Sorry but I've dealt with more failed drives at the shop than you've had hot meals and if they fail "without" warning?
Then YOU sir are not paying attention! Before a HDD fails you will see several rather blatant warning signs, warning about delayed write fails being the most obvious but there is also temp spikes on the drive (as the motor heats up trying and failing seeks) and SMART changes (not talking SMART fail, which is usually at the end, we are talking large changes in the SMART values which can be read by one of several free programs such as HWMon or HDTune) not to mention most modern drives get REALLY noisy when they are getting ready to croak.
I never said that HDDs never give warnings. I claimed that HDDs can fail without warning. I've had a few die with controller failures. It's not always a mechanical failure. I've also seen mechanical failures where the SMART information didn't contain any errors. For example, sometimes a head can just crash (rare, but can still happen even on stationary drives). You're making some dangerous assumptions on the types of ways that HDDs can fail, which if you really had dealt with more failed drives than I've had hot meals, you'd know that they aren't always predictable.
Compare this to the "dirty little secret" of the SSD world which is the majority of SSD fails are NOT the flash chips themselves but the SSD controller chip. When that fails? NO warning, NO chance to back up your data, just flip the switch and...poof. this is why I tell my customers they should use a religiously adhered to backup system along with cloud computing to insure no data loss.
I hope you give that same advice to HDD customers. And why are you suggesting that backing up from a drive showing signs of failure is desirable? If I see signs of failure, I don't trust the data coming off it. I junk it, either rebuilding the array or recovering from backup.
making the init system a large complex system that does lots of things rather than the old school ideology of doing one thing and doing it well
Which init scripts didn't do. They approximated what's really dependency system (B and C need A to be up before starting, and D needs both) with a bunch of sequentyally-ran numbered scripts. The end result was both inefficient and fragile.
That part, systemd is good at. I have no objections to systemd advantages as an init system. The large complexity of doing more than it should encompasses the non-init-system parts of systemd. For example, last I heard they just added DNS caching. Into the init system. Since when does the init system need to handle DNS caching? I'd also argue (controversially) that journald is outside the scope of an init system. It has some compelling arguments for its existence, but surely it should be a separate project rather than an integral part of systemd. I'm sure there are other parts of systemd that I would object to being part of the init system, but systemd adds new features so quickly that I miss most of the feature announcements.
There is no "fundamental change" to Linux with systemd
I'd call moving DBUS into the kernel, assimilating udev, and making the init system a large complex system that does lots of things rather than the old school ideology of doing one thing and doing it well, some pretty big, somewhat fundamental changes to GNU/Linux.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again and sometimes I even have to buy a new Mac because the old one is arbitrarily locked out from a software upgrade.
So why should Skype's developers care about an ancient version of OS X? Oh, I know, because they are Microsoft, and we love to bash them here!
I call bullshit on your lies. Any Mac on the list below (or later) runs Mountain Lion, Mavericks and (soon) Yosemite. If you are running something like the 2007 Mac mini (which has support deprecated) then you will have to upgrade to run Mountain Lion or later. Almost all Macs produced in the last 7 years runs current software - Xserve which is no longer produced is an obvious exception.
iMac (Mid 2007 or newer) MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer) MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer) MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer) Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer) Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer) Xserve (Early 2009)
And each recent version of OS X has been far better than Snow Leopard and free as well.
You've asserted that Apple support hardware going back a few years. This has absolutely nothing to do with the OS version itself being unsupported, as the post you attempted to discredit referred to. If Apple doesn't support OS X 10.5, why should Microsoft?
How about this: Don't release a new OS until...
You'd never get a new OS release under that mandate. It's impossible to make something as complex as a consumer oriented OS without any bugs at all. And sometimes previously reported bugs can't be fixed without a redesign, which would require a new release.
And hey, developers... what's the deal with no true peer to peer video comm app without third party dependencies? Ask the OS what the WAN IP is, email the bloody thing to your contact, contact enters same on other end, make connection. Would work fine for a very, very large number of people. Surely the video mavens out there can manage this? Video's not magic, it's just a bloody stream of packets like everything else.
NAT, firewalls and other reasons render the approach of simply passing the WAN IP out-of-band infeasible. This will not work for a majority of people. For someone who claims to have written a lot of code in the past, I'm surprised you're not aware of this.
Besides handling the uploading of completed exam questions, ExamSoft locks down the computer on which it runs, so Wikipedia is not an option.
Yeah, that'll work, because nobody has internet capable cellphones, secondary machines or even Virtual Machines.
If you can't run a 10 minute mile, you are unfit.
You do realise it's possible to be a fit paraplegic, right?