He didn't say it was doing a good job, he said he couldn't see a better alternative. And you didn't propose one either.
Worse, C is the speed of light in a vacuum. In any other medium it's slower. I'd need to check what current light fiber speeds are, but it's guaranteed to be less than C, unless there's a vacuum in the center of the fiber. (I think there needs to be a relatively smooth gradient of speeds, with the center being the fastest and the edges being the slowest for an optical fiber to work, but I'm less than certain.)
OTOH, a tetrahertz switch doesn't mean a tetrahertz CPU cycle. So I'm not at all sure that you can presume that we're talking about a speedup of 250. I don't know what the speed of a switch inside a fast CPU is currently.
It's a quiet evening in my office at the respected media empire of "Fair and biased, inc". My editor and I are discussing ideas for a great story. "You know", says the respected journalist of 96 years, "I'm hearing a lot about Bitcoin these days, it's some new currency or whatnot. Why don't you see if you can interview the creator, Satoshi Nakamoto?"
That's complete claptrap. Yes, very recent (last 5-10 years) widget toolkits have started to force use of features that result in bitmaps being sent across the network, but that's hardly a reason to throw out X. And it's essentially a lie to pretend it means, somehow, that X11 doesn't have network transparency.
I find it pretty bad, to be honest, that the same devs who are protesting that X11's network transparency isn't what it could be are:
1. The devs that did this in the first place, refusing to advance the protocol to include the features that GTK3 et al required.
2. Apparently think the solution is getting rid of network transparency altogether.
I'm staggered, to be honest, by the whole thing. I appreciate old code is sometimes awkward to support, but the solution isn't a wholesale replacement of the project. Mozilla's developers may have made many mistakes in their decision to throw out the Netscape code that delayed the release of a great browser for many years, but they were NEVER, NEVER so stupid as to say "Well, we looked at the Netscape source code, and we think the solution is to get rid of HTML. It's too kludgy! I mean, just look at it, it's impossible to add features to it cleanly!"
If we were talking about a rewrite of X.org, nee XFree86.org, nee X86, that'd be one thing. It's probably necessary by now although I'd still say they need to seriously think in terms of refactoring the project. But throwing out the entire protocol because they refused to add the features necessary to make the protocol efficient? Fuck that.
It's hard to see why anyone with an interest in Linux would want us to move away from X11 to an unstable untried display system that will be missing features by design, simply because some X11 developers feel that the core X.org server has a lot of cruft in it.
Wayland will look elegant to those programmers until the day they start adding the missing features. It'll be far more crufty and inefficient than X.org long before it ends up being feature complete. That's how programming works.
Games mostly but the news reader is good too. Games are obvious because they should be full screen anyway. The metro mail app is also good. And I often have the twitter app snapped to one side while in desktop mode. And same goes for hulu.
So yeah, people do.
beta is no joke, that's serious damage to the business
sticking the money in your shorts or mattress makes one immune to inflation?
this has *everything* to do with bitcoin, there are no regulations or laws to ensure quality of code. The dollars in the federal reserve computer network do not have this issue
this is a bitcoin failure, there are no regulations or insurance to insure held bitcoins are safe or even exist
bitcoin is not a currency, it is not money, it fails liquidity and other requirements that real money satifies
If Bill Gates is involved, I suspect some devious plot, though not necessarily Microsoft based. Actually, history would suggest that it's also Microsoft based, but he hasn't been in charge for awhile now, so perhaps he's got something else to push.
Every time I've checked one of his "benevolent" actions, it's turned out to be control motivated (or wealth motivated) so I'm now suspicious whenever his name appears.