True, but what about mid-complexity applications, such as office productivity or file management? I'm not convinced that modern (and Modern) UIs really make the "getting to know how to use it" part any faster for them. Why, when I use Office, I often find myself asking the web search engine from a Microsoft competitor about where the designers have hidden some function. For instance, in Access 2007 they hid document-relative actions amid the program-relative options inside what old-schoolers would call a "menu hierarchy" which was visually attached to a pulsating globe in a corner of the screen. In Windows 8, they went a step further and hid fundamental actions, such as "turn off the pc", or "put away everything that I'm working on and switch to the last Modern-style application that I have used", behind esoteric mouse gestures that give the user no visual clue about how to trigger them before he has actually performed them, and very little clue about what's going on aftern he's performed them (possibly by mistake).

Of course, it's also possible that I'm getting old.

In fact, it means "don't use GTK3 outside of GNOME", which is what I said.

No? From the message:

at this point in time I'd advocate against Mozilla, Libreoffice, XFCE or LXDE to switch to GTK 3. They value their independence from GNOME too much.

My comment didn't contain any statement of value about GTK3 or GNOME, so I can't understand the rest of your message about being dickish, lazy, Enlightenment looking bad, me forcing other people to solve my problems, and so on. Perhaps you're talking in general about the attitude you perceive here on slashdot towards GNOME 3, but then if you do that in reply to a message of mine, you make it look like I said any of the stuff you're talking about. Which is not the case.

Which is why at this point in time I'd advocate against Mozilla, Libreoffice, XFCE or LXDE to switch to GTK 3. They value their independence from GNOME too much.

What's the difference between "I advocate against projects that value their independence from GNOME to use GTK 3" and "I don't want you to use GTK 3 outside of GNOME"?

GNOME doesn't want you to use GTK+ any more for non-GNOME development.

https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

In Soviet Russia, trampling workers' rights gets you a monument, having a gay friend (?) gets it to be demolished.

It's not enough to download some files: in order to be susceptible to the attack, those devices should download stuff as root in recursive mode from a compromised ftp server. I honestly can't see that happening in reality.

(But then again I wouldn't believe that home routers could be sold with an internet-facing backdoor open by default in their stock firmware, until that happened.)

Hey, western engines don't blow up! They undergo rapid unscheduled disassembly.

As a user of autoconfed packages, I find autoconf superior to cmake. Packages built with autoconf have standardized mechanisms for uninstallation (a cmake package may generate an install-manifest file, an uninstall target, or none of the two), to specify where to put documentation, for cross-compilation, and to fine-tune the build and the installation. With cmake, I can't even tell the package where to install libraries (most packages will allow you to do it, but each package has a different standard about the way to be told); with autoconf, I can even specify a sed to be run on the name of the installed binaries (useful if different packages provide different implementations of the same binary) and still have the installed package work. Also, with cmake packages building both static and dynamic libraries at the same time is usually impossible.

Moreover, modern autoconf scripts are (relatively) easy to debug and patch when they don't work; cmake scripts are more scattered and they're written in an obscure mainframish language.

That said, I imagine that using autoconf on non-posix systems might be less funny.