Since I read beyond the first couple sentences, I believe the OP is absolutely right. This has nothing to do with splitting Linux in two or many other forks as you wish.

It is the job of the distro to configure properly a kernel and everything else to fit the intent usage. You can compile your kernel and tweak it to be more appropriated for a server than a desktop and vice-versa. For those distros the customer expect everything to be done for him, this is up to the distro to provide the appropriate "customization". When I build my kernels, I pick the appropriate options for the intent use and tweak it up to the point I wish it to be. I install the packages I need for the exact usage I want and I customize them for the intent use. Yes, I am among those silly guys installing Gentoo. However, if I had to go with another distro, I would expect them to do this for me. That's why I would pay for a distro on a server, for example. But, since I am fluent enough with the kernel and everything else, I don't need this. But everyone must know you don't need to split anything to get what you want.

In short, this suggestion just let me think this guy doesn't know enough about Linux.

Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks guys for the feedback.

There is many places which are really good to use as radioactive waste dumps. The most stable rock plate in Canada, known as the canadian shield is 4,5 bn years old to 540 millions years old and is stable since then. Of course, you have to make an agreement with government of Canada to use it and pay some kind of fee to monitor and secure it, however it is a perfectly acceptable solution.

Reprocessing is an expensive task and I doubt it can be justified money-wise to do it on site for all or most sites.

Rhetorical question, since without disposal sites, there is no need to have a way to get there and the solution was then to stock the waste on site until the political issues get resolved some day in the future. That wasn't putting the cart before the horse, that was putting the horses behind the cart and pushing it. However, the cart is hard to move like all political carts. The energy was needed and urgent problems had to be solved first.

It's unfortunate you sign Anonymous Coward, because it is well said.

Exactly! Sometimes people think a company should be after every tiny bit of the market and eat it all while many businesses never intent to capture all the opportunities. Only those with the highest ROI are worth going after. It is not because you want to buy a couple of Broadcom chips you deserve outstanding support.

Support costs money.

The above example from Apple is irrelevant in today's context. At the time Steve Jobs and Wosniak developed their computer, this was an emerging market. Personal computing was at its beginning and it was like the Internet in 1995, throwing a pile of money (support) at it worth it to capture emerging opportunities. And, the Motorola initiative did pay them well. They were totally absent in this market. On another hand, IBM was not approaching the market the same way and didn't provided anything to developers. They even invented the micro-channel architecture and made sure the specs were closed. That was a bad decision afterward, but it was strategically justified from the position of the company at this time.

Anyway, all this to say running a business and a profitable one is not necessarily seeking for world domination.

Sure, I agree with this bad attitude toward hardware hackers and low-level software developers. However, this board has still a place in the OS. I don't believe the original initiative from Raspberry Pi Foundation was to provide an open hardware platform at all. It was all about providing a cheap solution to encourage coding skills development early in school. From this point of view, Linux was a natural choice given it costs nothing. Open hardware was not a concern since you do not expect youngsters to hack litterally the hardware, you expect them to play with the GPIOs from the Linux software platform and that's all. And this at the lowest price possible.

It is just afterward and after people start to be very interested into this thin board that the open hardware issues manifest themselves for some developers.

Would you mind tell me who are the competitors? I am pretty interested in alternative products if any at a competitive price.

Wow, time flies! Soon it will be the 20th anniversary of Linux on the Desktop Year.

FUD about systemd is grossly exagerrated. I, myself, migrated to systemd about two weeks ago because I was required to do so (before I learned afterward I could have stick with the openrc scripts stuff) in a migration to Gnome 3, outch! I mean I had a hard time with all these migrations, including GRUB 2.

I really hate the Linux world that very day I manage to migrate. I wasn't able to find what I was accustomed to and do my things the old comfortable way I was used to. However, I must say after two weeks, that is not that bad and you will always find people that resist any change. Once I worked for IBM many decades ago, we were often depicted as evil because AIX was a sacrilege in the face of the SunOS sysadmins with its tool to ease system administration with clever checking of options and so on. It was perceived as a OS for the faint. What was really important to a customer? Preserve the machism of his sysadmins or improve the management and reduce the costs to manage the infrastructure making it possible to build more complex environment without spending all the money on the system administration?

It is about the same story with systemd, even if it is not as sophisticated as the AIX administration tool, it standardized many things. It is just a matter to take time to learn the new system, something not everyone is willing to do, I must admit, but it is not more complicated than the set of scripts used by the old initialization system.

And, yes, I must also admit I was really hating Gnome 3 at first, now I took time to understand better the desktop shell and I like it more than Gnome 2, the weak point being not everything is yet properly documented. Since it is open software working on a voluntary base, it will take time and if people are just reluctant to work with the new system and learn it, it will just be longer before a better documentation becomes available. Remember what Open Source is all about? Scratch a itch.

Apparently is more like: Dr No vs Dr Who.

Just run!

I never noticed Mythbusters was a science show. Really? Most of the experiments are useless shit. Real scientists don't need to perform these shitty expriment and can solve the problem with basic thinking and most of the time basic arithmetic. And the science, when there is, is rarely properly explained. This is pure entertainement. If you believe this is science, you should think Jackass, the movie, is a great science documentary.