It's so refreshing having a Secretary of Energy that actually knows something about energy and physics, rather than somebody who just knows how to dig carbon out of the ground.

This is a horrible idea. This will encourage people to focus more attention on texting if they choose to text and drive.

If people did not think they could text and drive safely, they wouldn't. The people who believe this will simply spend more of their attention on the texting and less on the driving.

Why wasn't this a choice???

The funny thing about all of this is that I've configured my Chrome to have the tabs on the LEFT, and it's far superior to either of the options people are bickering about!

Logo logo logo!

Logo was everywhere back in 1986, but it's nowhere now...what's the deal with that?

Awesome way to start.

By your reasoning, Linux systems have no business in Windows networks. That's not how the world works though.

I don't know any business that has all of their internal software systems running in one API. In a world of infinite time and infinite resources, going for a "pure" linux environment is a noble one, but the real world has constraints, and learning curves, and existing skills, and business requirements that span multiple APIs and multiple systems.

Let's say you have an entire backoffice system running on Linux. Your newest and largest customer that you just landed requires you to connect to their .NET invoicing system in order to submit and invoice and get paid. Would you stand your moral high ground saying "that's just dumb" and simply not do it? Would you fire your best client because they aren't on the FOSS bandwagon? Instead of running a simple .NET connector provided by your client, would you spend the time, money and resources re-implementing the connector and explain to your client why you need to "test" the connection?

This whole FOSS purity is a tired argument left for the Stallmans of an outdated vision of the future. In a "perfect" world it is something to aspire to, but in the real world you must pick your battles one at a time, and not everybody uses FOSS. The world runs in a happy balance of proprietary and free software.

Suggesting that Windows interoperability is what killed OS/2 is sorely incomplete. Everything around the OS/2 joint venture between IBM and Microsoft was complicated. If you recall, it was supposed to be a jointly owned platform, but then Microsoft went their own separate way and called their version Windows NT. It was the largely the same code base, which is why the interoperability existed. IBM and Microsoft are two very different companies, even more different at the time. Microsoft's business was the PC. IBM's bread-and-butter was the mainframe. How does OS/2 become successful in a company (at the time) dominated by 1970s era technology mainframe sales and maintenance contracts?

If you know .NET and want to deploy to a device, why have a steep learning curve when you can just use the tools you know? .NET runs on phones, servers, desktop PCs, microcontrollers (.NET Micro Edition), extending this to other operating environments is a logical choice. If Mono runs on a Mac, then the designer who insists on running a Mac doesn't need 2 computers at work (Mac for design, PC to run a required app). Interoperability is key, zealots that just stand in the way of this are impractical purists who don't care about users.

It is not a "good thing" to have Mono or .NET interoperability taken out of reach of Linux users. Interoperability layers such as Mono allow Linux systems to participate in networks that are dominated by Windows and other commercial systems. If it weren't for software like this, Linux systems may not be invited into some corporate networks, and would not get a seat at the table. The idea of a "pure" linux or no linux is going to continue having linux sitting out in the cold all by itself. Interoperability is crucial. If anything, we need more software like Mono, not less.