Stupid Humans
How much of a wit does it take to understand a lever? I have all too often seen gangs of brawny men struggling to move some object and gaining injuries in the process. Yet I, far less brawny, move the same objects with ease of leverage. Guess I'm not a team player.
"Emacs component"
What a bad idea! Making emacs (or vi) into a component is the computer science equivalent of forming a cargo cult. (Well, maybe a satanic cult for vi.) The important aspect of emacs is that it is programmable; that is what needs to be replicated in a modern UI. (It surely has been, somewhere.)
Go
I really suck at Go. The amazing thing is that I can see character flaws in my gaming flaws. I let conflicts escalate; not unlike some world leaders. In a recent game I let one of my groups which was one stone away from atari run across the board. I was able to save the group, but I lost much territory and so the game. Another flaw is my willingness to secure a position of strength without influence. I'm too content sitting on my island to be an imperialist.
"GNOME/KDE is not a window manager"
This was repeated so often some years ago. I wonder whether anybody asked, "Why not?"
If you're going to use one of these environments, why not have panel/dock/taskbar provided by the WM? When you do there's little need for chatty WM protocols, and showing and hiding the thing (e.g., for fullscreen modes) is simpler. So why are these separate processes? (Or should that be "applications"?) Next, why is the file manager separate? (Maybe remote use?) These three things - WM, dock, FM - are basic for any desktop environment today.
Reliability? I doubt it. Should any one of these crash, the typical user will most probably be lost. Rather than having him flit about waiting for some magical restoration (by the session manager - yet another process), it may be better for the whole system to come down. That Windows is restored by cycling power is good for its users; they do not want to deal with fixing someone else's mistakes. Neither do I.
That other canned ham
One of these days I need to figure out which mailing list habit annoys me the most. Which is it:
- quoting nothing so no context is available, or
- quoting everything before so one wonders if there's anything new, or
- quoting everything after so one wonders why waste space, or
- quoting everything with a one-line reply in the middle so it's invisble?
Then, when I have done this, I will be able to say for the other cases, "At least he didn't . . . "