Most multi-monitor users I've seen don't sit 6 feet from their cluster of monitors to allow them simultaneous (non-peripheral) viewing of multiple monitors. On the other hand, I can switch between two virtual desktops in a fraction of a second.

The only time a second monitor, IMHO, is an improvement over a virtual desktop is when you can use your peripheral vision to monitor some live

Of course, most Windows users (even developers) are so glued to their mice, that switching desktops would be a time-consuming issue.

As for the comparison to "tabbing between windows", I find that ridiculous. Perhaps inflammatory (apologies...), but I really do. It presupposes a complete "Microsoft Windows" view of the world, where every application runs in exactly one window and all windows are inherently either maximized are minimized. It's not uncommon to see Linux developers have a multitude of windows open and visible at the same time.

You can't easily "tab between" groups of specifically positioned and sized windows. (Note, I said *easily*).

My opinion is this is largely a consequence of how the Maximize functionality works / has worked.

My money is on the complete lack of virtual desktops on Microsoft's platform.

Yes, there are third party apps that add the capability, but I don't know a single Windows developer who uses them. On the other hand, I don't know a single Linux developer who DOESN'T use them... (now watch Slashdot provide countless counter examples).

Developing on a system without virtual desktops *or* a second (at least) monitor is a huge pain in the ass.

Then it's a good thing Wayland can host X. It would require some (reportedly) minor adjustments to X, but it would be transparent to individual applications.

Wayland is a display server, like X. Why wouldn't it be possible to forward Wayland over SSH?

It's ironic that Grub returns nothing but sites that want to sell me jerseys when I search for an NFL player, whereas the top Google links are always the player profile pages from NFL.com and other major sports sites, and the player's Wikipedia entry. Add to that the easy access to "news" for the player and there's little question which search engine is the more useful.

Google works because their ranking system works. If it stopped working well, they would lose market share very quickly.