cbpowell

My impression (perhaps incorrect) was that the guy was being sarcastic.

Give MusicBee a try. https://www.getmusicbee.com/

This site is cromulent.

"People like this person"... did you even read the post? OP is nowhere near California, doesn't benefit from California's infrastructure at all.

You have heard of the tech interview process, yes? :-)

In 1994/5-ish I had a compendium of HOWTOs published in book form called "DRx. Linux", put out by Linux System Labs. It was awesome, and THE way to get Linux configured. Good memories.

Assuming you really want to know, try SharpKeys.

Agreed. And yet it's somehow ascended to being the default environment for Fedora, Ubuntu, Pop!_OS...

As an owner of a HiDPI laptop, I'm here to tell you that if you want to connect it to an external monitor, you will be disappointed in Linux. For a laptop-monitor combination in Linux, standard resolution is absolutely the way to go.

This isn't a rant. Mad, mad respect for Linux here, and longtime Linux user.

KDE only offers a single scaling factor, so you must scale the laptop and the external screens identically. That means all at 2:1, or 1.5:1, or what have you -- this means one of your screens will be scaled improperly (too fine or too large). Gnome does the same, I believe. I have heard Pop_OS can scale monitors differently but didn't try it.

That, imho, is the major boat anchor holding KDE down: the ugly defaults. If they would take a moment to apply tasteful default settings it would make a huge difference in the marketing value.

In the end, though, KDE is "just like Linux" in the philosophy of "you don't like it? change it!"

Give KDE a try. Gnome has steadily dumbed down and removed features; KDE is delightfully customizeable and very, very polished in current form.

Twenty-five-year Linux user and lover here, and heck, I got a good chuckle out of the guy's comment.

This is on Windows 10 x64. I'm interested to try again when you have a new build.

It certainly looks quite beautiful, but sadly UI interactions -- resizing, clicking around, etc. -- seem to be fairly laggy at this point. Love the look-and-feel, but I think the interactive performance is frustrating at this point.

Wikipedia has a very nice writeup on the device: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)

They stress it had no active electronics. The imagery in the article clearly shows it had some metallic innards, presumably these are passive electronics for modulating the illuminating signal.

That's all true, and I concur. Delivery confirmation is certainly the weakest link in the whole equation and may never get solved with the current SMTP protocol.

The other pieces, however, retain their merit (I hope) -- a neutral and accessible 3rd-party that can prove you sent something, when you sent it, and to know that it at least got accepted by the recipient's MX.

A good point, and I understand. I tried to anticipate this concern: there is a user preference that purges message body info after the message has been sent. The relevant confirmation data remains, but the body is wiped.