Again, submit was clicked too fast; this reduces the http requests, because so much of the functionality is built in.

What would be its real-world problems? Anybody?

I'm afraid you didn't answer the question. I was working with a web2py setup last the other day with a friend, and it had very little code with a lot of functionality. For most 'nixes, there already is the python and httpd (naturally some network functionality...0 needed to work and test.

To put it simply, the Python engine does everything on the server; it writes queries and validates input etc. On the web page itself is very little code and very little to process on the client, also very little traffic, compared to how much actually happens in the back room.

Naturally, this takes a bit more from the server than serving up static HTML pages, but still it's nothing like an ASP server, that is a nightmare. Any machine that has Python from 2.4 and up will run it without additional installs.

Seems to me it's worth a look. I sort of agree what you say about Rails &co.; they make building a web site easy; they also make overloading a server easy, but that's not the software's problem. It's better that you have stuff happening in the server rather than having to send lots of info to the browser for it to figure with JavaScript rendering.

This illustrates how they try to hook you to their format, their view of what you buy.

This is like leasing a car. They'll service it and add new features when the feel like it; as well as removing features when they feel like it. Like, they may think you don't really need a steering wheel — you'll enjoy your videos so much it's better you not be driving; and since you're not really driving, let's take the engine out, too.

It's "your" car, but you have nothing to say. Remember those Kindle eBooks from Amazon, that were deleted from the Kindles — Amazon used their own back door to remove the eBooks they found out they didn't have the legal right to sell.

All this gives us a new perspective of "owning" things. You know, I remember, when you bought your vinyl LP, and you could do any stupid thing you wanted with it, in addition to just playing it with any player that played anything else. Then came the C cassettes, and recorders, and Record Companies started complaining; it's only gotten worse in 45 years (or was it 44).

Ideas yearn to be free.

I think it may be good that SF.net abides the law. There are too many people who think that "open source" is all about breaking the law. That is, people crack copy protections, passwords etc. and some thing the whole community is about that, 'coz that's what they hear.

Now they see that the community is not about breaking the law, it's about making software.

Also, I think this may give to some a reason to perhaps rethink certain laws that restrict commerce and free exchange of ideas.

Linux has undoubtedly had an effect on PC world. I wonder if we can know really what that is, since it's hard to run alternative simulations in the real world, we only have this one history that is all-inclusive, if done right.

Linus is an example of how a project being controlled by a single actor can be very efficient in getting a fairly standardized product out (more so than many commercial operators), meaning, of course just the Kernel here.

In the future, I suppose it should become a committee effort, since there will be too many people, who want to influence it for him to work with eveyone, and too many people getting suspicious of the project being controlled by this Finnish-American guy, who may or may not have political ideas, too... Besides, the Chinese and the Russians already have their own ground-up distros that they use. They probably have government backdoors to every system???

And then the committee members will be bribed and boughtt by megacorporations and they will screw the development in behalf of their employers. Et cetera, et cetera...

Then, one day a guy goes out and buys a very basic computer and build a new kernel for a new kind of OS, because GNU/Linux has become such a f*@$kfest that you'll never be able to predict what's going to happen (if it doesn't end in some megacorp's pocket).

So no, I don't think that the world would have changed a lot. Perhaps Hurd would have gotten more attention, perhaps the BSD legal hassles would have been solved. Perhaps someone else would have created a kernel, and then been able to work with many people to make it better.

BTW, seems the Linus-mocking comments come from AC a lot. M$ fanbois or just people who like to yell "fire" in a full movie theatre?

I make spelling errors despite my good intentions.

But my basic attitude is, that if you don't care about what you're saying enough to spell it, then don't write it. There are plenty of insightful people, who will write readable text.

So is M$ Word file format documented for the general public now?

It might also be, that the company has already made some money from RIAA, MPAA and/or M$.

Who would most like to get P2P off the web? The first two, because they perceive it as a threat.

Who creates a virtual-monopoly desktop OS that has ridiculous vulnerabilities they don't like to address? The last one.

Besides, it is well within feasibility, that Micro$oft execs think P2P is responsible for a big chunk of the (albeit slowly) growing popularity of Linux. I mean, they hired Seinfeld as their spokesman, and then launched a funny service called "Bing". These are guys, who live in late 1980s or early 1990s and think they just nailed two of the biggest hit shows on air.

Conjecture, I admit. All of the above, except the bit about RIAA and MPAA wanting P2P off the web, the monopoly desktop OS, ridiculous vulnerabilities someone does not like to address, Seinfeld deal or... Bing, was it?

Bada-Bing! Hahahahaha....

You mentioned "trust" and "defense contractor" in the same sentence.

Something in the Multiverse will break for that!