They aren't being replaced. Each of these codenames is an additional optimization layer. The performance enhancements are cumulative.

The guiding thought is that every option MULTIPLIES code complexity. Options tend to interact with other options, and testing is required to verify that all options work together, or that the system provides a means of preventing options that don't from being used together. The drive to simplify interfaces is intended to reduce the number of bugs present in the system.

As a secondary effect, removing optional behavior forces developers to make sure that the normal behavior is sane and doesn't need dozens of radio buttons on a configuration app.

No, it isn't. I have a number of non-tech friends (and my mom) who use Fedora with GNOME Shell. I use Fedora with GNOME Shell. I know a fairly large number of GNU/Linux users, and very few of them actually hate GNOME Shell. Not none, but few. For my part, I think notifications aren't very good, but otherwise the system does what it's supposed to. It stays out of my way. It isn't distracting and it uses minimal screen space. I like those things quite a lot.

People continue to repeat this reasoning, attributed to various developers, but that doesn't make it true. The guiding thought is not that users cannot make choices. It is that every option MULTIPLIES code complexity. Options tend to interact with other options, and testing is required to verify that all options work together, or that the system provides a means of preventing options that don't from being used together. The drive to simplify interfaces is intended to reduce the number of bugs present in the system.

As a secondary effect, removing optional behavior forces developers to make sure that the normal behavior is sane and doesn't need dozens of radio buttons on a configuration app.

I understand people talking about Chrome being a faster browser, and I don't begrudge them that. However, anyone who contends that Chrome uses less memory doesn't know what they're talking about. Firefox uses less memory, is a smaller download, and is a much smaller installation than Chrome (particularly if you only measure code and leave out translations).

The Firefox installer on Win32 is almost half the size of Chrome, and the installed code is about half the size of Chrome as well. It's no wonder it uses less memory.

PLEASE STOP OFFERING THIS ADVICE.

Increasing your WAP broadcast power does nothing to improve signal in the other direction, so while it will make your mobile devices show more bars, it won't actually improve network performance. TCP doesn't work unless a host can both send and receive (packets need to be ACKed), so even if the client receives further away from the WAP, it'll stop getting new packets if it can't notify the sender that those packets were received.

All that really happens when you increase broadcast power is an increase in interference with neighboring WAPs, which tends to lead other people to the conclusion that they also need to increase broadcast power in order to overcome the interference that you created.

As far as I know, OS X uses very little GNU-produced or GPL-licensed code. XCode has replaced gcc with LLVM as the default compiler, and Samba has been replaced with an Apple-created SMB/CIFS server.

That's actually an interesting question. If NVIDIA wants to use the Linux API in the way that Google used the Java API for Dalvik, they would need to create a kernel that was capable of operating a computer system and supported all of the APIs that the NVIDIA binary driver used. If such a system existed, and was able to run X11 and the binary drivers, they may be able to argue that their driver was capable of operating independently of Linux and was not, therefore a derived work. NVIDIA might even be able to start with a FreeBSD or other permissively licensed system and add the Linux APIs that they wanted to use. They still wouldn't be licensed to use the implementation that appears in Linux, but it might be more difficult to successfully prosecute them for publishing source code that used a compatible interface.

I don't think a court would fail to see such a blatant attempt to evade the obligations of creating a derived work of the Linux kernel, but I have no basis on which to predict whether they'd find such an evasion to be illegal.

The shim can only call non-GPL-only APIs in the kernel.

Code on Linux, whether it runs in kernel space or not, calls Linux kernel functions. In order to differentiate what will and will not be considered a "derived work" of the GPL licensed kernel, some APIs are specifically designated as being non-public. These interfaces do not appear in non-Linux operating systems, and developers cannot claim that code which uses those interfaces will function independently of Linux. If the code cannot function independent of Linux, it is a derived work under the terms of the GPL.

Public interfaces, for comparison, do appear in non-Linux operating systems. Bash can operate on FreeBSD because FreeBSD supports the APIs used by Bash. Bash, therefore, can function independently of Linux and is not a derived work.

No, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/07/972501/gop-strategist-admits-romney-is-witholding-details-of-his-tax-plan-to-avoid-criticism/

That line of reasoning has been the campaign's excuse for not being specific about their tax plans.

Yes, that's how Bain operates, as I pointed out. Bain increases revenue through acquisitions and then sells the company, leaving it with tremendous debt. Bain gets to claim that businesses do well while Bain has a controlling interest, largely because they divest their interest before the effects of the acquisition policy can affect the company.

You think that making large debt payments during an economic recession doesn't impact the company's bottom line?

You are confused. Android systems are definitely Linux. TiVo is Linux. Many smart TVs are Linux systems. What all of those things are not is GNU systems. That's why GNU people suggest that you refer to GNU/Linux systems as such.

No one would suggest that Android is a GNU/Linux system, but it's definitely Linux. Anything written to run on Linux should work on an Android system. However, as Android does not feature a complete POSIX implementation, you would not expect an application written for a POSIX system to necessarily work on Android the way that you would expect it to run on a GNU system.

Do you see the difference now?

The cry that he doesn't have details is merely a tactic, because they have so little else of "meat" to argue.

That's a load of nonsense.

Mitt and Ann have said that they can't talk specifics, because that would give their critics a target. They've said that once they were elected, that there were going to be changes that people wouldn't like. They can't talk about their plans, because they know we won't vote for them if we know what they're going to do. That's good enough for me. If knowing their plans is going to make me not vote for them, then I have enough information to know that I don't want to vote for them.

Then there's Ryan. Questioned about how his budget plan would work, he replied that they hadn't run the numbers on it. That's really the essence of conservative thought today, in a nutshell. It's all ideology, and no data. They don't care enough to actually test their theories, or examine how they'll work in practice. They go with their gut and hope for the best. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I looked this up, and found that Bain Capital was actually responsible for the success of many companies that have tons of employees (Staples and Domino's among them.)

In a huge "fuck you" to Bain, Staples just published a press release titled "Staples, Inc. Announces Strategic Plan to Accelerate Growth" in which they announced plans to CLOSE 60 stores.

Bain's strategy is to take over a company with a small amount of their own cash and a large amount of debt. They increase the company's revenue through acquisitions (which may hide any revenue which is lost relative to the the sum of the individual company revenues prior to the acquisition), and sell their interest in the companies. The companies, meanwhile, have the responsibility of paying the debt that Bain used to take them over.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/02/how_mitt_romneys_bain_harvested_sealy_mattress_company/

I'm not going to say that half of those companies fail, but if you think that a failure rate of nearly half is acceptable, I have no idea what planet you're from. Failure rate among Bain's acquisitions is vastly higher than it is among operating businesses in general.

The DoE did make loans to some green energy companies that failed. Not "half", as Romney claimed during their debate, but less than 10%. That's in line with start-up businesses in general. It's disappointing, but realistic. That's not pilfering, it's not even a sign of bad choices.

seeks to combine the efficiency and value for money of government with the social responsibility and long-term vision of big business

I think you're going for a joke in there, but how often is government actually less efficient than big business?