Please, when you want to get a new version of your graphics driver or update something too big (say KDE, Mate) you end up replacing the whole OS.
Graphics drivers tend to have minimum requirements, same as in Windows. Minimum kernel version, libc, etc? Minimum Windows release, DirectX version, etc. Using an open-source driver, my package manager grabs the new module, usually along with the current version of the kernel. With a closed-source driver, the installer compiles the interface module and copies the files to the right places. It's hardly replacing the whole OS, just the kernel in the worst case.
In replacing something large like the desktop environment, I haven't tried doing something like trying to get KDE 1.x running under a modern Linux, so I can't address it directly. I know two things though: it's more possible than getting the Windows 98 desktop working on a modern Windows.
setting targets for fan control, looking for voltage drops - linux never allowed me to read ANY of the half dozen or so voltage sensors built in any PC, it doesn't even acknowledge their presence.
YMMV, based on hardware support in the kernel, but lm-sensors supports a large list of drivers, including temperature, voltage, and fan speed sensors. I get readings on my machine, but I can't speak for yours, of course.
It would be good to have a low footprint Windows clone to do the low level tasks that are just impossible on linux.
More choice and more ways to do things is always good. I won't say that an actually-working Windows clone would be a bad thing. ReactOS didn't impress me, last time I tried to run it.
Even assuming this is true, how many averted robberies are worth the loss of a human life? One? a hundred? a thousand? How many averted crimes are worth the 100 children that are accidentally killed by guns each year?
Clearly cars should be banned. What about swimming pools? I sure there are a ton of things that have value even if somehow people loose their life because those things exist
In the case of firearms, the police have no legal obligation to protect you. This has been upheld in court. This goes back to common law (aka "God given" right) for the right to protect yourself. Not a civil right, that can be taken away. We have a natural right to protect ourselves. That includes the use of firearms.
Citation needed, I think.
Snarky article about the findings: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/
you can *not* do that with even two versions of the same linux distro a year apart from eachother.
Hyperbole. Of course you can, if you design the software to handle that. One of my employer's pieces of software is compiled on SLES10 (from 2006) and runs on current Linux distros without a hitch. Code from 5 years ago compiled with gcc 2.95, and I'm sure that I could have that running both on a Linux release from 2000 and one from 2014.
Now, if you've got a programmer that doesn't have that as their specific goal in how they compile and package the software, then there will be a problem. With non-commercial software that's distributed by the developer as source anyhow, what's the reason for them to take enough care in packaging it to support forward-compatibility? If their software is popular enough, they know it'll be recompiled for inclusion in every new distro's repository anyhow, so they won't focus on supporting the goal of wide compatibility of the binary.
Wow... someone that knows what they are talking about! Thanks for the post!
Yeah, because peering sucks. It will be the ruin of the Internet! Nevermind that peering saved the Internet when people were predicting the Internet would crash in the late 90's early 2000's.
Peering cuts both ways. A company like Netflix wants to reduce their cost of transit by peering. But then they have to make sure all those peering points are up to snuff. The mistake Netflix made was to let some other company handle peering for them. A company that had existing settlement free agreements with the target networks.
I suppose Netflix could have backed off and gone pure transit, but it would have created other problems.
My ISP is being paid to transfer a capped volume of data to me at as close as possible to the speed that I'm paying for. If they increase that cap or increase my max transfer rate, then we can start talking about them getting paid more as well. Otherwise, it's not an equivalent comparison.