I use a 28" 4k monitor with ubuntu 14.04 and it works great(with an nvidia card). One issue is that in gnome 3 the UI scaling cannot be set per monitor so that if you are using a mix of HD and 4K it can become a bit annoying. If you're wanting multiple monitors I recommend upgrading all of them(assuming your graphics card has enough grunt).
My biggest frustration with Linux development is how poor it has made windows development env look in comparison. Every time I have to fire up a windows VM to do some work for some of our clients that still use MS tech I hate it. Before using Linux as a dev environment I honestly thought windows and the associated dev tools were really good. Now using anything else seems like a huge chore.
Try the Asus Zenbook UX305, everything works out of the box with Ubuntu and it's as thin as a Macbook Air but more powerful and with a ridiculously high res screen.
A big issue for me is the completely unnecessary size of most of the products they provide. Why are SQL Server, Visual Studio and Windows itself so big? It takes almost no time at all to provision a dev environment on Linux but hours on Windows for the same result. A concerted effort to slim down their tools and OS is needed IMHO.
Try UbuntuGnome 14.04 LTS, I use it daily and can highly recommend it. I've tried a ton of different OS and UI and always keep coming back to UbuntuGnome
Not to be overly negative but if I had to guess the extensions system will be hobbled and sub-par. This is just based on my years of experience with IE and other MS products.
If it had an extension that could give me the hours of my life back that I have spent trying to support their awful browsers that would be great though.
Unfortunately yes, but one of our enterprise clients has just mandated Chrome only for all their internal apps(their new head of IT really gets it). Another one of our enterprise clients has just allowed all users to run Chrome and/or FF alongside IE. So while it is still around it is losing ground IMHO.
The consumer market is a totally different game though, IE is being crushed in that market. I have made several consumer facing apps in recent years that do not support IE at all, users can still log in but a warning notice is shown informing them it is not tested in IE and they need to upgrade to a "standards compliant browser".
> one of our enterprise clients has just mandated Chrome only for all their internal apps(their new head of IT really gets it).
I'm sorry but no, he doesn't get it. Mandating a browser is just another stupid policy - either write web apps or don't but claiming to get it when it's just another lock in is a silly move.
fair point, when I say "really gets it" I mean this is a huge step forward in comparison to the vast majority of enterprise clients that mandate IE. He knows IE is broken and the extra money spent on supporting old versions of IE is better spent somewhere else.
In enterprise environments where most users don't even have admin rights on their machines you need to pick at least one browser that you know will be deployed across all machines in the entire organisation. They chose Chrome(the right choice IMHO). Especially given that people are moving away from using windows choosing something cross platform is a must.
Although it's slightly different as I am Australian so it is a different legal system I have strongly believed for a long time that lying for personal gain should be a crime. If it could be proven that a politician, organisation or individual deliberately misrepresented facts for personal gain then this should definitely be considered a crime.
The ability to deliberately lie in order to influence the outcome of important events free of any consequence will always favour those with the loudest voices and the most media influence. In other words if you are the loudest why not lie about everything if there is no possible consequence?
While it could be difficult to prove that someone is lying or that something is untrue in "moral" issues there are many cases where there is empirical data or documentation proving truth, falsehood or knowledge and these are times where deliberate deception could be proven.
Probably widening the debate somewhat and a separate issue but I also feel that selective ignorance should also be punished. For example if you commission 10 reports into something and 9 of them tell you what you don't want to hear and one of them does tell you what you want to hear then you are deliberately ignoring 90% of the expert advice to prop up your point of view. IMHO this is almost as bad.
I agree with the sentiment but I see it as being unworkable. Do you arrest the talking heads for reading the prompter about how earlier someone asked if Obama had a US birth certificate(Technically true)? Do you arrest the evangelical christian for telling his congregation that evolution isn't real and you can show he sat through a class on biology? Do you arrest Jenny McCarthy for publicizing that vaccines cause autism (Spreading terribly harmful misinformation for "the right" reasons)?
Having said that I wouldn't mind a popularizing of using appropriate contracting or oath taking for specific statements to ensure truth and factual knowledge. Much as we do with oaths in court and perjury. I could see that system being workable (though in theory I guess that is what oaths of office entail so it might only be workable due to novelty).
News organisations are already obligated to print retractions when they make mistakes and asking a questions(although it is often used by the media as weasel words) is different to deliberately misleading someone.
In regards to the other two evangelical preachers should probably need to specify in advance that there is significant empirical evidence in direct contradiction to their statements before making them publicly.
In the case of the vaccination debate this should definitely be a crime, there is significant empirical evidence to prove that what anti-vaccination campaigners say is false. There is some precedent for this regarding the claims of chiropractors in the US which went to trial and found that they were lying about the efficacy of their treatments. (Also on a side note why would anyone listen to a completely unqualified "celebrity" over the opinions of someone with a PHD in virology or epidemiology. Most of the anti-vaccination campaigners are not adequately qualified to have an opinion on the matter anyway).
Also I feel that it's whether it is for personal gain is a big factor, if you are just ignorant that is unfortunate but not necessarily malicious.
There are also examples here(in Australia) of companies being fined for misleading the public, a notable example is "balance bracelets" being recalled from sale here due to false claims.
That being said despite the similarities between the two there are some pretty large cultural differences between the US and Australia which may make some of my points moot. In general Australia favours stronger consumer protections and government regulations, a free and independent publicly funded media service(ABC) and very negative political campaign adds often backfire and lower the public perception of the person making the attack rather than the other way around. Additionally Australia does not have any explicit legal guarantees of freedom of speech akin to the US constitution so some forms of speech, such as overt racism, are already illegal and people can be denied entry for public statements which indicate "bad character" such as holocaust denial etc.
