I think you’re missing the point of the -porn suffix. Its not supposed to convey “the study of” or “images of”. Its meant to convey that viewing it is satisfying in some primitive/emotional/aesthetic way. NaturePorn isn’t just “pictures of nature”, it’s “pictures of nature that suck me in and make me want to see more”. In that regard, the comparison to sex is intentional.
I love that they keep saying stuff like “introducing Ubuntu to the Christian community”, as if they couldn’t already use it.
Not having a dock is one of my favorite things about gnome. I actually use an extension to hide the top bar too. There’s just something so satisfying about having 100% usable space on screen. I get all the info back in the win-key overlay, so I don’t really need that stuff on screen at all times.
" dumb it down"? Isn’t the mobile app (s) displaying the same posts as the website(s)?
But the term was created to legitimize the material.
Do you have a source for that? I can’t find anything that states the origin of the term itself is seedy. Besides, it’s just a plain description: it’s pornography with children in it.
The only sources I can find that support CSAM over CP claim that CP somehow implies consent. But I’m saying that simply isn’t the case. I am not saying that words arent powerful. I am not saying that no words ever need to be changed. I am saying that these words don’t need to be changed.
Based on those same sources, I’d speculate that this outrage is just misplaced anger. They almost immediately start talking about how bad sexual abuse is, which is not really relevant to whether it should be called CP or CSAM. Just because CP is bad, does not mean the term CP is bad.
That is needlessly pedantic. I have never heard of anyone using the word pornography to imply legality or moral acceptability. There is no such thing as “legitimate” CP, so there is no need to specify that it’s not ok every time it is mentioned. No one in their right mind would presume he’s some kind of CP supporting monster for failing to do so.
What? Nautilus (ubuntu default file browser) finds drives wherever they are mounted and lists as their own location, as if it was windows. That includes the default mount point. Even if it wasn’t detected, it can still get to the mount point by browsing through the file system normally.
Installing software can be done via a software manager (included in ubuntu and most other distros). Software not in the manager is usually distributed as a portable binary (also common on windows) or an app image (even easier to use than an installer). Once installed, that software is the same as on windows.
Besides basic file manipulation, installing/running software, and web browsing, what else does the average user even do? All of it can be done on linux, with or without CLI.
I use gnome 4 because it is the most “out of the way” DE. I disable the dock and use an extension to hide the top bar, so there is literally nothing on my screen but the program(s) I’m using. I haven’t found another DE that let’s me do that (hiding the dock/taskbar doesnt count, cause it still comes up when you get the mouse too close which is super annoying).
I also like the window presenter thing, which I first started using with KDE. I prefer gnome’s implementation though, since it is the same key to bring up the window selector and the app launcher. I often want to switch to a window only to find it isn’t open, or I want to open a program that already is open but hidden behind other windows, so it makes sense to put them together. I also can’t be bothered to learn more than one hotkey. I’ve tried to obtain this overall behavior in KDE, but I found it was a whole lot of configuration just to get what gnome already does, so I might as well just use gnome.
I found the “touchscreen-y” interface bothersome at first, but I’ve gotten used to it. The biggest issue is not showing a large number of app entries efficiently, but it’s pretty trivial to remove the entries you don’t actually need with alacarte.
Gnome’s default apps (like the newish gnome text editor) are getting too simplistic for my preference, but again it’s super easy to swap them out.
Book burnings are bad when they are used to prevent the free sharing of information or ideas. It is a form of censorship. Burning the Quran is not censorship, because this is not an attempt to ban the Quran or prevent anyone from reading it. Its an entirely symbolic gesture. Its comparable to burning the American flag, which I’m guessing you’re not so against.