Their only hope is to open the codebase of desktop Opera. As it stands, mainstreamers see no reason to use it over Chrome or Firefox, and FOSS geeks are turned off by its closed source, cathedral nature. They really don't offer good reasons why they aren't doing this, other than the paranoid notion that the bigger boys will steal their precious code. Sad, really. With the amount of bitching about Firefox losing its way ("muh firebird/phoenix"), Opera could be really quite popular among geeks. I think they're underestimating the ripple effect of this, both from contributions and evangelism.

I think the real question (and possibly what StripedCow was asking) is why not use the syntax of existing languages, to make it easier to learn and read?

The explanation linked by the ArchWiki article on systemd is very good:
Read this forum post.

As an Arch user, I hated systemd at first, for much the same reasons as already stated: the confusing and opaque nature of debugging. I'm now a convert, and I have been ever since I worked out how to do everything I used to be able to do. I now believe people's resistance is just growing pains. Give it a shot; it's easy and good.

So, in the interests of everyone's safety, people should keep their gun in hand at all times. Seems fair enough.

I don't think that's relevant. Each of Google and Adobe have lots of other software that they have to support. The fact that the PDF viewer sits inside the browser doesn't really affect its maintenance.

...unlike Adobe Reader?

Why? They're both important and need to be maintained.

Expect to hear news of security exploits in all popular software. I'm already sick of hearing about exploits in Acrobat.

I think a move towards multiple viewers will help PDF as a standard, and a move away from Adobe's software in particular will mean less resources used to just open a PDF. Personally, I think the likes of Evince and Sumatra are best for lightness and accuracy.

"TRD" does remind me of turd, but all the other examples are absolutely ridiculous.

WIMP is not a product, and it's the only word you can make out of those letters. It's memorable. I think it's a lot better than PWIM.
It's not Wince, it's Windows CE. Kia is not Kay-eye-ay, it's Kee-ah.
Nestea: interesting. I have never thought of that. Dynasty: not interesting. In fact, the thought of being more reminded of "die nasty" than actual dynasties tells me you need a better education.

Is that per person? If it's even $10 per person, GP's point still stands. If they want to collect this data on thousands of people through a broker, that's a serious investment.

Whoops, I moderated you off-topic instead of flamebait, so I'm replying to cancel it.

You can give out about desktop Linux distributions all you want, but to say that your company doesn't use OSS because you'd be dealing with bugs and wasting time is just wrong. OSS is used by (almost?) all of the most successful companies in the world, and that's not just because it saves money.

First paragraph of TFA:

In other words, the article is drawing attention to the idea that current visions of the future might be just as infeasible as those shown in the article.

But if we tunnelled exciting machines, it could be much faster.

but I'm certainly hobbier than most of my friends.

This is just an opinion, so please don't badger me for evidence. I'm not trying to troll anyone, so do reply if you disagree with me.

It seems to me that Microsoft has no idea why people have been buying their products this whole time. In the last few years, they've been banging on about the "experience" of using Win7/8/Phone, as if the people who buy Microsoft products do so for the unique Microsoft Experience. In other words, that they buy Microsoft products for much the same reason as one might buy an Apple product. I would argue that this hasn't been the case since the excitement of Windows 95. Even XP was only a small step up from 2000 at the time. By and large, people buy their products because a) they believe it to be pretty solid and/or b) it's the standard. If more solid alternatives exist, and the MS product isn't the ad-hoc standard, they don't make a big impact in the market.

Now, you might say that no, they've been talking about the "experience" because that's what all the cool, profitable kids are up to. That may well be the case, but if you watch their adverts, it goes a step further than trying to convince you of a top-quality experience: they tend to allude to "the Windows/Office/MS Bob experience you love", as if it were an existing truth. It's always struck me as curiously arrogant, coming from a company which deliberately strangled the competition to gain its dominant position. What I don't know, however, is whether they've misread the market that badly, or they're trying to get people to believe there already is such a demand for a specifically Microsoft experience, in order to create this demand.

Or worse. It might be worse, too.

I love my 42" car phone, but it does make it difficult when I have a passenger.

I agree with this. What I'd like to see is equations added in, where helpful, in the same way as small images in a body of text. Then you could put a caption below, just to say something informal but informative about the equation. I think that way it would be easy for people to decide whether they want to read it. Some people aren't going to want to, so it's important that it's not something you have to read through in the article itself.