Judging from the OP, he's right and you're living in lala-land.
Ie - it could be a case of major conspiracy on the part of publishers (who are all women btw) to keep their readers away from tech. Or they could simply be giving their readers what they want.
If (masses of) women really had a need like that, they'd buy the current tech magazines - it wouldn't fit the niche perfectly, but it would at least partly fulfill that need.
They don't. Which is evidence that there is no such unfilled niche.
Or, much more likely, they aren't interested in the male focus of said tech magazines. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6738657 for a quick look at the covers of the tech magazine T3. Are you saying the average woman would really want to read a tech magazine with that sort of focus?
We're not talking CACM here; we're talking tech magazines that, for the longest time, celebrated conference booth babes.
If what you say is true, then all the world's women with the desire for reading tech would flock to the few tech magazines that have less of "that sort of focus", they exist. This would cause these "non-booth-babed" magazines to have a disproportionally large amount of women buyers, which they would see immediately... but it's not happening.
Reality is that which doesn't go away if you disbelieve or dislike it.
Reality being that which doesn't go away if you dislike it, I recommend you look carefully at those supposed tech magazines with “less” of the young male focus that you claim exist. You'll find that they don't, really, outside of quasi-academic magazines like CACM. Even there, it's hard. How many women are on staff? How many of the articles are written by women? How much do the articles focus on metrics, measurements, and numbers as opposed to usability? I really like reading AnandTech, but as a tech magazine that isn't interested in booth babes, it is still deeply focussed on the male interest and experience with tech, as the masthead (http://www.anandtech.com/home/about) with it's conspicuous lack of women on staff indicates.
Reality being that which doesn't go away if you dislike it, the reality is that there are no mainstream tech/gear magazines—online or print—that don't use a hypothetical young male as the primary audience for that magazine, doing a disservice to both those young men and the young women who might be interested but aren't interested in the editorial slant involved.
Reality being that which doesn't go away if you dislike it, you're a guy—as am I—and we don't actually get to say that something we like is not sexist in its nature. There are things that I will read that I know are sexist (and not care that they are because I want to read them anyway), but I don't get to pretend that they aren't sexist just because I like them.
As I said above, "it wouldn't fit the niche perfectly, but it would at least partly fulfill that need".
If they aren't buying the currently best-fitting magazines (even though they just partially fit the need), then they are showing with their wallets that they don't really want it; and the magazines are completely right to do as they do now instead of throwing resources to serve a nonexistent/tiny market.
If all the women buyers would go to the magazine which currently has the least "male slant", then they'd be 90% of the audience for that magazine, which the publisher would immediately see and they'd get attention.
If noone prints anything even remotely acceptable but the readers would really want it - then they'd get that need filled on online media. Is there a booming audience of women tech bloggers writing for women readers and getting huge audiences + ad income that would justify targeting a magazine directly at that?
There will be articles written by women for women only if they actually put their money where their mouth is - if someone (+ millions like them) are not going to buy the resulting magazine, then saying "there should be a mag like that" is empty talk. Even if it's unfair and sexist, if the buyers aren't there then such magazines don't have a reason to exist - that's reality.
There are just no women reading it. So you might consider the possibility, that maybe - just maybe, women are just not into this stuff. And that women publishers are savvy enough to know what their readers want covered.
Sorry, you are right, Switzerland is only part of Schengen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area), but still the long term objective of the Schengen Area would be borderless trade, immigration, workforce, etc.
I'm really crossing my fingers for Jolla in particular, and Sailfish/Mer in general, to succeed. It's becoming clear that Android's currently debatable status as free software is heading decidedly in the non-free direction.
Sailfish/Mer's Android compatibility also makes it sounds at least somewhat realistic that there's room for it in the market.
Moreover, what I've heard about it is that it's aiming to be much more of an "ordinary GNU/Linux system with a radio and a slick touch screen interface" than Android has ever been. Does anybody have any hard information on this? It would be so delicious to have a platform that's more like an ordinary computer than what's offered in the mobile space today.
> It uses X. That itself is outdated before I start talking about out of date design principles.
All major window managers and desktop enivornments use X today. Some, such as KDE, Gnome and Enlightenment have begun work towards becoming Wayland compositors, and their underlying GUI libraries (Qt, GTK, and so on) towards supporting Wayland instead of X. However, you'll be hard pressed to find any significant number of them running on anything but X today.
I too want Wayland to succeed and take over for X, and when that day comes, XFCE should hopefully be ready for it. Complaining that XFCE uses X today, though, makes no sense.
> I personally don't like the black menu bar, I don't like the big childish icons, I don't like the slate gray gradient window box and I don't like the UI design's 2000s take on Finder. It's just not pretty in my opinion.
This, it seems to me, is just an expression of your personal taste. While that certainly matters do yourself, it doesn't really bring much to the discussion.
The point is that certain large prime numbers (of certain forms) are curated and published in a catalogue because they are notable (in and of themselves). The process you dismiss as trivial allowed Carmody to encode the illegal program as such a prime, and hence have it independently published in said catalogue, where it belongs entirely independently of whether it happens to turn into the illegal program when run through gunzip.
