I suspect the main reason is even though you may have to get a stopwatch out to tell the difference on a desktop, CLR/.NET does not have native performance which will show when you try to run them on thin (as in mm) devices. Most significantly you probably need to fit twice as much RAM in the case, i would guess memory bandwidth and cache sizes also are not friendly to performance and it would cost users battery time as no one would use the low power APIs.

The other things i can think of is that they don't want rushed ports to Metro and maybe it was easier to start from scratch.

should be the main metric for security for web browsers (and other software exposed to the internet).

It would difficult to argue that there are not security holes in all browsers and that the holes can be found and exploited with sufficient resources. All of the security measures browser makers use at best make it harder to get a working exploit.
I think that that closing the wholes as fast as possible lowers the expected profit for finding an exploit and lowers the time the user is exposed and that this is more effective than sandboxing and memory randomization to providing a secure browser.

Where are you getting your info from? I realize the article is terrible but it clear the lag is from routing though NZ IPs, where are you getting Sydney from?
I assume he is tracerouting to the xbox servers, they are in Sydney?

Supposedly he has some technicians out to look at it? I guess it could be general incompetence from his provider.

Sorry did not see you wrote the GP to the post as well. That gives it some context. You are right, my home connection (in NZ) only adds 20ms to Sydney.

Still does not mean that going across Australia does not increase latency. Try pinging Perth.

Still don't think you do something that noticeable using NZ ips to bounce the connection to the US and back. It could just be shitty equipment (with ssl processing delay) and 2 to 3 hops off the main fiber.

You do realize the skytower is a major data center with a massive cable.
I would think you would be pretty close to testing the undersea cable latency between those two points.

Nice FUD, no one was ready for you initial comment and you get full credit it and the terrible replies (including this one it appears).

this is the a solution...
If you want the exact same process as window yes you can shoot holes all over place without proving the methods best in the first place.

Text files have comments, names and a directory. You make notes of your changes in comments and add suffixes to files to back them up.

The system is not registry values in text files, learn how to admin the system first if you want to make these comments.

I am not sure of the exact time-line but i highly doubt Linux reinvented the wheel.

I think all the finalists are 512 or more bit hashes that make collisions far harder than the current bit lengths.

If you are just meaning passwords then chose a more suited hash function as this is not what SHA-3 is for.

So much work from everyone involved and we just throw it away??

This is a standard for many years in the future. SHA-1 is still used in some current applications and is considered secure and people are still using MD5.

Everyone can just ignore the new standard and the researcher can have a decade or two to try to break it before its needed. Where is the harm?

No if it's an inside job, it will be so they can claim that: the new win8/IE10 security methods work and this time they have solved IE's security problems.

That's the wrong question, the question should be:
Has the consumer benefited from having an open-source kernel and operating system being available?

It's in the interest of all its user-base to minimize the number of DNT browsers. Ads fund websites and targeted advertising brings in more revenue for the sites (i would think).

Choosing to ignore a standard is not what they should be doing either.

I or users still want access to these packages, I just don't want to have to track them with rolling releases or taking up space on my hypothetical SSD if I don't chose them.

No they are not clear. Still can't tell if they newbie in the arch or linux sense.
My initial understanding was that they wanted to help you skip the install, which is not fun without prior knowledge and the beginners instructions were a little out of date.

Installing user-space programs that most will never use does not fit the arch way. They appear to want to make Debian with an "arch core", which provides none of benefits of arch as the core arch utilities are only average.

The package list looks like he kept adding codec support and other stuff you may not need until he hit the arbitrary 700MB limit. I know there will be a few who use it but who wants wavpack in their default install. Everyone can download these later.

I guess there is not too many look like services that slow you down but unless he used crap compression the default install size is that of Ubuntu.
Just give the user a desktop environment, a browser (to look up stuff on the wiki), the text installer for the config files and a basic init setup that gets key services.