Regarding that GNOME update, do GNOME developers just don't have any competence in UX design? That screencast is suggesting you need to click the activities button in the top left corner to be able to reveal a nav panel that's all the way at the bottom.
Similarly, right now, in current versions, in the file selection interface the Select button is in one corner of the window and Cancel all the way in the other.
Or the annoying unnecessary dialogue when you uncompress from an archive (no I don't want an app-blocking notification that the file extracted successfully).
> That screencast is suggesting you need to click the activities button in the top left corner to be able to reveal a nav panel that's all the way at the bottom.
That's already the default way it works, and it's perfectly insufferable. AFAIK almost everyone uses an extension or another that makes the panel a permanent or auto-hiding dock, like any other reasonable desktop OS.
I can't see any drastic change, actually. Apparently the main difference is that the panel is visible at login, instead of being hidden (therefore stumping new users that can only see an empty desktop and nothing else).
The reasoning behind the GNOME UX is described in their HIGs and is quite similar to iOS, with it's pros and cons: https://developer.gnome.org/hig/stable/. GNOME 40 is also developed openly and a lot of live coding is going on right now (see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2OhXheV-cw), so if users have UX suggestions there are many ways to contribute and get your ideas out there. You can now also try out the newest GNOME nightlies with GNOME OS, available here or through the "+" button in GNOME Boxes: https://os.gnome.org/
> "We can read this SolarWinds blog entry from 2019 [1] with amusement; it claimed that open-source software makes one's chance of downloading malicious software "much higher". That post has not aged well, but this attack could also happen with free software, which is distributed in binary form through a large number of trusted channels. Malicious code inserted into one of those supply chains could be used with devastating effect; we can only hope that the suppliers we trust are truly trustworthy."*
The side-cut at SolarWinds made me smile. I don't like the last sentence though. We should strive for more than good hope here.
Some big Python shops will move to faster languages with static types, stable package management, stable configuration management and well-defined change management.
Except deep learning, most of the exploratory machine learning and data science done with Python is later implemented in Java/Scala.
I've been exploring Swift recently and it has a bunch of advantages: interoparability with Python, statically typed, strong capabilities for defining values, automatic differentiation. There's a lot of inertia though.
The GNOME prediction doesn't seem like the others. It seems like a very minor planned change. The most significant part appears to be changing the version number drastically to adopt the trend of making version numbers meaningless. Or at least that is what I am assuming they are doing. I didn't see it specified, but changing to version 40 only seems to make sense if the plan is to regularly increment the major version. Regardless, the changes don't seem controversial at all.
I have been using GNOME 3 daily for a couple of years now. I have gotten used to it, but I still think it is genuinely bad. These minor changes don't address any of my gripes, and in one case makes things ever so slightly worse. Honestly though, I don't think these super minor changes are going to change anyone's mind about GNOME 3.
Back to version numbers, if you are going to make them purely based on date like projects such as Chromium and Firefox have done, why not make the version number a date like Ubuntu does? The major version is meaningless in the normal major version sense and mapping the version number to the release date requires a per-project formula/table.
Shame about CentOS. Never used it myself, but I know many IT-provider do use it as a base for their infrastructure. Perhaps devs can nudge them to Debian.
SolarWinds was a wakeup call but it was also a special case. I remember when I got the first demo of SolarWinds years ago and the cold sweat feeling when they drilled down all the way into individual calls to the database and thinking 'That's cool, no doubt, but that's a /lot/ of access'.
I've only installed it on dev and qa systems with scrambled, nonsense data.
“The end of CentOS could have the unintended effect of undermining the demand for ultra-stable ‘enterprise’ distributions in general.”
That seems possible. Perhaps like the UNIX of old, Solaris et al, the ultra-stable ‘enterprise’ Linux distributions will retreat to large enterprise customers?
I don't think so. We have Debian based ultra-stable distributions, namely Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS.
I'm not sure that RH/IBM is in the position of "nah, they can either pay or go home, we don't care".
This stance will not only start a slow-shift towards Debian and Canonical (Containers are portable, right?) but, will open some gap for Oracle Linux. I bet RH wouldn't like that.
[+] [-] osoba|5 years ago|reply
Similarly, right now, in current versions, in the file selection interface the Select button is in one corner of the window and Cancel all the way in the other.
Or the annoying unnecessary dialogue when you uncompress from an archive (no I don't want an app-blocking notification that the file extracted successfully).
[+] [-] wazoox|5 years ago|reply
That's already the default way it works, and it's perfectly insufferable. AFAIK almost everyone uses an extension or another that makes the panel a permanent or auto-hiding dock, like any other reasonable desktop OS.
I can't see any drastic change, actually. Apparently the main difference is that the panel is visible at login, instead of being hidden (therefore stumping new users that can only see an empty desktop and nothing else).
[+] [-] jmnicolas|5 years ago|reply
Why would they change though? There are no consequences.
[+] [-] pojntfx|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weinzierl|5 years ago|reply
The side-cut at SolarWinds made me smile. I don't like the last sentence though. We should strive for more than good hope here.
[1] https://thwack.solarwinds.com/t5/Geek-Speak-Blogs/The-Pros-a...
[+] [-] pabs3|5 years ago|reply
https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://bootstrappable.org/
[+] [-] bmarquez|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] l0b0|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viraptor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnycerberus|5 years ago|reply
I've been exploring Swift recently and it has a bunch of advantages: interoparability with Python, statically typed, strong capabilities for defining values, automatic differentiation. There's a lot of inertia though.
[+] [-] duckerude|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wil421|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] the-dude|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|5 years ago|reply
2021 will be the year Linux phones will have reliable calling and SMS.
[+] [-] mook|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rascul|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loosescrews|5 years ago|reply
I have been using GNOME 3 daily for a couple of years now. I have gotten used to it, but I still think it is genuinely bad. These minor changes don't address any of my gripes, and in one case makes things ever so slightly worse. Honestly though, I don't think these super minor changes are going to change anyone's mind about GNOME 3.
Back to version numbers, if you are going to make them purely based on date like projects such as Chromium and Firefox have done, why not make the version number a date like Ubuntu does? The major version is meaningless in the normal major version sense and mapping the version number to the release date requires a per-project formula/table.
[+] [-] raxxorrax|5 years ago|reply
Shame about CentOS. Never used it myself, but I know many IT-provider do use it as a base for their infrastructure. Perhaps devs can nudge them to Debian.
[+] [-] bayindirh|5 years ago|reply
From a management standpoint, we'd love to but, software targeting only RHEL/CentOS is a major blockage right now.
Some hardware drivers (like IB HBAs) also work more performant and reliably on RHEL/CentOS.
[+] [-] clavalle|5 years ago|reply
I've only installed it on dev and qa systems with scrambled, nonsense data.
A little common sense goes a long way.
[+] [-] WillFlux|5 years ago|reply
That seems possible. Perhaps like the UNIX of old, Solaris et al, the ultra-stable ‘enterprise’ Linux distributions will retreat to large enterprise customers?
[+] [-] bayindirh|5 years ago|reply
I'm not sure that RH/IBM is in the position of "nah, they can either pay or go home, we don't care".
This stance will not only start a slow-shift towards Debian and Canonical (Containers are portable, right?) but, will open some gap for Oracle Linux. I bet RH wouldn't like that.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hikerclimber|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]