I'm a longtime fan of XFCE. I try all sorts of DEs from time to time on spare computers, but I reliably come back to XFCE, which is really just a fairly low-resource, stable embodiment of the classic GNOME feel. I used mainline Ubuntu for a few years until they released GNOME 3 (which I hated then and hate now) and then I switched to Xubuntu and was happy again.

I made a conscious decision a few years ago (after trying yet another distro that went tits up), I was going to stop playing around WITH linux and start playing around ON linux for computers that I needed to get actual work done on. If one wants a classic Linux feel that is fairly stable, XFCE and a Debian base is pretty good for that.

I am a little concerned about the whole Wayland situation, since the XFCE team seems to be taking a fairly anti-Wayland stance at the moment. It has forced me to manually move from Wayland back to X11 on new installs to get a relaible experience, which is not reliably straightforward and seemingly may become more problematic as time progresses.

Wayland just seems really unstable to me. I try it occasionally, but glitches, freezes or crashes quickly drive me back to X.

That's not wayland - you have some config or driver issue.

I've been using Wayland as my daily driver for a few years now. Any issues I have are from my window manager or apps and not wayland itself.

I'm genuinely wondering why everybody hates modern GNOME.

I have long been running Linux on headless systems but Windows on my daily, and only recently switched to dailying a Linux desktop. I started with Kubuntu LTS, it was easy to switch from Windows (shortcuts, UX) but it felt too "complicated" and distracting, not very good looking OOTB and had some graphical glitches here and there (w/ nvidia).

Now I'm on Fedora GNOME and I like it with its clean and modern design language. Very few extensions later and I can see myself being productive with it.

People who say “clean and modern design language” might like it? It’s very unconfigurable and impossible to adjust it to your tastes.

Gnome is quite 'opinionated' in what it chooses; if you like their choices you enjoy it; if you don't....hmm. Personally I also have some things I specifically dislike; I prefer to have a fixed 3x3 virtual desktop grid, and Gnome didn't let me do that. I generally don't like the heavy use of menus and random stuff in the title bar of windows.

I like GNOME for the most part. But I really dislike needing an extension to change the date away from US format. Extensions in general seem unstable. Every now and then GNOME just locks up and I have to kill it from a terminal session to avoid losing my work.

I think it wouldn't be the default on many distros if everybody hated it.

I think we face the prism of the internet. Since it is the default on so many distros, almost everyonr has been faced to it at some point and those who don't like it are very vocal about it. Those who have been presented Gnome 3 as their first Linux Desktop and have been liking it have had no reason to try out other desktops and will be less vocal against them.

It probably depends on how far back one started using Linux on desktop. For me that was a while ago.

xfce wayland seems to work fine/most components are ported. I started it up in wayland mode just now and it seems to work fine.

they're actively working on Wayland and very much want it to work well there? https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/wayland_roadmap

One problem is I think Xfce has no paid developers, it's all spare time.

Yeah, my worry has recently been the opposite: That at least from afar they seem onboard the same Wayland track as the other DEs just at a slower pace.

As long as Xorg is around I hope Xfce never deprecates X.

Quote from your link:

"It is not clear yet which Xfce release will target a complete Xfce Wayland transition (or if such a transition will happen at all)."

At the last few places I've worked, we've seen most users engaging with our mobile app, and so it has made sense to develop a mobile app with flutter or kotlin multiplatform (or similar) for our broad userbase and then to use good ol' backed templated HTML for administrative sites rather than an SPA. Doing backend templating with good ol forms and what not is still a pretty good way to develop normal, boring websites.

If one likens coding to carpentry, then enterprise software development at a small company is not building a beautiful carved coffee table, it's more akin to the contents of a farm workshop. I'm talking about shelves and tables and "tools" quickly made from cut-up 2 by 4s, screws, and nails. It works for the scale of a small farm. If something needs improvement, you tack it on or cut away somewhat haphazardly, and thing gets a little uglier and more cumbersome. The marker of skill is how well you can do this in a fixed, short amount of time.

If that farm manages to grow to become a "big farm", then some of those wood constructions are not going to cut it anymore (though some parts still can), and good quality expensive tools/tables will need to be bought. This might require some persuasion when talking to higher ups, because they've been used to cheap stuff up until now. And you may never get thanked for averting a disaster.

If you accept this as the nature of business, then you can move forward. Aim to minimize shit, not maximise perfection. Leave if your management can never see reason.

If the production is similar to the PT2 watches, then there will be public beta testing before watches are shipped.

Yes, no more bezel cuts off the details. What is meant is that does not have the big bezel of the original Pebble Round.

Its not a replacement for a physically seperate backup, so putting stuff in the cloud is good (though I'm sure it will get expensive, depending on how much you store).

I use SnapRAID for replication personally, because I like the flexibility it gives in terms of drives that make up the array, I like that it does not work the drives too hard, I like that I can drop drives in over time (to try and lessen coinciding failures) and I like that it works on top of a normal file/folder hierarchy on normal partitions (so I can access the files without SnapRAID should I need to). The cost is that I can lose up to the last day's worth of files (because the parity file is only updated nightly).

I made a similar program for myself, except that the data it stores and works on is the raw CSV exports from my bank. The program interprets and projects the data.

If the program fails to interpret a transaction, it fails totally and says why. Then I fix the code until another transaction breaks. I keep doing this until it works - that's the regular process.

AI upscaling can also be done during playback, to the benefit of lower file sizes, but at the cost of higher processor utilisation. So it is a trade-off.

Did you use a decent piece of DVD authoring software? Here are some options: https://www.videohelp.com/software/sections/authoring-dvd

I used the "ffmpeg" to convert the video/audio, and then I used the "dvdauthor" to make the files into the video DVD format, and then I used the "genisoimage" to make the disk image file in the DVD format.

Do youngins even know why AVI files are under 700mb? I think obsessions over quality/compression are the concern of us aging hobbyist encoders.

Unless one lives in a country where the internet is slow and/or hard drives are expensive, I think the audience does not care.