I use several, but the ones that I consider to be basic functions are caffeine, tray icons, places status indicator, removable drive menu and extended volume indicator. That last one is a nice example of my frustration, because it can't be installed on the current gnome version anymore, and having to open settings to switch my audio output is terrible. Every distro upgrade have been the same experience, and I lose some functionality
Long time Gnome user here: I like the general Gnome workflow and got used to it, but I'm really tired of having to install extensions for very basic things, and of it messing all my extensions on each version upgrade, so I have to reinstall everything. I started experimenting with KDE, and looking forward to cosmic.
You can replace in the sense of making new releases on the gpl license. The mit license only requires to keep the original copyright notice. I changed the original comment to avoid this confusion, thanks for pointing that out.
The original code never stops being free, but the code incorporated into a new project will be, so it's a misleading term to people unfamiliar with open source licensing, that may think the license somehow expires. Even the fsf doesn't use such terminology. They use reciprocal and nonreciprocal, because it translates the idea that gpl-like licenses create a relationship of reciprocity, and bsd-like ones create a relationship of non reciprocity.
Temporarily free gives the idea that the code will stop being free at some point and may cause misunderstandings. It would be better to use nonreciprocal.
You can use the gpl license in newer versions of your software, but keep in mind, in order to avoid future misunderstandings, that you can only do that because the upstream project uses the mit license. If the project used a reciprocal license like the gpl, you'd need to stick to it or use a compatible one. You can't, for example, take a upstream gpl project and use a mit license
It's a common scenario in software. We think some things like ui designs and workflows are "natural", but they're quire arbitrary, and people just got used to them. Then people who are used to it will feel lost with any different workflow, and people who first learned the different ones may feel at home.
A nice example is the windows ui, that a lot of people who grew up with it feel like the most straightforward way to use a computer, but people who grew up with smartphones usually struggle with it and find something like the gnome ui more straightforward.
Most users? You can't just make statistical claims without actual data. It's fine to dislike something, but you don't have to force your opinions on others. Gimp has its flaws and lack features a lot of professionals need, but a lot of people happily use it daily for their tasks. I agree that we need more open source software in this field, but that doesn't mean gimp can't coexist.
Oh, I get it now, you mean using a lossless format as intermediate. Well, it would work but still it would be better if they didn't require this extra work on linux.
Yes, but then you would be transcoding an already transcoded video, potentially making the losses apparent. It would be better to just transcode once at the exporting process.
I use libreoffice and onlyoffice daily for academic works, with a few works published out there. I even use more features than the average office user, and I have to listen to people claiming that they can't use any of those, because they're inferior. I even have to listen to people saying that libreoffice isn't suited for doing any SERIOUS WORK, and I'm like "What? My work isn't serious?".
But tne other user got a point. People want to see the name and the ms office logo. They will reject any alternative just because is isn't ms office, no matter how good and sufficient they are.
The point was probably that if your equipment or sources use aac, you will need to transcode it, losing quality in the process. We don't always control our media sources and the formats they use.