Cinnamon, Unity and even Mate are much more popular.
Cinnamon, Unity and even Mate are much more popular.
In comparison, It did in great measure for Ubuntu+Unity, which has now much wider acceptance than when it was released.
Gnome 3 was simply not able to revert the hate and is heading directly to irrelevance.
Or why can't be just start a foundation to teach minorities and women to code, funded by itself?
Seems like a great idea, Gnome developers do a fine job focusing on Minorities.
I don't personally mind at this point if gnome dies, they should have seen what happened to KDE 4 and take note. They should have see what happened with Windows 8 and read the writing on the wall. Even Microsoft has changed course by now while Gnome is still heading to irrelevance.
If I were in their shoes, I'd simply change course, post a public apology, announce Gnome 4 and bring back everything that users are missing. That should give them enough support to stay alive. I'm sure there is still time for them. But as I said before, I don't think they even care so let them die.
Met with many publishers and can tell you for sure that the huge success of Steam and high amount of sales of the PS4 is making them reconsider where to invest. The new trend now seems to be something called "Premium", where you basically pay upfront for a game. Something never heard of that It's going to change the world.
And how is that an improvement over giving them a medicine that beside a placebo effect of identical magnitude additionally causes direct pharmaceutical effects? Since when do these two effects clash?
Your answer makes sense, but you lack the whole picture. Homeopathy doesn't work like that.
Homeopathy is not just the "fake medicine", as most articles you read on the internet work. There is a whole theatrical performance. It works like this:
1) The "doctor" asks for a few questions about your problems, your dreams, your social life, family, etc.
2) He has a book where each of the things you mention (or the closest one) have an homeopathic ingredient listed
3) He correlates and finds an ingredient that appears the most in the issues that you mentioned. He will show it to you.
4) He will ask you to buy a medicine with that ingredient.
5) However, before leaving, he will warn you that it's possible that he might have given you something that is too strong, and will explain you that you have to dilute it a little (or do something like that, I don't remember) to mitigate the effects of an overdose.
So, the reason why it works as a placebo is because it's designed to be convincing, not because you are drinking water.
By the same logic, Astrology should be banned, as it probably affects human relationships in an even more negative way.
Clean code is useless when it doesn't perform as expected, and performant code is useless when it's more difficult to write. C++ is meant to mix both things, so by definition it will never be entirely clean or performant. It's a language that strikes the right balance for this specific purpose.
In other words, the reason for the lack of a virtual destructor is performance. This way, the class will not need for a vtable and vpointer, and will be destructed inline. Containment will make it more difficult to write and debug, you would need to replicate operators such , mehods such as size, etc.
So, I hope I could make my point of why the current choice is the right choice in that context.
Godot tries to avoid the same mistake by abstracting the graphics part as higher level, so changes in hardware trends don't affect the rest of the engine as much.
1- It generates huge debugging symbols.
2- It generates a lot of code because most compilers inline it by default.
3- It's so complex that compile time increases by a few times.
4- Errors are huge and uncomprehensible.
5- Support for custom allocators is limited to alloc/dealloc functions.
6- Support across compilers is not as good (specially console compilers).
7- Lack of support for COW with atomic ops for thread safety
Some of these probably improved significantly since the time work on the engine started, but I'm sure most issues still stand.
As for why not std::string or std::wstring, have you actually used those? They suck, the amount of operations you can do is really little, check core/ustring.h in Godot to std::string and you'll easily see why everyone rewrites the string class.
With more than half a million lines of code, Godot is one of the most complex Open Source game engines at the moment, and one of the largest commitments to open source software in recent years. It allows developers to make games under Linux (and other unix variants), Windows and OSX."
Link to Original Source
Why on earth would you want to mix your professionally sounding audio with every freaking app that goes "ding" or "boing" or "you've got mail"?
Because you might want to take a break and watch a youtube video your friend sent you, or listen to reference material while you work, etc? You can do that in Windows and OSX, and DAWs take a long time to start up due to the huge amount of memory they use so it's not convenient to close it and start it again for that simple task.
1) While the Linux kernel is perfectly capable of low latency, even on the shittiest of hardware, it does not provide the concept of primary and secondary buffers. If you want to use pro audio, you want to be able to mix the low latency, high sampling rate stream together with the regular OS/Desktop audio. Windows and OSX do this by setting the hardware for the realtime client, then also mixing the secondary audio over it, which comes from userland (or already mixed in userland). As a result, when using realtime audio in Linux, desktop audio dies or is hacked to route pulseaudio to jack and other stuff that does not really work well.
2) It's impossible to write plugins similar to VST, because of the different way tookits connect to X11 (they won't share the connection). You can't mix and match toolkits so a host DAW will use different plugns. The only way is to use separate processes, but that makes programming complexity much higher and very few people bothered. Wayland seemed like it could fix this in the future, but other distros such as Ubuntu refuse to use it, so it doesn't seem good.
3) Good programmers are not necesarily good composers. This is something that is much more important than it seems. Commercial companies are forced to listen to their users, but OSS developers mostly care about doing something good enough for themselves. Given the chance that a good programmer is a good producer/composer is super slim for the practical world, most audio software kind of sucks and feels incomplete. Ardour took more than a decade to implement MIDI and it still is horrible, because the main developers care more about live session recording. If they really had to use it everyday to make professional music, it wouldn't be as bare bones as it is now. At the same time, stuff that looks like a good idea (jack daemon) are terrible in practice because making music with a bunch of applications open is akin or worse to a live set of devices with cables connected.
4) Finally, the biggest problem of Linux is that, unlike other software such as 3D or imaging, there is plenty of cheap and good Windows/OSX audio alternatives, so even if OSS software were to run properly on Windows/Mac, the incentive is still slow. It's not like Blender or Gimp, that it's commercial counterparts are in the thousands $.