Yeah, a contributing factor for sure. Just like whatever company produced the pencils used by Einstein was a contributing factor to the theory of relativity. Not a sole factor. No, not a sole factor but a factor. Yes

you’re attributing a state of fact to a cause that has nothing to do with it. I’m not nitpicking, i’m pointing out a fallacy: the effect doesn’t prove the cause, it only works the other way around

what relevance would that have over the time span discussed here?

And no, whatever you read about agile, the development speed comes down to people not to procedure. That’s true even if we disregard the fact that very few companies claiming to use agile actually understand what agile is

The project management approach does not dictate the feature priority. The business dictates the priority. Project management is just a tool

I disagree, this has nothing to do with software development models, It’s all about purpose. If your website must start making money quickly, then you can be sure it will have a payment model regardless of how things are developed. Social media business (and others) translated user growth into investment models: you give us this much money at this “completely made up valuation” and we’ll use it to grow our user-base by this much.

This was possible because interest rates have been very low for the most of the 2010s. This meant that investors would be losing money if they held on to it so they just threw it at “the new tech” hoping something would stick. In the past few years, inflation has driven the interest rates very high and it means that money is not cheap anymore so all these businesses now have to transition to a money making model. That’s all.

haven’t all UI changes in most product made things worse lately? The “2010s generation” of software solutions has been growing up on investment rather than profit for a long time and we’ve experienced a weird decade in which getting users was more important than getting money from them. Now we’re seeing the other side in which squeezing profit form each user is more important than retention. All solutions are getting crappier because they not meant evolved for their intended purpose anymore.

i’m out of the loop on this one, is this a reference to something? Or just an “original” take on what it means to be a woman?

constant annoyance of people complaining about a free product

Yes, this is the attitude right here. This is the one that people complain about. People are not “complaining”, people are reporting issues. And it’s not free software if it’s being gatekept by entitled assholes

I know perfectly well what upgrading the shell means. You are missing the point entirely. This dev community does not accept bug reports on older versions even if they’re in use by a lot of people and then when they’re reported on the latest version and they’re acknowledged, they tell the reporter to piss off.

it’s not that the issue wasn’t fixed that got me to give up on Gnome, it’s the fact that a known issue was closed with no resolution even after I gave a patch as a workaround. This is why I am done with them.

can you explain how testing this on a VM would have helped me with my issue on my day to day computer? Let’s say that the problem was solved in the latest release, what good would a VM do? Maybe i didn’t make myself clear, the message was not an attempt at debugging the situation. That dev just told me that the team is not interested in bugs reported on older versions and I should just upgrade.

my last interaction with that community, the one which broke the proverbial camel’s back was when i reported a bug in the notifications display. Basically, if a new notification arrived while the previous one was displayed, it would get queued but not displayed. When a new notification appeared after that, the queued one would be displayed instead of the new one. After this, the notifications would become out of sync. A notification from one hour ago would show up instead of the current notification which would not be displayed until a new one would appear.

To this I got the following responses:

1. To upgrade to the latest version (rather than the one shipped with my distribution) - huge waste of time and caused instability in my system and didn’t solve the issue. (Oh, and when I said that my system is unstable, the dev told me i should have used a “test computer”, obviously)

2. Then another person described how the thing is implemented and how this might happen with no solution offered. When I asked if this could be changed to always show the latest notification at least, that person told me that it wouldn’t make sense to not display notifications in order and closed the bug report as not a bug.

And that was it. One person decided that it makes more sense to get a display of a stale message to which i probably replied to more than an hour ago instead of a display of a message that my cpu is overheating right now . The issue is closed.

I’m sorry but this is bullshit. Very few people complain about the speed with which things get fixed. I think that everyone understands that things take a while given the nature of the project. But the attitude is still annoying to the point people are turned away from the project entirely by those devs. They gatekeep broken functionality and refuse to help users. It has nothing to do with pay. If it did, they wouldn’t do those things either, they’d just step away.

Any developer with such an attitude should step away. And by the way, doctors do volunteer work too and they would absolutely be held responsible for bad medical advice regardless if the work was paid or not

if we’re being fair, it did involve a lot of that historically. Package managers weren’t always around and even after they became established, there was still a lot of fiddling with bad drivers and various distributions had policies which didn’t allow certain software with certain licenses to be setup through their package repository and so on and so forth. Sure nowadays this is less of an issue, but then windows security is also much better than it used to be. People here seem to want to compare the latest Ubuntu to windows 98

if you designed the system so that the extension is part of the functionality, then you have to hide it away so that your users don’t accidentally delete or modify the extension thus rendering their files useless (within said system)

it’s a fundamental shell design flaw: one should never allow users to modify data critical to functionality. And it’s not something that can be changed because almost all applications depend on this

Concept albums are meant to be listened in their entirety so it makes sense. Pink Floyd is a band notorious for concept albums, but they’re not the only ones. If you’re an Arctic Monkeys fan, you’ll probably not listen to just one song from Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino. In spotify which shows the number of listens per song, it shows that all songs on Tranquility Base have the same number of listens (some more than others, but not by an order of magnitude).

I guess OP was mostly talking about regular albums which are mostly just collections of disjoint songs. It’s probably happening less now that people consume music one song at a time, but there are numerous examples of artists releasing one good song and then a bunch of filling around it and pass it as an album. If you were playing a CD (or a cassette if you’re old enough), chances are you’d listen to the rest of the album anyway and eventually like it through repetition. For example, with spotify again, if I’m looking at Cowboy Carter by Beyonce, “Texas Hold’em” has 340 million listens and all the rest are below 20 thousands.

There aren’t any borders in the Schengen area which is different to the EU.

Not quiz as such. More like “any questions so far?” at the end of each slide, but will not give you time to ask anything “no? Ok, moving on”

That’s not a Linux thing. It’s just whatever desktop shell you chose to use and various shells behave in various ways. The reason this might be safer in most Linux distros is that you’re discouraged from executing things under a privileged user which means that malware can’t make significant changest to your system easily. If you do the same in windows, you’d be just as safe.

Is this some AI generated answer? I refuse to think a person can talk like that.

The “obviously” comes from the article which states that Microsoft allows uninstallilng software which obviously means they always could do that. They just didn’t want to allow users to do it.

That’s the point. Obviously you can uninstall any windows application too, it’s just that Microsoft doesn’t want you to.