MS language is potentially worse than the default. And there is room for litigation to surprise us.

There was nothing wrong with Trumpet Winsock for modem users. For 10b2 users, the official microsoft stack was adequate. TGV Multinet was a high-performance stack for Windows 3.x which was more than adequate. Sure, you had to have third party software, but there was nothing particularly hackish about it. At the time, you had to deal with equally hacky software to get SLIP (let alone PPP) connectivity on most platforms. Only Unix-based and Unixlikes seem to have come with TCP back then.

Warp cost more than Windows plus a TCP stack...

The killer feature of OS/2 was multitasking that worked. Problem was, nearly nobody had enough RAM to really take advantage of it.

The problem is, any time you use anything else, Chrome is only better if it's wide open. If you want to lock your browser down a bit, that's possible with Chrome, but it's not quite as secure and configuration is a bit more annoying.

Yes. The last stuff I wrote that I couldn't compile today was in "Promal" or "Paradox". My C and C++ code from 1980 still builds and runs.

All of my web development is on Ruby on Rails. That environment has had a lot of development and I've had to port to new versions. So old code for RoR would not quite run out of the box, but it's close.

Popular computing languages do not in general have only one Open Source implementation, and do not get abandoned.

Development with a proprietary language is ultimately harmful to your own interests, whether you make proprietary software for a profit or Free software.

The one thing every business needs is control. When you make it possible for another company to block your business, you lose control. Your options become limited. Solving business problems potentially becomes very costly, involving a complete rewrite.

The one thing that should be abundantly clear to everyone by now is that making your business dependent on Microsoft anything is ultimately a losing proposition. They have a long history of deprecating their own products after customers have built products upon them.

All Open Source licenses come with an implicit patent grant, it's an exhaustion doctrine in equitable law.

The problem is not patent holders who contribute to the code, you're protected from them. It's trolls who make no contribution and then sue.

Of course these same trolls sue regarding proprietary code as well.

So uh, don't watch NASCAR? Even they have two races per year (or so) worth watching... they turn in both directions.

It works for me, since the only reason I keep Windows around is gaming.

Water features also provide significant air quality benefits, especially if you aerate them. There's just lots of good reasons to implement them. Trees, as well; I cringe when I see posts permanently erected for vehicle control. Removable or sinking bollards, certainly. They have their purpose. But fixed ones?

I like motorsports because I like motorsports, I don't care about any particular team. It's thrilling just to see it. That's what's great about stuff like world rally.

What does the outcome of the race have to do with the enjoyment? You're not racing. What do you care who wins? They're doing it completely and totally without you. Same for sports. That's not your team. You just bought some of their marketing crap.

A moat is still a good idea. It can be an attractive feature, if done correctly, and someone entering the moat is a flag that they may be able to jump the fence.

Classic all-time backfires; much of the time, even trying to prove that it's okay to pollute is going to show the opposite, because duh.

The money is in agreeing with you. Big Oil and the like are happy to pay scientists for studies which say that they can continue raping our ma.