the GOG library running with near perfect quality on GNU/Linux systems. As a point of reference, running the recent Valve ports for GNU/Linux are consistently less stable than running under Wine (which works nearly perfectly) and that is without any kind of PlayOnLinux configuration script magic.
Note that there is no reason that I can see that this wouldn't simultaneously make the same software available for OS X and any other system that can run Wine.
> I went with Linux to avoid needing the willpower to not play games and get on with learning / working ;-)
I have never thought of that as the meaning. In fact, how does this wording apply at all to bug discovery when it seems to me discussing bug resolution, which feels like a very different thing? However, I have never read The Cathedral and the Bazaar, so I just took the meaning that made the most sense.
