Comment Re:Not so public disclosure (Score 1) 159
That could be a good compromise.
The sales and marketing team didn't like this. Their argument is that competitors use this against us to paint us as producers of buggy software.
The competitors very well might do that. Going with an open development process always means handing the knife to your competitors in some extent. However, in your case, you could counter the effect with your own marketing, by boasting that you are fully committed to openness and are upfront about possible problems, unlike your sleazy competitors who swipe issues under the carpet. If you otherwise make quality software, I'm sure your customers would see value in that.
Choice is good, for people who want choice. If you don't want choice, feel free to stick to Apple or Windows, both of which are happy to steer you into their corporate locked-in ecosystems.
I still feel more free under Windows and Mac, as there is more software available to allow me to express the things that I want to do with my computer. There is many kinds of freedom, see?
Anyway. One feature which really hurts Linux desktop is the package management. It works really well when you want to install things just from the distro's own walled garden repositories, but it's a real pain in the ass for third parties. Often you have to target a certain distro and even a certain version of it, and very carefully make sure that all the library dependencies and things like that match. It's hard to support something like that. This is also the reason why Valve went with the "steam-runtime" library pack, to at least try to provide some kind of predictable platform.
I wish Canonical would concentrate on making a linux for the destkop with usable UI. Every move they make towards tablets, touch pc's and phones makes Ubuntu worse for desktop users. Which are also the people contributing most to Ubuntu.
I do not see anything terribly wrong with the user experience of Unity. It is quite close to a typical Windows or Mac desktop and not a "mobile UI" like a lot of people claim.
In the virtual, 12-session "Learning to Program" course, students will discover that "technical complexity in application development tools is a myth and that everyone can do it," the statement added.
Well, I guess that avoids scaring the beginners away. But really, modern programming is often about managing hugely complex codebases with hundreds of thousands of lines of code. It's not the end of the world, and all that can be managed, but beyond writing some just-add-water toy apps, the technical complexity certainly is there.
It could be reasonably argued that anything outside of survival necessities is a toy.
Actually that's the definition of luxury.
Are you seeing a flicker or an interference pattern?
Some of the Christmas LED chains are just a string of LEDs connected serially with the ends to chain directly connected to AC voltage.
Carmack? What has he done for us lately?
Carmack is not just riding on his past fame but still actively participating in engineering.
"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry
