With a lot of people unhappy with the direction Gnome 3 and Unity are going. WindowMaker is a nice light window manager. It's what I use to use until active development stopped. I will look at it again for sure.
Twitter has confirmed it, but has Netcraft? Until Netcraft confirms it I won't believe it!
Because the default desktop environment is what the distribution will tend to fine tune/focus on. I have installed other desktop environments on Ubuntu only to find annoying issues that were probably overlooked because the focus was not on that environment.
Is Arch Linux. After using Ubuntu for a long time they have really forced me to leave with their decision to force a Fisher Price desktop on me.
I am seriously considering Arch. Yes, it's not used to my knowledge in the Enterprise, but at least I can use it for my desktop. Sticking with Red Hat/CentOS on the back end for real world applicability.
It compiles and runs fine on my machine.
I will be sure to let the good folks at Juniper know.
I just haven't seen any significant innovation Evolution for some time now. I switched to Thunderbird a long time ago and haven't missed Evolution one bit. For one, the extensions support for Thunderbird makes it more appealing not to mention the ability to choose what is and isn't in my mail client. For example, if don't want to do calendaring from Thunderbird I don't add the extension.
I don't really need to say much more. Fedora is just too bleeding edge even for non-production IMHO. I don't want to boot up my box and have my file system screwed. Sorry Red Hat. You should go back to the old model of eating your own dog food. Perhaps a model like Ubuntu with a Red Hat LTS and a Red Hat Latest Version, but the latter being a little more stable than Fedora. I digress, this is why I am on Ubuntu now. It's not perfect, but it has been a much more positive experience for me than running Fedora. Even on non-LTS releases I haven't had a update blow up a system.
One of the key points behind the RPM and Debian package formats is that source is shipped in its upstream form, with patches shipped separately and applied at build time. Red Hat has always followed this convention; the failure to do so with the RHEL 6 kernel is a new and discouraging change of behavior. Distribution in this form should satisfy the GPL, but it makes life hard for anybody else wanting to see what has been done with this kernel. Hopefully it is simply a mistake which will be corrected soon.
Link to Original Source
Sure, it wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it would be a way forward in the long run.
"I fear that if MS tried to write an OS from scratch, it would likely be a big step backwards, do less than what we're accustomed to now, and take years of incremental improvements to get back to where we are now. I don't see what you propose as being either viable or possible."
Why is that? Moving from OS9 to OSX was a major leap. I know it was far easier, since they control the hardware platform, but it has been done before.
Yes, I know about research.microsoft.com, but I am looking at what is, not what could be. Unless thy were to make a major announcement about a new path forward I don't take what comes out of research.microsoft.com very seriously.