I have been running Fedora for years and basically have no issue with "systemd" since there is a GUI and command line for control. Unless you can explain why systemd is bad what you have said would be a cause for ridicule in a decision making meeting.

As an "old guy" I don't have any issue with Unix in general or Linux for that matter, I learn what is appropriate and change accordingly. I don't think the server market considers Linux a toy either since it is very popular.

Yet many companies produce Android devices and some of those devices are HDTV's.

In what way is Linux more buggy than Windows? Sorry I call troll on that until you can come up with an explanation for that statement. Pretty simple really.

Both BSD and Linux are free however their licenses are different. The main reason that BSD is used in the PlayStation is it's license is very permissive and open while the license (GNU) for Linux is much more restrictive.

No Linux in gaming consoles? Ok I will agree with you if you are only considering Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo consoles and/or hand-helds, however there are huge number of games for Android and IOS devices. Of course for consoles, hand-helds and smart phones/tablets there are some good games, not so good games and some that putting it politely "stink", however that is in the eyes of the gamer since a game that is liked by one group may not be liked by another group.

I would even go as far as saying that at any given time world wide there are more people playing games on Android and IOS devices than they are playing games on a console or PC. This is not to say I think console or PC games gaming is bad it is just that it is so much easier to play a game (simple or otherwise) on a portable than on a laptop or console handheld when you are commuting or even just waiting for something while you are away from your home or work.

Don't believe me get on a train or bus some time, if you don't do that then go to a food hall or restaurant or any place people are waiting and look at what they are doing with their Android or IOS devices. Ok you may find a few "talkers" or "rabid texters" but the majority will be playing a game of some sort.

I've been using Linux (Fedora to be precise) for over sixteen years and for the last seven years have been using it as my primary desktop. As for dual booting, I found that if you really want a Linux desktop then forget it, since unless you are really serious you usually end up back on MS Windows. Of course if you are a gamer and play "Games for Windows" then you may as well stick with a Microsoft OS. Oh sure you could run Wine and/or Play for Sure but it is really simpler to just stick with a Microsoft OS. As for me I have no interest in PC gaming preferring console gaming instead.

If you work for a company that insists you need a PC with a Microsoft OS then you are pretty well stuck. Fortunately I was senior Electrical Engineer and could dictate what OS I wanted to run, however most people don't have that power and as for working with people in co-operative projects who used Microsoft apps I had no problems. For those apps that really did require Microsoft centric applications I could always fire up a virtual machine but in the majority of cases my Linux centric applications worked just fine. Did this annoy some managers? Yes it did but there was nothing they could do about it since I could always do what was required of me.

To recap, the year of the Linux desktop has been around for many years now, it is just that most people are normally stuck with the Microsoft Tax when they purchase a new machine and even at work most managers insist that people use a Microsoft OS so basically the ordinary person is pretty much convinced that MS Windows is the only OS for PC's that is available. Of course once you start to look at smart phones the shoe is on the other foot since Linux followed by IOS (based on BSD) dominate there. Are most people aware of this? Well no they are not and in the majority of cases they don't care as long as the "magic" :-) machine will do everything that is required of it.

As An Electrical Engineer this is news to me, Sound waves don't propagate down a speaker cable, electromagnetic waves almost at the speed of light do. The only time you will get sound is actually from the speaker not the amplifier or the cable connecting to the speaker.

Maybe if the transmission line is very long and has a high impedance. Actually you can see something like this if you buy a HDMI 1.2 or less cable and try to display 1080p to your HDTV. You would be crazy not to have at the very least a HDMI 1.3 or better cable and cost wise you are only looking at a few dollars, any more than that and you are wasting your money.

Yes it is possible to get 50Hz or 60 Hz "hum" (depends on your country) introduced into the audio equipment but any competent manufacture fixed that problem many years ago. Shielding your speaker cable is only advisable if you are next to a high power transmission line and if that is the case I suggest you move.

If anyone is contemplating getting a cable like this I would suggest a HDMI transmitter and receiver instead which IMHO is much more useful. I do think the article suggestion of "snake oil" is very appropriate, still you will find IMO suckers who will buy it.

I have a diesel car and I get excellent economy as well as producing less green house gas than an equivalent petrol engine. My car is able to take 5% bio-diesel (B5) as per manufacturers guidelines however in Sydney Australia I find it almost impossible to get B5 or any bio-diesel for that matter. Of course if I had a petrol car I can get 10% Ethanol (E10) which is normally cheaper (Government/Taxpayer subsidised) than diesel although because I get a better fuel economy the price evens out.

Actually even though many people will seen E10 as cheaper than diesel many are not aware (or don't care) that while a hike in petrol can be felt by the petrol consuming motorist a hike in the price of diesel is actually felt by everyone since all haulage in Australia and in the Americas is by trucks that normally have diesel engines. Even most fishing boats and smaller sea going craft use diesel mainly because it is economical and is a much safer fuel. As an example (don't do this at home) throw a lighted match into a can filled with petrol and you better have a decent fire extinguisher handy. Do the same with a can of diesel and it will most likely go out. Don't try this in an enclosed space since the resulting petrol fume explosion may be hazardous to your health.

It is possible and very economical to grow crops and even use animal fat for bio-diesel providing you have the land and Australia has the land which is not that much smaller tan the continental USA. However our government seems to prefer using ethanol in petrol possibly due to the lobbying of the sugar producers which I suppose could be likened to the corn lobbyists in the US.

I should point out that Australia has a fairly small population (approx 24 million) and a population density of approximately 3.2/square km compared to the USA which has a population density of 35/square km. It is even worse for smaller countries with larger population and even worse population density (see the following ).

The problem with growing crops for bio-fuel is that you need large areas of land and many countries with a large population density may should not attempt this or at least go for limited production. In the short term these countries may be ok but whether the long term growth and sustainability is feasible that remains to be seen.

I could not agree more.

That's funny all the MS Windows machines in my neighbourhood spontaneously combusted \(^o^)/