Two things.

1) Fortran has low level mathematical data operators that are more powerful than those in C. I.e. in practice Fortran code compiles to faster code because the programmer is more aware of what will be faster.

2) ALUs evolved around running fortran code fast the same way modern CPUs evolved around running compiled C code fast.

Functional code can't be maintained immediately by the random programmer. They need to learn concepts first. That's also true of languages which are tightly coupled to hardware, languages which are tied tightly to databases or BI tools or languages which uses other conceptual frameworks like logic programming. Everyone learns: do X then do Y when they are a toddler.

For the first time since I started w/the iPhone (the 3G was my first one), I see absolutely nothing of value with this major release version which makes me want to upgrade to it.

I'll be paying $99 for the 5S and be happy w/it. Sorry but unnecessarily bigger sizes and a better camera is not worth $200+contract renewal.

Cloud computers are not servers in the classic sense they are nodes. The entire cloud or at least huge chunks of it plays the role of a server. For example in a server storage is per machine in the cloud you have many boxes dedicated to managing storage. In a server you have tiny applications acting as message brokers like the TCP/IP stack. In a cloud you have whole machines acting as message brokers.

In the case of X11 there is way too much cruft and things implemented for the wrong standards, backwards compatibility. In the case of init the cruft is scattered over hundreds of daemons all offering services. That's what's being gotten rid of.

I don't know Poettering. I just want a daemon monitoring standard now.

I totally understand what they're doing and that's fine if they want to operate in that way. Its people just need to realize this and use the name and prestige its name on their resume brings when they hop to a smaller but potentially more enjoyable organization.

The IT world is certainly competitive; however, ALL companies should see the internal benefits to training employees and working to ensure they do not leave. Companies with the mindset you laid out above are doing themselves a double disservice by not training their employees and leveraging the benefits and immediate returns provided by investments in their human capital. In some fields and with some resources, professional development is seen as a bigger happiness motivator and retention tool than more salary.

What you have outlined above is a company which is not interested in its people and only its immediate bottom line and one where it's clear its people should move on regardless of payscale and internal short-term opportunity provided.

As someone who has repeatedly attended and presented at conferences in my field, I make it a point during negotiations for any new job to ensure these are funded fully but only if I am presenting; otherwise, I opt to share in the costs associated in attending with my employer.

Each and every company I have worked at in the past (and current) has a budget for training and professional development of its employees, some more than others; however, by making a case that I am giving back to a community of like-minded professionals and putting our name and brand out there during presentations, I have found this is an easy sell for companies for which I want to work.

I work extensively w/SAS and utilize a lot of the conference (SAS Global Forum/SUGI prior) materials in my day to day both for myself and our entire organization. By making it clear to my employers that I want to give back by presenting, I have opened organization's view on how the sharing of information benefits the business while benefiting the entire industry.

Make your determination and desires known when you sign on and, if that is not an option, make it clear to your management that you want to do the same thing. While I have received a variety of different types of pushback over the years for this view, they have all relented and ended up changing their world view when the benefits are presented as they are.

Conferences are not inexpensive (SAS Global Forum is usually around $3000 - $3500 for a single person encompassing travel, conference registration, lodging, meals, etc) but the ROI can be HUGE beyond that depending on the knowledge transfers that occur, the networking opportunities, and the new business development which I have seen from these conferences.

While I did not attend SASGF 2014 this year, it was solely due to my available time to develop a presentation topic, not because my company would not send me (this was my first missed attendance since I became involved in the SAS world) and I look forward to contributing to and learning from others in the future.

Best of luck.

No it isn't. Perfectly legal.

I'm a bit iffy in calling that a major distribution, 20 years ago absolutely, today? Also they long ago lost support for most of the applications that make use of systemd (so far enterprise applications and Gnome). But OK. They going with a classic approach on this like many other things.

Why didn't the USA just change their constitution to allow for real trials? Allowing for a medieval type of trial just because one country happens to have a dated phrase in its constitution hardly strikes me as a good solution.

Wow. Trial by jury has tremendous support in the USA, I'd assume something like 98+%. Even people who supported torture and military tribunals for terrorism suspects supported their right to have a jury as part of the military tribunal. If you want the right to trial by jury to be eliminated that's a much more serious debate where a deeply held belief would need to change. There is nowhere near the level of support for an international court as their is for trial by jury.

However, the point is not whether it makes a difference or not, but that the US government is trying to get Microsoft to break the law.

GP was arguing it did make a difference that there was a real danger. If you think he's wrong and this is a question of principle with no practical threat then fine. But then your argument is with him not me.

Indeed. The difference is that the American government seeks to apply its laws and rules everywhere in the world, while other governments typically keep it to their own country.

I gave you an example already, the ICC. Another example is the restriction on Google. Or for that matter this very case, the attempt to impose restrictions on Azure.

I agree. I think 80% of what people wanted from systemd is in OpenRC with 0% of the risk. Had init changed some to add most of the functionality people want in systemd, systemd wouldn't have evolved. But it did and now we should be dealing with the world as it exists.

If someone wants something that is equally problematic today were individual solutions are evolving, we need a networking stack that has a better understanding of latency. Now is the time for the old school Unix guys to be fixing that, before the pot boils over.

The architecture doesn't matter too much. Systemd itself will be easily replaceable. For example FreeBSD is porting Apple's launchd over (openlaunchd). Given that systemd is based on launchd and that the FreeBSD people are going to want to run Gnome... I suspect that by 2020 or so openlaunchd would be an alternative, and likely one without the architectural issues.

You've heard time and time again why the foundation needs to be ripped up.

Init doesn't offer the range of services that modern daemon maintenance need nor does it offer a foundation for it. Thus modern daemons end up repeating boilerplate to add functionality that should be available in the init system to themselves. The Unix philosophy is "do one thing and do it well". Not meeting the needs of the direct users (daemons) means init no longer is "doing it well".

Linux's primary market share is on servers.

  Actually at this point Linux's primary market share is on embedded. After that nodes for cloud computing. Then Android (approaching 10b). Then probably individual servers of the type you are thinking of.

In practice, there should be different distribution based on the server and desktop.

There are. But both the server oriented distributions like RedHat and Debian and the desktop oriented distributions like Ubuntu and Mageia are going in this direction. If it were a desktop only feature that's not the move you would expect.