The first or the second? I really enjoyed the first, but about the only improvement in the second was the graphics (and my laptop could only handle the lowest detail at a playable rate anyway). The combat was a lot better in the first one and the characters seemed more interesting.
It's a difficult balance in this kind of game between making it open (so the player feels in control of what's happening) and providing a story (because part of the reason for buying the game like this is to be told a story). The first one seemed to get the balance right, but the sequel felt too scripted to me - I was just running from one plot element to the next and then making the four token decisions. There were lots of side-quests in the first one that impacted the story later on and interactions with characters that told you interesting things.
I think the sequel also got off to a bad start, because it let you import your save game from the first one, but after being given a silver sword by a Goddess and a steel sword by a king and finding some legendary armour exploring a tomb, I discovered that the first person I killed had a better sword than me. More importantly, swords and armour made a significant difference in the second. One thing that always annoys me in fantasy games is when the equipment makes more of a difference in fights than the skill. In The Witcher, the difference between a crappy sword stolen from a low-paid henchman and the amazing sword forged for the kind was about 10-20%. Enough to give you a slight edge, but not enough to make a real difference unless a fight was very close. The difference between Geralt at the start and Geralt after he'd (re)learned a load of fighting skills was significant. In contrast, in The Witcher 2, you can get a really good sword and then be easily able to beat monsters that would kill you easily with a less-good sword, without learning any new skills.
Most of their Mac games use DOSBox or WINE, so it probably wasn't too much effort for them to get Linux support working for most of them. Even before they announced Mac support, I ran quite a few of their games with WINE and DOSBox on OS X (their older games use DOSBox on Windows too), but it's a lot less hassle to get their configs (although they tend to be quite pessimistic about visual quality, and you can improve some of the older adventure games a lot by changing the scaling mode to hq3x in the DOSBox config that they ship).
I'm very happy with GOG - there are typically 5-10 games on my shelf that I haven't got around to playing yet. I got The Witcher 1 and 2 as a bundle and enjoyed them both, although I enjoyed the first one a lot more. They're DRM-free and let you redownload games, often with significant updates (e.g. I bought Dungeon Keeper, and they later added the expansion pack. FTL is now FTL: Advanced Edition).
To give a concrete example, take a look at the DNS root zone servers operated by Verisign. They run a 50:50 mix of Linux and FreeBSD and increasingly a mix of BIND and Unbound. They use a userspace network stack on some and the system network stack on others. If someone wants to take out the root zone, they need to find exploits for each of these systems. A bug that lets you remotely crash a FreeBSD box likely won't affect Linux and vice versa. That gives them a little bit more time to find the fix (they also massively overprovision, so if someone does take out all of the Linux systems then the FreeBSD ones can still handle the load, and vice versa). If someone finds a bug in BIND then the Unbound servers will be fine.
If your web site were running a mixture of OpenSSL and something else, then it would be relatively easy to turn off the servers running OpenSSL as soon as the vulnerability is disclosed and only put them back online when they've been audited for compromises. Of course, it depends a bit on what your threat model is. If a single machine being compromised is a game-over problem, then you're better off with a monoculture (at your organisation, at least). If having all (or a large fraction) compromised is a problem, but individual compromises are fine, then it's better to have diversity.
The API is widely cited in API security papers as an example of something that could have been intentionally designed to cause users to introduce vulnerabilities. The problem is that the core crypto routines are well written and audited and no one wants to rewrite them, because the odds of getting them wrong are very high. The real need is to rip them out and put them in a new library with a new API. Apple did this with CommonCrypto and the new wrapper framework whose name escapes me (it integrates nicely with libdispatch), but unfortunately they managed to add some of their own bugs...
If by 'any deal' you mean 'any contract' then they generally do come with either unlimited texting or quite a lot, but that's not true for pre-paid plans, which have made up the majority of the market for the last few years. I'm currently with Three, and they charge 3p/min for calls, 2p/min for texts and 1p/min for data - I'd have to spend a lot of time on the phone to come close to the cost of the cheapest contract plan, so they really only make sense for people who use their phone for business, or who haven't worked out that the 'free' phone that they get is really a loan at 50+% APR to buy a phone. For 2p, I can have one SMS or 2MB of data. The latter is enough to keep an IM connection open all day, so I can see the attraction of things like WhatsApp, especially since you can switch to the desktop version whenever you find the keyboard too limiting.
And that's not counting the fact that you can use WiFi when you're somewhere where roaming is expensive, which is the only reason I still have a SIP client installed on my phone: It's cheaper for me to make calls to the UK from the UK over the mobile network, but when I'm abroad (outside one of Three's Feel at Home countries) it's often a lot cheaper to use SIP. Sending text messages abroad is very expensive, but using WiFi is usually free.