Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:No matter, GNOME, no thank you (Score 1) 77

but at some point it will always be impossible to evolve without messing up at least some of the workflow and without making some people get used to different paradigms

Why is "evolving" necessary? Some of us want tools, not eye sores^w candy.

There's no inherent advantage in having a desktop that looks like Windows, a Mac, or a cell phone.

Comment Re:No matter, GNOME, no thank you (Score 2) 77

I ditched GNOME for MATE about two weeks ago. A few bugs (e.g., screensaver timer is off), but also fixes things that have been broken in GNOME for years (single left-click on window list to pop something up, vs. right click and pick a menu option).

Restoring my customizations was surprisingly easy - easier than restoring them after the last few GNOME upgrades.

No regrets whatsoever.

Comment Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? (Score 1) 266

Merely following the news makes it obvious that a lot of people in law enforcement (and "national security") think getting their man trumps conforming to the constitution.
I suppose a lot of citizens ("law and order types") think the same way, but that's not how it's supposed to work. A country's Constitution is its rule book.

Comment Re:What about all the new jobs in the "digital" ag (Score 1) 674

This guy is a moron.

He's completely ignoring all the new jobs in the last 10-15 years that have been created over the years:

Also, he ignores the role of the philosophy that a corporation's first and only concern is maximizing shareholder value in battering the middle class with downsizing, offshoring, and squeezing every penny from the few remaining employees, and the role of the utterly corrupt banking and real estate businesses in causing the financial meltdown.

But then people who write editorials for the WSJ aren't going to call a spade a spade if it reflects poorly on unbridled capitalism.

Comment Re:More accurate headline (Score 2) 510

These has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown GMO anything to be unhealthy.

Just curious, who is doing these studies and not funded by Monsanto?

Studies cost a lot of money, and usually no one but the manufacturer is willing to shell out for them. Which is why we spent decades being told that cigarettes aren't bad for you (nay, they're actually good for you!), and still get medicines that aren't pulled off the market until years after the manufacturer-funded studies show that they are harmful.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...