I do honestly miss the level of artistic and aesthetic polish that a multi-billion dollar corporation can afford to field that no Linux distro really can.
Linux as a rule is and always has been generally quite “Guys Live In Apartments Like This”. Often utilitarian to a fault. UX design by backend devs, because actual frontend devs cost money. No one wants to pay the “beauty tax” for software. DEs like KDE and Gnome are trying very hard and have made great strides, but it’s very slow progress.
And I imagine this comment will be a magnet for power user types who will flock to my post and retort something along the lines of, “All that stuff is bloat/a usability nightmare/clutter/gets in my way/comes at the cost of features”, blah, blah, blah, waaahhhh boo hiss… Yes, it’s all true, and yes, I understand. But Linux and the free software it surrounds itself with tends to be crusty, clunky, and god-awful ugly, and I’d be lying if I said that didn’t frustrate me a bit now and again. Does it bother me to the point that I don’t want to use it? Fuck no. Windows isn’t worth the bullshit. But they do at least know how to make an OS slick and beautiful, when it works, anyway.
I’m sure people will also cherry pick examples of FOSS software that are quite ergonomic and lovely to feel. Yeah, there are many examples that exist, but they tend to be diamonds in the rough rather than exemplars of the ecosystem. For every one dev in this community who actually has a fucking clue how to make smooth-feeling and aesthetically pleasing software, there’s a score of devs who slapdash together their programmer-art-tier UIs and call it a day, and a thousand other dev-brained users who look at it and go, “this is fine”. And yeah, it is fine. But sometimes I want more than fine.
Worse still, the pattern does not continue like one would expect.
There’s just an arbitrary point where they decided to take an extra 1/4" bite out of it. I’m not sure whether that’s more of an effect of shrinkage from kiln drying being proportional to the original length or an effect of industry practice to mill smaller boards to eke out more cuts per tree.
And for the record, yes, I am aware the discrepancy is not entirely explained by shrinkage. They do a planing step after drying. But the shrinkage is a not insignificant part of it. They have to round down to the nearest convenient dimension from wherever the shrinkage stops.
If longer boards shrink more, the finished boards would necessarily have to be smaller. I question whether that’s the effect at play, though, because I believe there was a phase in the industry where that extra quarter inch wasn’t taken off, and they changed their minds about it later.