What I hate about Gnome is that it's almost perfect but its paradigm includes huge huge window borders.
Oh well, on the plus side there's an actually perfect desktop out there already: i3. And sway potentially. I do miss Gnome's full-assedness (attention to detail and their strong opinions/focus) sometimes.
Currently probably because M1 is absurdly better than the competition. They will certainly draw users away from Linux unless either this porting effort gets done, or unless other ARM options that support Linux better become available.
Rectangle is pretty great, thanks for that pointer. I've been trying all kinds of tiling wms on MacOS, but they just don't quite work in this world -- since they're unable to do everything that's needed. But Rectangle allows me to make the decisions, which works a bit better here.
What's still missing with this setup is a shortcut for easily moving a window to another desktop. Any clues how to achieve that?
And finally there's the irritating MacOS UX "feature", that selecting an application with cmd-tab doesn't switch to the desktop where it is, or doesn't unminimize it if it's minimized.
I don't think anyone should downvote expressing an opinion, at least when it's done without toxicity like you did. Ok, that "delusion" remark was a bit toxic. But anyway.
Here's my opinion: i3 is vastly superior to anything macos is offering in the desktop space in terms of usability. Sure, wrestling with minutae like proper font rendering and DPI settings is a huge pain, but a) some distros do those things for you and b) if you're not a serial distro hopper / manic reinstaller, those things don't have to be done too often.
I genuinely think it's an UX upgrade. And I've been using macs almost exclusively for 5 years now.
The bad things of Linux are still bad: subsystems get replaced all the time (often with just minimal technical justification), and the replacements are usually (if you compare them to Macs) alpha quality for a long time. And the integration is lacking. Notable contemporary examples: oss/alsa/pulseaudio/jack/pipewire and x11/wayland. This is something I truly don't miss when using macs. Almost everything else I do miss.
This might have been true in the past when corporations were more limited. However, as corporations grow, their power is becoming ad hoc equivalent to those of the state.
You will have even less consent to being governed when you're governed by corporation heads, who will be more and more like lords and barons from the middle ages.
Well, yes, sort of. Threatening to murder a public figure (or worse, murdering) is terrorism in the way that it discourages others to become public figures. Which in turn gnaws on a certain foundation of democracy, which is that everyone should be able to hold public office without fear of violence.
If we don't protect that foundation, only the people whose supporters are doing the threatening will eventually hold public office.
>Without it the same type checks still have to be done, but this time by humans.
Nah, they don't have to be done. Most programmers using dynamic languages just don't think about types until they need to be thought. That implies there's more resources/energy available to think about the actual problem, which often has almost nothing to do with types. Then if you're using something like Common Lisp/SBCL, you can define the types afterwards where they are most critical.
Doing all this well in a dynamic language requires more discipline obviously, since you cannot even release software in a stricter static language if it fails to pass the type checking phase. But it is faster, sometimes significantly faster. Sometimes it may even happen that the coder could not have finished the task in a stricter language, which would imply that the the dynamic language was infinitely faster.
Are we really against preventing serious crimes against public figures? Is that what freedom and privacy is about?
I mean I get the possibility of slippery slope, and I get what protonmail is saying about their service, but come on. This is a death threat on a public figure and his family. Nobody should be protected to do that. Categorical imperative y'all?