All I got out of that was, "blah blah blah, been using it for a decade, don't want to change." Tough. Maybe I should mention that I was using Windows since Windows 95 (first computer: 1997), so when I finally pulled the plug in 2006 it was not a light move. I had dozens of programs that I was so used to I felt almost as if I couldn't function without them. The landscape was slightly different back then, but yet eerily similar to what people are dealing with these days... just replace a couple OS names and the stories could probably be interchanged. The only difference is, the Linux world is lightyears away from even where it was when I first used it. NTFS-3G? Hah, highly experimental. X11? It was only beginning to truly get simplified. Now it's mostly a cakewalk, I really don't see much room for excuse. Either put up with Microsoft's shit, or get up and do something about it. It's as simple as that.

Really. XP's future was looking a bit bleak about 8-10 years ago, why the fuck would anyone want put up with the torture this long... and then *STILL* (!) not want to let it go even at the official end of its life? Which, I might as well add, was continually put off by Microsoft due to their own failures (Vista) and the unexpected success of their competition (Linux) in markets that they themselves weren't quite a part of. Now it's such a crusty old turd, you have to be a masochist to keep wanting to use it. If that's the case... have at it. Cut away.

I will never know why people have such a reliance on such an antiquated operating system, but then, I don't really care, because I jumped ship back in 2006 for Linux, just in time for the V-Bomb. It's been much better ever since. The simple solution is to get a new, "modern" computer; or if you're cheap, switch to a different operating system. It's not rocket science.

Meh... I don't think that list does each variety justice. If you consider the garbage they bred the heat out of specifically to sell off to the masses as "jalapeno" peppers, then yeah... it's not much hotter than a banana pepper, so your positioning of it right after the bell pepper is accurate. However... if you consider some of the untamed, real deal, original varieties, the heat is surprising. I've had some Jalapeno M peppers that blew the shit out of anything labeled "Serrano" or even "Cayenne" that I tried.

The hotter the better, and preferably of the C. chinense species, of practically any color (except unripe/green). There are some decent C. baccatum varieties though and Rocotos are pretty good and unique. Not a fan of Tabasco peppers other than ground into powder, and most C. annuum varieties are for pussies. The Bhut Jolokia, Fatalli, Trinidad Scorpion and 7 Pod are all pretty damn good superhots.

...

Exactly. For, like, ever, in fact. I have actually been a Firefox user since before it was even *called* Firefox, and I heavily recommended it to everyone I knew for years starting sometime around its official 1.0 release. Anyone remember Phoenix? Any time there was a virus conversation, one of the key things I always said (aside from basic common sense) was DO NOT USE IE... use, you guessed it, Firefox. Those people listened to what I said, and in turn told people *they* knew to do the same thing. Most of the people I know have, as a direct result, been users of Firefox.

Now, Mozilla seems like it doesn't even want Firefox to be Firefox anymore; they want it to be Chrome. So why should a user who has been there praising the browser from the beginning, who used it in large part *for* those design choices that made Firefox what it was, have to shut up and take it up the ass while Mozilla competes with Google on their race to get the first Chrome version 100 out the door?

In recent years, I have been more hesitant to recommend Firefox. Hell, Mozilla wouldn't even be where they are today if it wasn't for people like me. And now, I'm considering abandoning it. I think I have the right to show my dissatisfaction with Mozilla, which started happening little by little with the 3 series, and then went into overdrive starting with 4.0.

If I wanted to use Chrome, I would be using Chrome right now. But I'm not--I use Firefox, and have been putting up with Mozilla's shit for years now, screwing up and dumbing down the interface. Now, they're making it a direct Chrome clone. I think I'll be switching to SeaMonkey soon. I'm sick of Mozilla's bullshit. The creation of the Mozilla Corporation, as I see it, was the start of Mozilla's downfall.

Every Debian I've used in the last several years just plain worked. Back to 4.0/Etch, which marked the beginning of my interest in Linux and my early distro hopping days.

So true. On the Windows (8.1) side of my laptop, I can spend 10+ minutes doing attempted (failed) boots, forcing shutdowns when it stops responding during boot, and repeating the whole process before the OS finally decides to actually boot. Maybe if I'm unlucky I'll even get a "sorry, Windows has failed to boot" message, requiring--yep--another reboot. And that nightmare speaks nothing of the stupid Metro crap including Start Screen.

Not fun when I only need to reboot from the Linux side to get into Windows for five or ten minutes at the most. This problem has been known since about November last year, I've had it since I got my laptop and set it up in December, and there is *still* no fucking fix to this madness. Sure am glad I am on the Linux side the majority of the time, where everything is fast, nice and pleasant (and stable) in the i3 window manager.

Well, at least it seems like they got the traditional Windows user experience right... they should at least get credit for that. It's nice to know that there is consistency between their products, so you can know what you're getting (into) ahead of time... even if the shared traits are 95% undesirable.

"It mostly seems that some people can't quite grasp that Mozilla isn't able to do EVERYTHING, and sometimes an old feature that's convenient for some of us has to be let go. The people who really need that feature should be the ones who figure out how to make it work, not one company with limited resources who are already maintaining what's required for us to maintain such addons."

You must use Apple systems. Yeah, let's dumb everything down, for all the idiots out there...

No, I'd rather not see GUIs become crippled, while powerful options get buried in messes like about:config or some registry or something. Just because advanced users are more capable of finding things and getting around a system, doesn't mean the developers should make it unnecessarily difficult to do so.

The browser could at least help, by not automatically assuming that everyone wants JavaScript support and re-enabling it even for anyone who willfully turned it off in the first place, while at the same time removing the GUI, requiring digging through the bowels of the hell that is about:config just to find the option to re-enable. The first step to cutting web bloat is to disable JavaScript, but ironically Mozilla seems to be directly against this idea.

Depends on how much I crank the volume.

But really, I think I fucked up my ears up from years of loud music in my car, because these days I usually hear the ringing in my ears louder than I can hear the computer. I just bought a new laptop and I can barely hear it usually; only when the fans kick in can I hear it, and even then I usually can't tell it's making noise unless I stop and pay close attention.

No. Lynx/Links/w3m. Beat *THAT*, bitches.

Probably because they figured if there is a chance of them selling the brand/company and they were really serious about it, they would rather not shoot themselves in the foot by killing Winamp before a potential deal goes through.

And there is a distro for just that purpose:
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=stella

Personally I probably wouldn't run something like CentOS/RHEL on my primary desktop or laptop since I like to run all the latest stuff without too much of a wait. But if I had a secondary "work" machine and wanted absolute rock-solid stability and unsurpassed support (ten years), then such an OS would be excellent. Running a machine with for the most part only minor updates being required and no major, potential stability-damaging upgrades for its entire working life does sound somewhat appealing if you just want a machine to work, and that especially suits a desktop in the corner that just always works, is always there, never needs any maintenance...

But yeah, I'd probably still upgrade once every other OS version at least anyway. I would eventually get bored and want to start playing with something new.