They are not doing fine. All thats left is a few aging mainframe platforms which are shrinking niche and have been for decades.

IBM, why not open source it? It could be of at least historical value to someone, and it could allow for porting to linux and allow it to be used in a DOSBOX or VM. If someone here from IBM reads this, could you advance this idea?

Did Musk write this when he was drunk? Seriously, if you want to do this, it needs to use mostly martian resources rather than sapping earths resources which are needed on earth. Unless a planet has a large supply of water, and at least the ingredients you need to make an oxygen atmosphere, the idea is a no-go. Ideally it would have some land surface (for mining) but also an ample supply of the above mentioned elements. The idea is virtually impossible. If you were concerned about survival such as from an asteroid, what you would do, is create survival groups around earth that would be equipped with underground facilities stocked with an emergency supply of food, not only for humans but also to feed livestock animals, as well as a seed bank. Hidden, secure, and fortified so the group could go underground for years, along with the livestock. The livestock and seeds would be used to rebuild agriculture afterwords. Unlike dinosaurs, we have the capability to survive the worst asteriod strike. though, you want to develop a plan to kill an asteriod before it hits the earth (with a nuke perhaps) as your first line of defense.

I think that people who use GIMP SHOULD make a donation to GIMP development. So, I am not advocating people just expect this stuff to happen by itself.

It needed more features, it needed to actually exceed Photoshop and offer more features than Photoshop rather than being second best. Most people who need a Gimp like program have lots of graphics and dont need something that breaks when you try to do anything except for the most mundane task. Until Gimp stops being content with supporting "just some" of photoshops capability, its going to be useless for real users, and more like a useless toy.

gimp needs to stop being content with second best and instead be better than photoshop. The fact is, while Gimp has some features, most people who need a paint program with a more complete feature set. Right now Gimp really has little appeal to anyone, its far too weak to really replace Photoshop which is what most people need. The goal needs to be to be a full replacement for photoshop and even beyond that, rather than "not quite".

This is NOT good news AT ALL. This is a closed source application which means it is designed to take away your freedom, basically, you have no capability to read or to modify source code that runs on your computer if you want to do so. Worse, its a cloud application, which means that your data is stored, transmitted over the net even when you don't want it to be, which means you really dont have control or ownership of your own data. Its also not a port to real Linux, but instead, to Chrome.

Real Linux distros need real desktop applications. Yes, we need more feature rich programs than what is available right now , such as something more powerful than Gimp,, as does Inkscape and other programs, which need to take meeting and exceeding the capabilities of their closed source counterparts more seriously instead of being just second best.

then why would lenovo want to spend so much money on something that is worthless?

This is burning the living room furniture. Running the server and personal computer business is profitable for Lenovo, IBM could have itself made it profitable as well if it was so inclined. Whats left of IBM? A few aging mainframe platforms that are on decline and serve an increasingly small niche market

Wrong. Most software programs have had big bugs like this that need to be fixed, including Java and Python. For example http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-1912. Python has had a dozen remote code exploit attacks. So why do people keep picking on Bash when many other software programs have had these problems.

http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-1912

There have been a dozen remote code exploits in Python over the years. So it begs the question, why is everyone picking on Bash when most languages have these problems?

Backwards compatability, which is a language design issue, has absolutely nothing to do with the implementation problems we see with these bugs. A good parser can implement backwards compatability without difficulty or problems. One option I like is recursive descent and ascent parsing with backtracking for ease of understanding and versatility, even if it may not be the most efficient.

The design of the language (which is fine by the way, its different, but its fine), has absolutely nothing to do with these bugs.

No. The bugs we see in Bash have analogs which have been found in most software implementations, remember all of the Bugs found in Java, Python and so on, this is not a Bash only thing. Bash implements a programming language of its own (its own extensions to Bourne), and implements functionality that is unique and different from other languages. When you want the Bash programming language, Python isnt going to do that for you. What needs to be done is to fix the problem in the implementation and its much quicker to fix the current code base rather than to rewrite. the problem here is the implementation, not the language. The language itself is not the prroblem, is fine for what it does, its some problems in the implementation.

I think you meant St. Petersburg, FL. Many of the cafes sort of treat coffee as an afterthought rather than specializing in it. A cafe is often more of a restaurant. There are some locally run coffee places that are fairly decent, however