I think my description is accurate, servers do run the Internet. Servers provide the services of the Internet, like web, email, chat, etc. From where would you get those services if there would be no servers?

Web servers run the Internet, so I would say that they "run everything". Whatever, the question was about whether or not Linux is mainstream. It doesn't really matter if it's highly customized or not. That is actually a selling point of Linux, that you can customize it. How is Stallman keeping Linux from mainstream desktop? He doesn't run anything (Canonical or RedHat or Suse), he is not a developer, he is an activist. And without him there would be no Linux, because there would be no gcc or all the other GNU tools, and no GPL, the license that made Linux successful.

I used now a lot of laptops with Linux and usually it runs everything out of the box. 10 years ego I had problems with a DSL modem, but there was also a driver available. Linux have usually problems with printers and scanners if those vendors chose not to support Linux.

First of all, Linux is already mainstream on servers, super computers, embedded systems, smartphones, etc. Second, what have Stallman to do with anything? If there would be no Stallman and GNU, there wouldn't be Linux. But today Stallman don't play a major role in Linux development anymore. Third, a Linux system is pretty easy to use. Just install it and it works. And lastly, no user care one bit about the discussion over systemd. Users are just using what is the default and if it works, it's fine. Sysvinit and systemd are just fine for users, it's only the hardcore old school users that are whining about systemd.

Is that another "things are not like I wanted them to be" posts? Linux is a community of vastly different groups with lots of different interests, with over 100,000 software packages, each scratching an itch. If you want a complete "experience" then MacOSX or even Windows is maybe better for you, i.e. a computer system where each component is designed from only one vendor. As a newbie Linux user myself, I'm pretty amazed that all those thousands of different software packages, all from different developers, can even work together and that even better than, for example, on Windows. On Windows I remember that every software app brings a whole SDK so it can run, and there is zero reusing of software packages (except for the Windows SDK).

Your student should have used a real database with Gnuplot to plot the data. Calc/Excel is only good if people enter the data and if you have a million data rows than the data is coming from some database or automatic data source anyway. What is the point in using Calc/Excel for a million data rows?

My ass don't run.

I use Java apps all the time and there is no different between native apps and Java apps. Incomplete list of Java apps that I use: VisualParadigm, Eclipse, FreeMind, ArgoUML. JEdit is quite popular, just like Netbeans.

"Java is just a pig, with its jitting, memory hogging, heavyweight thread locks, etc, etc."

Sure, whatever.

Java is one of the most popular languages, topped only by C, and sometimes ASP.NET and PHP.
http://langpop.com/
http://w3techs.com/technologie...

It depends on the kind of app. For GUI and web, it just fine. For high end computation of course native code will outperform. See http://beautynbits.blogspot.co...

The size is a good point. 130 MB for the JRE in VisualParadigm. VisualParadigm itself is 285 MB. But I don't think that so many clients care about the size, depending which clients you have. Maybe Java 9 can be more modular.

I never understood the distinction between "release" and "debug" code. It's sure wonderful if on your own development machine with the few test cases you get meaningful error codes, but on the client's computer your program just crash. I'm sure the client will appreciate how fast your program crash with "release" code, only to not have the possibility to give you a meaningful error code to fix it.

No. 4 is rubbish. There is no reason why declaring a linkage interface with external code couldn't be done without code duplication. In C there is a reason to have forward declarations, to have a method to hide the interface, and hide the private code. See for example FILE. But in C++ you must declare your private methods of a class, which is total rubbish.

Why do you need native binaries? You can package the Java JRE with your app so it can be run if no Java is installed.

Why do you need native compilation? Java's runtime optimization and hot spot compiler are just as good. If your argument is that you don't need the Java Runtime, any application needs libraries anyway, and who cares if it's a JRE or the Boost+STL+Network+GUI+... libraries.

The biggest advantage of lack of native compilation is that I can use any Jar library and it will work. Not like in C/C++ where you need the same compiler, the same system and the same architecture of a library as your program. Furthermore, I can run the Jar app on Windows/Linux/MacOS.

First of all, devices in the private house don't suppose to be turned off and on at random. My refrigerator needs to be run 24/7, my heater needs to be run at day, my lamps need to be on by night, my computer, TV, radio, etc. needs to be on when I need it. There is no point in turning them on and off base on the price of the power. It would make sense if I could store the energy at a cheaper point in time and use it later.

Second, if everybody have that then the price will just average out and nobody will get to save any money. Or, worse, it will lead to price spikes because millions of people will turn on their electrical devices at the same time to catch the lowest power price.

The idea that a smart grid leads to lower prices is just phantasy. If you want lower prices then build nuclear power plants, invenst in new technologies, invenst in building new power plants.

The source is about 10 GB and you need a tiny super computer to compile.
Anyone who complains about monolitic monsters should take a look at so called "modern" browsers.