Yeah, "insanely trivial" to everybody who know all about DNS and its terminology ("zones", "authoritative server", "slave", etc) as well as moderate Unix skills. I develop Unix server software and I get questions all the time from people who don't even know what $PATH is and how it works. If you call installing a DNS server "insanely trivial" then you have no idea what that word means in the context of 99.9% of the world population.

That doesn't count as improving the kernel, that counts as tweaking behavior that the kernel already supports. This tweaking can be done by external teams.

Because that would put burden on the kernel team to maintain the code. Better to push things like this downstream so that the kernel team can focus on other things.

Linus is right about not requiring user setup. It's a usability thing.

However I disagree with the conclusion that the patch should therefore be merged into the kernel. First, instead of pasting some lines to bashrc and running some commands, the user now has to recompile to kernel to benefit from the change. That's a lot less user friendly. Secondly, if one really wants to push user friendliness, one should convince distributions to update their init scripts to run those cgroup commands automatically. Since all software users use go through distros anyway it should be the distros' job to ensure user friendliness.

Except the code is right out there for you to obtain.

This has got nothing to do with whether it's going to make a profit. All I'm saying is that you are apparently equating "freedom" with "whatever allows me, and only me, to make a profit". It's called hypocrisy.

As a developer I want to take YOUR derivative product, slap my own name on it and sell it without source code and without credits to you. Neither the GPL nor BSD allow me to do that, therefore neither of them are free. The only license that is truly free is the FooBarWidget license, which states that everybody must publish the source code and give attribution to the original author, except FooBarWidget who can do whatever he wants.

Yes, that was sarcastic. But I hope you realize how hypocritical you are with your definition of free.

Wow, don't you feel morally superior for wanting to profit from other people's effort without allowing the reverse to happen.

Javascript will be more multicore friendly than Python when web workers [wikipedia.org] get widely implemented.

What, are you serious? You do realize that Web Workers just implement the shared-nothing message-passing-processes style of concurrency, right? That's exactly the same model as multiple OS processes passing messages to each other through IPC, and Python has been able to do this for years either manually or through the multiprocess library.

They didn't, they generated the WebP files from the source material.

What exactly do you think Firefox should do about it? Viewing a GIF that needs 2 GB of memory and blaming it on Firefox sounds like the same thing as smashing your monitor with a hammer and blaming the manufacturer for not making the monitor durable enough.

"By the time Firefox will make GPU acceleration work right, which is probably 1-2 years, two video card generations will come and go and the technology will be already obsolete. We'll then have 12-16 core processors capable of working with video as fast as they plan to make video work with GPU now."

And by that time we'll also have 300 core GPUs that are 50 times faster than said 16 core CPUs.

Maybe it did, but the fact still remains that Firefox has had it for years. Does it matter how long it took Firefox to develop it?

My facts say otherwise.

I can't say any of those bugs have ever bothered me. The upload progress thing only slightly. If I can choose between a faster Firefox and proper upload progress I'd rather choose the former. Your definition of useless battles isn't the same as everyone's.