In such a fashion that all my threads will open either collapsed and expanded. Ideally, there should be a setting for that. Some people might prefer to always open expanded regardless of their last choice.

Introduction

I wanna say that I made several corrections, additions, and improvements just because I love you guys way more than I love the people at Reddit

• Please note that I'm merely a dedicated Linux user, I'm speaking from that point of view. I'm not a developer and not a programmer. These are just my opinions of 10+ years using Linux

• These are just some commentaries from a dude who happen to love the concept of STABILITY in general (autism represent) and would like to discuss how it works when it comes to Linux distributions. This is all based on my use-cases and on what I think is common sense. I have no knowledge of how open-source projects really work, and make no claims regarding how they should work.

• Only distributions that claim to be stable are under my scope. So Arch and Debian Unstable are clearly out the scope, but Slackware, CentOS, Debian Buster, and MX-Linux are clearly under the scope.

• All considerations are void if the malfunctioning is SOLELY a product of hardware, extremely rare conditions or your own lack of knowledge.

• Except when otherwise noted, non-compliance means the distribution is deemed not stable.

1 Deal Breakers

After a correct installation by the user on hardware that is expressly supported by the developers, a stable distribution should, in the period of 1 year (counted from the first boot):

1. Remains bootable, manageable and fully accessible.
2. Work with almost no maintenance or intervention (updates excluded)
3. Present no decrease in performance
4. Freeze at most once every two weeks
5. Have no package issue that cannot be solved by a simple command from its own package manager

2 Major Issues

Because of the complex nature of major issues, I'm not going to establish any criteria about them. Both stable and unstable distributions have critical problems that cannot have a fixed time-frame.

3 Minor Issues/Bugs/Annoyances/etc

Small issues are the ones that do not impede the usage of the machine, but provoke significant annoyances:

Examples:

1. Window switching is not working properly
2. The mouse stops working for 3 seconds every 15 minutes
3. For some reason, the letter "c" is sending "h" on the terminal
4. My configurations are not saved after reboot
5. My configurations are not being saved at all
6. I must change video output manually every time I switch monitors
7. I must change audio output manually every time I switch monitors
8. Some essential configuration is ridiculously hard to find
9. Configurations have no undo button
10. Configurations have no reset button
11. A certain package cannot be installed
12. A certain dependence cannot be installed (dependency hell)
13. There's a ridiculously accessible keyboard shortcut that makes your keyboard change layouts all the fucking time

3.1 Places for Research

Such minor issues must be solved within 30 days, as long as the user does their part and seek some of the following resources:

1. Google
2. Official websites
3. Official forums
4. Official warnings, newsletters, etc
5. Semi-official communities
6. FAQs
7. Manuals
8. Github Issues
9. Gitlab Issues
10. Other Venues to post issues

If the minor issue is not solved in 45+ days, the distribution will be deemed not stable, regardless of the behavior of the user.

4. Conclusion

It is my opinion that, if any of the major and minor requirements are not fulfilled according to their particular rules, the distribution in question should not be deemed not Stable.

Let's mix things up a bit and talk about musicians and bands from our local areas. There's often some really great music happening in a local scene, which rarely sees the light of day. So hit us up with links to the music makers in your local scene (or your own band even!) so we can have a listen and maybe discover something new and amazing :)

Microsoft held a Global Preview Event on September 19 and 20 for the new Microsoft Flight Simulator, and it's been NDA'd until today. Here's the official blog post, which doesn't say much itself, but there are a ton of detailed impressions articles and videos all over the internet today.

The major revelation is that they're using satellite data from Bing Maps and combining it with procedural generation and some other data sources (such as the ability to use live weather data) to make it so you can fly anywhere in the world and it will look extremely realistic. Being able to do this in Google Earth is already very cool (especially in VR), and this should be even better.

Here are a few of the articles - a lot of them have incredibly stupid titles because that's how internet journalism works now, so I'm just going to link with the site's name:

• Ars Technica
• Engadget
• FSElite (also, 35 mins of footage)
• PC Gamer
• Polygon

If there's a better or more commonly used term for this let me know, but my idea of an "expired classic" is a game that was acclaimed and beloved at the time of its release but that would be nearly unplayable or unacceptable by modern standards. Not just less impressive or weaker, mind you, but outright bad. Think "aged poorly" but like, REALLY poorly.

The quintessential example is Goldeneye 007. While absolutely landmark for its time, gamers that pick it up now would likely be baffled by its controls and appalled by its significant, unforgivable framerate issues. Even some people that used to love playing it have a hard time enjoying it now (myself included). It is a game that has "expired" over time.

The expiration doesn't have to be due to technical issues either. It could be due to cultural issues, design issues, or any other factor that makes the same significantly less palatable today, even to those that want to play it!

What are some other examples, and why have they expired?