While true here I feel the effort is wasted. We don't have two different Office suites but rather twice more or less the same Office suite with a different license. The likelihood of both projects spending/wasting quite a bit of time/effort trying to not deviate too much from each other seems rather big, this effort would have been better spent on competing with actually different office suites (or standalone applications) instead of with their clone.

No we don't, one was donated by Oracle so they didn't have to maintain it (because they managed to piss off most of the devs). The right thing for the community would have been for Apache to drop it as a clear signal to Oracle and its ilk so they maybe might start fixing their attitude, now Oracle just gets what it wants: an updated Office suite they can do whatever they want with whenever they want (due to the license).

The main reason as I see it, to keep this "thing" "alive" is out of anti-GPL sentiment, which is just a plain retarded reason in my book.

So Apple is a bit like your average Western government then?

Which seems to be the same thing in today's world. Sadly.

Well, my 15year old 2MB S3 2D only card can't run it anymore, so I need new hardware! RAAAAGE! ;-)

Sure, only the language. But not the libraries that make it useful... You might want to update your knowledge on which parts of .Net are actually "safe" to use, let me tell you MUCH less than what Mono implements.

It's not irrevocable (they can easily get out of their promise if they want) and only covers a relatively small part of the entire .Net runtime, much less than you need for it to be actually useful, iow, Mono implements a lot that doesn't fall under this promise. The FSF has covered this ground time and time again.

Because they were mostly a nomadic people. It's only when their land got taken from under them that they saw the need for a "state" or "identity" as such. You can hardly lay claim on a land you haven't lived in for like 3000years without sounding like a lunatic. Most peoples aren't native to the country they live in, having displaced other peoples or having been displaced by other peoples multiple times in the course of history. The Old Belgians for example got driven quite out a few times and most of them now probably live somewhere way south in Europe (Southern France, Spain, maybe even Turkey), it would be pretty insane if they suddenly tried to reclaim their former land after like 1300 years.

As usual, two wrongs don't make a right, but enough wrongs make damn sure you keep running in circles. Which seems exactly what is happening here.

Indeed, if this feature was actually useful in an enterprise setting RedHat would have implemented it years ago. The simple fact that they did not is in itself enough proof that it is a useless feature.

For my personal usage I barely have any files I could compress and save any reasonable amount of space with. Old documents tend to go in tar bzipped files which, incidentally, I can just browse as if they ware normal folders with my file manager of choice. If the OP can't with his then his file manager is a gimped piece of crap that needs replacing.

File system compression is a non-solution to a non-problem.

IMHO the time to desktop means nothing, especially on Windows as you note, the system isn't usable for minutes after the desktop's shown up. Adding in a faster drive (eg, an SSD or a hybrid drive) will cut down on the startup time, but the issue remains. So whether you load everything before showing the desktop or after will only make a difference in perceived bootup time, not in actual "time until the system is actually usable". In other words, it's just a cheap way to appear to boot faster without any actual benefit to the user.