No, it doesn't.

Personally, if I was browsing at +1, I'd rather see a summary of a post, rather than the first sentence with zero context. One can give me a general idea if I would find the content interesting, the other is just a waste of pipe.

Firstly, when it comes to kernel testing, no news is usually good news. But it's never a sure thing, and it's hard for one person to test it all.

Second, the newest kernel release is usually considered "bleeding edge", at least as far as enterprise goes. It's never a sure thing. Implying it's a sure thing and will for sure not catch your datacenter on fire is probably a Bad Idea.

Thirdly, who cares if Linus says "guess" or "believe". Both translate to exactly the same thing to me, given the context: "I'm pretty sure this is ok, but don't use this until you've backed up your important cat pictures." It's well known he's a bit bunt. Shit man, just be happy he didn't insult your mother in the header.

OMG that's so racist! I'm going to pick a random word in your post and become offended by it.

I didn't RTFA because I'm pretty sure the "summary" was actually written by a spam bot that made it through Tim and the links just point to porn.

I fail to see how Wayland, or any open source software can be "shoved down" your throat. If you don't like it, don't use it. Or modify it to suit your needs (and hopefully) release that. That's the OSS way. I'd like to add "And don't bitch about it" but we all know that's untrue. We love bitching; that will never go away. I often think these holy wars are created on purpose just for the drama they cause on Usenet, forums, and mailing lists. But I digress.

If the amount of bile being spewed about Wayland is any indication at all of its future real-world acceptance on the desktop or server, than I think X will be around for a long time. But I'm kinda doubting that. More likely, one of two things will happen: Either Wayland will not be as bad as people like you are claiming, or X will continue to be supported by people that care.

True hackers will find a way.

You don't seem to understand how this whole DRM thing works, do you?

The entire point of DRM is prevent exactly what you just asked for. When the contract or whatever expires between Netflix and whoever owns the content, nobody can watch that content any more. Likewise, when your subscription with Netflix ends, you can't watch the content either.

What crazy client are you using that lets you stream video over the torrent protocol?

Crafting an article that is believable yet false is easy.

Creating one that is hilarious is far harder, and in my opinion, more welcome. I get enough lies in the regular news on the other 364 days of the year.

That's an unfair example, considering I often listen to music while using GPS navigation and browse webpages all at the same time, and that's on 1 GB of ram.

You sure you're not doing something else, say loading up some kind of game?

I disagree. The browser is doing exactly what it should be- saving its state so it can be recreated upon relaunch.

Most people's phones do not have more than 16GB of storage. A few people on the cutting edge or that have too much money might have 64GB. Either way, you also have to account for pictures, music, vidoes, ebooks, apps, the OS itself, and all the other data that gets stored on these things. Sure, you could potentially create your own browser (and I encourage you to do this if you feel so strongly) that would go through the process of saving all your graphics, scripts, and HTML to disk when the OS demands you free up memory and load it all up again later when needed. You'd probably have to explain why the browser is "eating up all my phone memory" constantly. You could probably reduce the page-recreation time upon reopening that tab by a second or two compared to 4G or wifi if you're good.

Personally, I'm more than happy conserving what little space I have on my phone and waiting a whole five seconds for my pocket super computer to receive data through the goddamned ether at speeds that would have made our heads spin ten years ago.

Now, would I mind having a slider in my options to control this behavior? Not at all, I love options. I just think it would be mostly unused, which is apparently what all the browser coders thought too by not putting that in there.

That was back when that was the only source of money for the people inventing the standards. Now, the internet is more commercialized and there is plenty of money to be had.

Yay for taking things grossly out of context! Privacy != copying a pair of sunglasses.

That's why I basically only buy games that either come in humble bundles (or sometimes one of its many ripoffs) or on Steam/Desura after I'm sure the game doesn't have some kind of silly DRM like the ones you mentioned.

Yes, it means I can't play the newest versions of SimCity or Diablo or whatever, but judging from what I hear after releases of these games, neither can the people who actually bought them. So I still count myself ahead.

Personally, I prefer it when a developer gives me a choices between a free, ad-supported version, and a paid app. Sometimes, for whatever reason, they choose not to do this. (The original Angry Birds comes to mind, not sure about the rest. I believe I read they made a lot more money this way than the iOS version.)

I'm not saying it's morally right or wrong to deprive them of their income, only that in many cases, it's not just people wanting "free software and no advertising". Maybe they just want software.

All the ad blockers I know of (granted, I've not exactly researched the multitudes, so this may be wrong) require root access on your device.

Most people don't even know what it is, or if they do, don't want to go through with the process. Worst case is they rate the app poorly because it doesn't work.