You are the one who is complaining about lost features, but hasn't given an example. The main example being repeated is network transparency, but I honestly can't work out why I should care. What other differences convince you of X's superiority?

Here's a challenge: tell me what is missing, and why it's bad. I am a fair man, and if your reasons are good you'll win me over. But this:

is total nonsense. If you cover all the usage cases of the old system, why are you replacing it? Some features are more important than others, and it is perfectly sensible to talk about "the average user", since the features needed by different people overlap, with some features needed by very few people (e.g. network transparency), and others by almost all (e.g. mouse support).

For the record, in Ireland, 30mph went to 50kph (up), 50mph went to 80kph (roughly same), 60mph went to 100kph (up), and 70mph went up to 120kph. Despite this, people found plenty to complain about. 40mph was taken out, and many of those roads went down to 50kph. People were mostly better off with the new system, but still kicked up a fuss and tried to stop it. If you tried that in America, I'm guessing people would consider it some kind of violation of their right to freedom.

As cdecoro says below, though, this is just about the last thing that should change. We've used both systems for decades. Nowadays, we measure roads in km but people in feet. Milk is in litres but beer is in pints. Sugar is in kgs, butter in pounds, people in stones. Out of interest, how would Americans react to a dual system on packaging, like 1lb / 454g?

They did it yet again before? They're on at least 5 times, so.

There is absolutely no similarity between feeding bears and providing free healthcare.
And the implication that poor people are those who are unwilling to provide for themselves is just laughable.

Better?

There is absolutely no similarity between feeding bears and providing free healthcare, you sensationalist nut.

And the implication that poor people are those who are unwilling to provide for themselves is just laughable.

It's funny how silly the anti-drug slashdotters can be.

No, beer doesn't "make you more creative". What does that even mean? Creativity is not a measurable quantity. It's not something which can be simply turned up.
However,
- Happiness is important for creativity. Alcohol tends to make people happier.
- Varied thoughts are crucial for creativity. Alcohol causes us to think along very different lines.
- Relaxing is always good. Alcohol makes us relax.
- Sometimes it's important to think less analytically, and alcohol certainly helps that.

I'm sure there are more factors. There are similar arguments (or the same ones) to be made for just about all drugs. Drugs have been central to human creativity since time immemorial. They do not cause creativity in themselves, they are not necessary for creativity and they do not take the burden of creation away from the creator. What they do quite effectively is alter the mind, and many people find that some altered state helps them to create. The notion that people only think that drugs help their creativity is laughable. It's simply not true, no matter how many of you say it.

Well, we know the answer is no.

The way it should go is exactly the way it will go: if the Chinese population in a given area is large enough that the inhabitants cannot ignore the celebration, they will recognise it. That area can be a county, state or country.

Are you still talking about the HURD in that sentence? That's pretty funny. Ever since Linux became a viable kernel for the GNU system, the HURD has been targeted squarely at dreamers and unemployed kernel developers.

Should be scored 5, Informative.

It's sad how many people here seem to genuinely think that "saving money" is a good reason not to have children. What exactly are you saving money for? Buying your next gadget? There are much more important things in life. And I quite frankly don't see the sense in not leaving a legacy.

I emphasized the bits in your post that were sensational nonsense.
Microsoft could never revoke the keys for Linux, because it is actually too popular for them to get away with it.

Agreed.

Now I think you're being ridiculous. You can't expect regular end-users to understand the workings of something just to get to use it. It's not the way most people want technology to work, and it doesn't have to be.

What losing battle? Open source software hasn't been as prevalent as it is now since proprietary software first arose. Linux, in particular, is in the strongest position it's ever been in, and it looks like 2013 will be a very big year for Linux. Sure, there are always setbacks like this, but look: it's been just over 3 months since Windows 8 began to be sold, and the problem is already almost completely solved.

So you have time to whinge, but none to RTFA:

Yes, but not everyone should be able to install or run whatever they want on your computer. In fairness, UEFI goes some way towards securing your PC. Microsoft did well for the consumer in that respect. They're also a fairly ruthless company, and they're not going to go out of their way to make sure you can install rival operating systems from day 1. But today, at about day 100, the problem is a long way towards being solved. Get over it.

A clever combination of light trolling and misdirection, but you won't distract me from the fact that you haven't addressed my points at all.
Complain about Unity when it's relevant, and then, talk specifically about what's wrong with it. Otherwise, people who need to hear won't listen.
That, drankr, is my message to you. Take it or leave it.

This is a line by the Dude in The Big Lebowski. It was a joke, never mind. I'm European too, and I express my opinions. I shall proceed to do so thusly:

Complaining about Unity in this comments thread is:
+ Off-topic, because the article is about moving to a rolling release system. Unity has no greater significance to this point than any other package in Ubuntu.
+ Flamebait, because it will provoke a strong negative response, and it won't create interesting, informative or insightful commentary.
+ Retarded, because if you want somebody to take your criticism seriously, you do it at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner.

Will mods please raise this comment to +5? The GP clearly didn't RTFA or didn't understand the situation, FFS.
If there actually were a 4% shrinkage over less than a hundred years, then how big was the proton hundreds of millions of years ago? How about 13.7 billion years ago? Use your heads, please!

Yes. That would mean a continuous growth, not a sudden change when a different method is used. Not to mention that a 4% change in a few years would mean that the proton was enormous around the time of the dinosaurs, even. If the proton was shrinking that quickly relative to collections of atoms, we would need an overhaul of a great deal of the current body of science.