Anecdotal, but I have had bad experiences using Ubuntu. I know it’s not a bad distro, and that it contributes a lot (especially historically), but it’s the other distros that take their contributions and add to it that I find worth using or recommending, or sometimes an unrelated distro. It’s the sort of thing I might give money to, but I’ll never want to use directly.

I think this is what people mean when they say it’s bad - that distros that take what Ubuntu made and add their own touch seem more user friendly.

I know most call it AEST, but there are some who call it EST.

I hear timezone names can also be a slight issue at times, some Australians call the eastern time zone EST. Leap years aren’t so bad at times either though. Kind of agree with the rest of it, much of the complexity is from historical dates.

I’d argue not every job will always be 9-5, so you still get people having to explain working hours with non-UTC timezones anyway, whereas all timezone conversions are eliminated if everyone uses UTC.

“OpenBSD made a secure fork of X?” Depends on what you consider secure I guess. X has some fundamental design issues.

One particularly memorable one is that lock screens in X are run on top of your userspace. If they crash, you get to use your computer again. No matter how many patches are applied to X lock screens, a new bug appears every few years that has to be patched. It fails insecurely, and as such will always be insecure as long as the lock screen could feasibly crash.

If your answer is “lock screens don’t matter,” security is not a top priority for you, and that’s okay. There are other reasons you may wish to use X. Please understand however that some people may find it important, and may choose to use Wayland as a result.

I can’t remember which, but some applications just show as the xorg icon when running under xorg.

I think this is a false dichotomy and an over-simplistic view of the game industry. Remember, there are far more indie games than AAA, so of course they’re going to earn less, there are more to choose from. Plus, if an indie game does too well, it often stops being indie. Most of the money for AAA games is from the same few people paying thousands of dollars in many small purchases too.

Anecdotally, most people’s favourite games are, or at least started off as indie games. However, most people’s least favourite are going to be indie as well. I think the thing with indie games is that they vary a lot, often exploring things that many publishers simply aren’t willing to. This allows them to find and fill a niche perfectly that a publisher can never fill. The main thing is that people see this and start making their own indie games, leading to market saturation pretty quickly.

Plus, the vast majority of people still don’t have 4K monitors. It may be the future, but you seem to think that’s where we are now when we just aren’t.

I quite like many games with “poor” graphics. Perhaps not exclusively, but you’re seriously missing out if you only go for realistic-looking or detailed games. Give a few of those indie games a try, you might be surprised.

Edit: Oh, and terminal games are cool! Usually not very performant though.

They’ve been working on GIMP 3.0 for over a decade, which has non-destructive editing, as well as an upgrade to the UI toolkit (although actual UI changes are still to-do). They don’t want it to be this way, development has just been insanely slow. Mostly due to lack of developers and donations, although that has been changing recently.

They planned to have GIMP 3.0 out by May, but with so many delays it might be a few months yet.

I think that’s more what the people excited about AI think it it is, many of the people who fear it don’t really fear its intelligence as much as how it’s abused. Personally, I don’t even like the machine learning algorithms in social media, despite them being a thing for a long time now.

I thought some Wayland compositors already supported 10 bit per channel colour?

I think it should be clarified that GIMP’s structure isn’t able to make use of donations to GIMP as a single entity. Edit: or at least wasn’t, I hear they can now.

I agree that Krita is more promising though, I switched to Krita years ago and have never looked back.

From what I understand, GIMP fell behind because it refused corporate donations while Krita accepted them. This lead to GIMP reducing in scope as the 1-3 part-time* developers (at least when I last really looked into it) realised they’d never catch up, leading to people donating less as they weren’t satisfied with GIMP’s simultaneous underpromising and underdelivering. Meanwhile Krita managed to receive enough money to hire a team of full time developers for several years, leading to better software, to more donations. It’s like the poverty trap, but with software.

• Edit: part-time isn’t the right word, more like casual

Imagines is probably a better word, not all fiction is fantasy.