... because they won't need to support Linux or perform maintenance on it? Or do fairys do that for you with Linux?

The retraining alone will cost far more than licensing costs over the last 10 years, let alone interoperability issues.

Licensing costs are a drop in the bucket compared to an employees salary and time, the fact that you don't realize or consider this just shows how utterly disconnected you are from the realities of running a business.

Are you seriously trying to claim Office 2013 in Windows 8 is radically different? And that its not that much different than Linux and something like LibreOffice on KDE/Gnome?

They'll lose more than 300 in dealing with interoperability with the rest of the world alone trying to exchange documents, let alone the training.

Metro is a branch of applications, not the entire OS.

You are so ridiculously uninformed about Windows you can not possibly comment on what migration would be like based on the silliness of your post.

Pretending they'll save money on the migration is just ignorant. If you want to argue that in 15 years, they'll save money, you MIGHT have an argument, IF you ignore the cost of shitty interoperability, but only if you ignore that. You have to have a pretty narrow view of the world to think they'll actually save money.

Of of them tried, but were slapped with gag orders so they couldn't even mention it to anyone.

Since when did Google test android apps?

... Right because Redmond doesn't know anything about forcing a tablet style UI on desktop/laptop users and having it fail utterly.

While theres nothing wrong with a Chromebook, pretending its going to take over the world is kind of silly.

Native Client ... REALLY? Let me put a VM in your VM so you can run VMs ...

This may sound like a great idea, but I suspect you'll find after using it a minor amount that its not all that great in reality.

You're not really understanding how ZFS does and can work. It already has hooks to provide 'features' such as you talk about. It does require crossing several traditional Unix boundaries, thats true, but its an accepted trade off to get the benefits that go with ZFS, but the hooks to include such features at the typical boundary points still exist in the ZFS code. Pretending that ZFS has to be totally and completely aware of what you hook in isn't really fair. What you hook in has to integrate with the API, which is well defined, and that really isn't any different than with the approach you seem to prefer.

And for reference: dm-cache and cache are not needed with ZFS, l2arc already covers them, and it does it better because it knows whats going on across all 3 layers. I seem to have no problem doing iscsi sharing of ZFS storage space nor do I seem to have any problem using iscsi targets as part of zdevs. Hell, technically you can still use dm-cache and bcache with ZFS, if you're ignorant enough to do so. You can even run whatever file system you want on top of zvols. You'd be stupid to do it in most cases, but the ability is there if need be.

Since you want to use the word Unix, lets get a few things clear. Linux is not and likely never will have a Unix certification. Sun on the other hand had two operating systems that were certified Unix and they were doing it before Linus had a computer to start Linux on. Drop the 'my OS does it right' bullshit because your OS isn't what you're claiming it to be, and the system you arguing against was written by people who did make something you're claiming it isn't.

I don't disagree with the Unix tradition in the least, compartmentalized code with strong boundaries and good interoperablility where ever possible ... and occasionally you tear down the walls for specific reasons. Graphical performance is an example where your philosophy sucks, which is why Windows kicks the ever living shit out of Linux performance. Note: Linux, NOT Unix. SGI had a terrific graphics stack as an example, and Sun's wasn't too horrible.

Which is why he said right sizing instead of downsizing, just because you have that sort of position doesn't mean you aren't aware of it.

:( No doubt, why are we not focusing on this bastard! Why does this guy get nothing, not even a ANY slap on the wrist!

Because has dirt on everyone in Washington, thats why.

... It probably had more to do with visiting a convicted member of a terrorist organization IN PRISON that they considered to be a lie.

Having been through this particular type of interview process, they'll hint at you what they know giving you plenty of opportunity to own up to anything like that, incase you legitimately forget. In my experience going through the process, twice, you really do have to lie to have an issue.

No, but when you deny knowing the pastor when asked, red flags go off.

Every member of a Seal team (as an easy example) has certainly associated with someone who was 'dedicated to the use of violence' and attempting to overthrow the us government by loose definitions. That doesn't make them untouchable.

If they claimed they never knew anyone who was dedicated to the use of violence, THAT IS ANOTHER STORY.

Having worked for the government and filled out these same forms, all you have to do is answer honestly. I too know members of both groups (violence and anarchy/overthrow the government). I know KKK members, and I'm fairly certain I know a former member of the black panthers, though he won't admit it.

That didn't stop me from getting the job, because I told them. In fact, I told them more than they could find! And they found some things I forgot to mention, but as soon as they made the slightest mention of it, and I remembered, I TOLD THEM FULL DETAILS. Thats all it took.

Its not even a little bit hard unless you're intentionally trying to cover up something, and thats where they get pissy.

The 15-30 largest container ships in the world (depending on who's estimates you're using) produce more pollution than all the cars combined.

WHY ARE WE NOT ADDRESSING THEM?

If you count cars, buses and transport trucks, there are over a billion in use in the world, and instead of targeting 30 objects ... we want to target over a billion objects?

Its hard for me to car about vehicle emissions for millions and millions of cars when the obvious, easy target is overlooked. I'm not saying I don't want reduced emissions, I'm just saying that if you're going to talk about efficiency, and lets be clear, thats what this discussion is about, reducing emissions is about increasing efficiency ... if you're going to increase efficiency, should you at least start being doing so in the most efficient cost effective manner?

You want to reduce emissions? Pay for it to be grown locally instead of on the other side of the globe. Stop buying the cheapest of chip shit from Asia.

Cars need to be addressed, but thats not where the conversation should start.

Sensible UAV software would then automatically pause for a short period waiting for a possible reconnect, and failing that begin a slow decent process straight down until movement stops, then deactivate all motors.

The only UAVs that don't already do this are absolute cheap ass toys.

Hint: You shouldn't be flying your UAV on WiFi in the first place, 2.4ghz DSSS or FHSS are acceptable. 802.11, no fucking way.

Bullshit.

I'm not saying you aren't banned, but you know why you are banned. I've yet to see any instance where someone showed their transaction history and it wasn't clear to everyone else on the planet. It may not be a legitimate reason even, but you know.

Only for certain things. Not everything they do falls under that umbrella. Their credit card does, as an example. Just storing 'cash' in a paypal 'account', not so much.

You have no need to break the encryption, you just need to break the system.

Perhaps you've heard of 'heart bleed'? One flaw in an ancillary portion can be enough to break it from every practical perspective.