From my own experience in IT, IIS sucks. I've seen a lot of problems with its stability. Regardless, it's Windows-only, and this is Slashdot where no one much cares about closed source software unless it is to outperform or outdo it in some way. So, while it is certainly possible the issue isn't due to crappy software, I would definitely not rule it out.

Not when you own the government!

This is what I don't understand about any of this. If they deny Windows from being recognized on this specific supercomputer due to the fact Linux is faster on it, Windows most likely needs to be removed from ALL of the supercomputers on the list due to the same reason that Linux would most likely be faster if it were installed. The moral of the story: you can remove Windows from being recognized at all by having them simply "try out" Linux. Everyone, mail live Linux for Supercomputers CDs/thumbdrives to the locations of the remaining Windows supercomputers!!!

I'm all for getting rid of x86 if it is a poor, power-hungry standard, but standards are still very relevant. When I can go download Meego or Android from their website for say ARM or whatever other major arches there are out there, and install it on a wide variety of device models and types, let me know, because waiting for a specific build for a specific device is ridiculous and should not be needed. Normal Linux distros do a great job of detecting existing hardware and having drivers for everything, so this desperately needs to occur on smaller devices like "phones".

There should be a single cross-distro standard for software package management. You should not have to cater to several "distros". This is the hell that is Linux, and it will be solved only once users and developers alike start demanding it.

Just as soon as Linux first gets proper *cross-distro* package management and standards, THEN I will agree with you. Proprietary package management = fail/suck/lose/jail/walled garden. The software manager and desktop shortcuts/menu items should all be easily made aware of a *gasp* out-of-repository program's existence.

No, because I want a better Linux desktop, because that's what I use Linux for along with a server. I want Linux to be a better desktop than Windows.

Oh and most importantly, don't forget "art". All "art" is now "technology", and is thus patentable. (all software is just art)

And considering the broader and broader ways that the term "technology" is being used now days, pretty much replacing terms like "engineering", and "science", that pretty much means anything and everything in the universe is patentable!

I think this is why someone should either take Gnome and add in the "advanced" buttons that let nice tweaks, like screensaver settings in your example, be easily accessible, or take KDE and organize it properly so it's not a cluttered mess.

Seriously, I believe there is a happy medium that you could make combining the two themes of Gnome and KDE, simplicity and power respectively, by burying the advanced features and tweaks and keeping the simple and common features up-front. I love each DE for each reason, but have ended up with Gnome as I dislike the clutter more than the removal of some features that I don't need all that much, or that installing some additional apps will give me.

Fork, anyone? :D

Supposedly the 2.6.36 kernel addresses this issue. I don't know if the problem has been completely fixed, or mostly fixed, or what, since I haven't tried that kernel yet (too bad there isn't an easy way to install kernels in a cross-distro fashion!).

Read the bullet points here, particularly the ones in the middle, as there has been multiple things done to this kernel to improve performance:
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/What-s-new-in-Linux-2-6-36-1103009.html?page=6

Wow. So whoever is first to put an operating system on a computer gets to patent that? That somehow that combination is magical and to be serious again for a second "no one in the industry would have thought that doing such a thing would be obvious"? No, wrong, fail. Die software patents. Just die. I don't care if they are in Linux's favor or not. All of them need to die, and most or all "normal" patents too.

I should add that yes, there seems to be a pretty solid ABI for running binaries AFAIK, but even if so the main problem is the lack of installers for them. Microsoft had good ABI standards for running binaries, and installers are commonplace. That's something Linux badly, badly needs to remedy. So far, installers on Linux are horrible. They don't hook into the user's software manager. They sometimes fail at putting links in the user's menus or whatnot. They don't even add themselves to a repo list so they can check for updates with the normal system updates (even though some check themselves directly, which is okay but not ideal). Linux just needs a lot more cross-distro love in standards, otherwise it will continue to be not as appealing to developers. All you have to do if you want proof of the Linux software installation mess is go to most any Sourceforge or website that offers Linux software, and ask yourself "could my grandma install this on her system?" If that answer is no, either your gradma is dead, or Linux sucks in this area.

I have no idea if the parent meant it in this way, but the main problem with Linux is having the freedom, from a non-technical non-developer's standpoint (ordinary Desktop Dan), to install whatever software he wants to install. Open source projects often tell the user bluntly to "go get a distro to get our software", because of a lack of software packaging standards. Otherwise, the user is often forced to attempt to compile software, which is a time-consuming waste and isn't something Desktop Dan will ever want to do. If he's lucky, a developer will have a straight-up binary for him to run, like Firefox, Skype, Adobe, and several other vendors offer. Unfortunately again, these installers are usually fail, and will leave him scratching his head as to how to change the properties of the file to be executable, and often even when executable it fails to run due to it trying to use some other program on it instead of recognizing it as a program to run in its own right.

Linux is a battle between distro companies not caring about the most critical open source OS, cross-distro standard of all: software installation standards. It's all because distro companies have a vested interest in pushing users through their own repositories and Software Stores (*ahem*Ubuntu*ahem*). Whereas on Windows, you sadly often have more freedom IN THIS AREA (just not in many others), and can feel confident that your programs are future-proofed and will always be there for you and work, old ones and new ones, and that you have the freedom to, at any time, downgrade or upgrade to them as you wish. Unlike on Linux, where even getting a different version of Firefox installed than the one you want is a pain in the ass.

P.S., I know not ALL Windows programs will ALWAYS work in EVERY situation, but the amount of Windows program compatibility, and just the fact that installers basically always work from Windows 95 up to Windows 7, is a testament to Microsoft at least using some standards in that area. I'm sure those standards have some problems, and could be better, but the fact that users can still have access to most things is a testament to that and what good standards should be all about. What this means in Linux speak: always provide a way for the user to quickly get and install ALL DEPENDENCIES necessary for the user to be able to run any given program.