FTFA:

It's not my intention to shift the blame around though. PA [PulseAudio] and the other layers of our stack should not be viewed as independent parts. If PA uses a new or previously unused feature of the drivers then we need to fix the drivers at the same time.

I'm wondering what the ex-population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki thinks about this.

My requirements were prioritizing, selective downloading, FOSS, a small footprint, and running as service/daemon, and I tried most of the clients on the Wikipedia list that fit these criteria. I liked Deluge most, though I still had a a few problems.

In the end, the problem solved itself when I did the switch from Windows to Linux as my main OS. I use rTorrent, daemonized in screen now and have never looked back. It's very small and has console and (optional) web interfaces.

Oh, and please don't tell anyone I said "FOSS-software".

This just isn't true. I have to invest quite some time to familiarize myself with an application and set my preferences, expecting to be able to use it in the future. With closed software, I never know if can do just that. A closed application may change in a way that makes new versions unusable for me at any time. What's worse, closed source locks me in, forcing me to eat all the little nuisances they decide to inflict upon me.

It might be a decision to abandon certain functionality (not supporting a certain file format any longer, or dropping a lesser used feature to concentrate on a more popular one), it might be a matter of trust (changes in license or privacy agreement; a BitTorrent client getting sold to a company connected to copyright holders or an email client to a company known for data mining), it might be a matter of price (formerly free applications going commercial), it might just be the ever-so-popular dumbing down of the user interface.

My problem is that I can't just stop updating it now, because I depend on bug fixes. In the worst case I need security fixes to keep my system safe at all.

With FOSS-software I would fork from the version that has the functionality I need, trust or can use efficiently, and just keep up with any holes as they appear. I can't do any of that with closed software, effectively barring me from using the app any longer and wasting the time I invested in the application in the first place.

A prominent example of this is uTorrent. When they were sold, a lot of people, me included, would have liked to keep current functionality (it was fairly sufficient). To keep using the old version, though, is to keep any security holes that were discovered in the meantime wide open. I'm sure other people remember a lot of other examples.

I even wondered about this when I started using uTorrent but decided, nah, that guy seems ok, I think I can risk it. I don't think I will make that mistake again. I like to be in control of my applications, not the other way around.

I said most. I admit to a computer and an internet connection. I don't play commercial games, I haven't bought a DVD in years, my TV set from 1990 rests in the basement, I don't particularly "like" cell phones.

Even if I did like all those things you named, I can easily name plenty more that don't even cost a smile: -

• sitting in the sun,
• sitting in the rain,
• reading classic books,
• listening to music,
• playing a game of cards,
• talking to friends,
• talking to you,
• lushus nectareens,
• jumping up and down on my bed, and
• (drum roll...) long walks on the beach.

Really, though, I was trying to make a different point: My disapproval of our obsession over consuming distractions in the wider sense on a regular basis, and the general assumption that everything worth having costs money. I understand my value system might differ substantially from yours. Sorry for the guided idealism.

"He who never thinks of anything as 'mine' does not feel the lack of anything: he is never worried by a sense of loss."

You said it isn't one of them. I showed it is one of them. Your backtracking to say it didn't use to be one of them acquiesces in this.

Secondly, tangential to my point, but intersecting your new position:

Etymology:

moot

1154, from O.E. gemot "meeting" (especially of freemen, to discuss community affairs or mete justice), from P.Gmc. *ga-motan (cf. Old Low Frankish muot "encounter," M.Du. moet, M.H.G. muoz), from collective prefix *ga- + *motan (see meet (v.)). The adj. senses of "debatable" and "not worth considering" arose from moot case, earlier simply moot (n.) "discussion of a hypothetical law case" (1531), in law student jargon, in ref. to students gathering to test their skills in mock cases.

Please notice the word hypothetical, as in theoretical, as in not practical. Please also notice the mention of the year 1531, which invalidates your 1983 reference with regards to antecedence.

Conclusions:

1. While whether or not you trumped anything is moot, you did overbid.
2. As much as I enjoy bickering with you, we should really stop this. :)