Thats a bit to much philosophic for my taste. Science has concepts involved. Just think what we achieved so far. Things can be proven -- or the opposite.

Damn right! More interestingly I haven't read a damn thing about XFCE. I use it for years and will probalby never turn over, simply because it's the same concept all the time and I can rely on that. Besides I think XFCE is not bloated as much as other desktops are these years.

[time flow considered] 1] Focus on the cutbacks that don't require OS changes AFTER you made sure no actual OS change is required. 2] I think maintaining an inhomogeneous infrastructure with three different workstation OS is just overkill. Thus I recommend you to reduce that number (max. 2). 3] I strongly recommend you to migrate Applications first using the legacy system and then migrate the OS at once. Doing that way employees will notice slight changes over time regarding their applications (e.g. OO.org) and get used to the changes. When the OS change happens (e.g. Win -> G/L) they will notice the change in behavoiur, look, etc. but are ALREADY familiar with the applications! 4] Choose your GNU/Linux distribution wisely then. Fedora required you to dist-upgrade quite often. Is that ok for you? do you have the capacities to handle all the installations? Wil you use large portions of that distributions software (e.g. is there deamnd for SELinux/FLASK)? 5] Migrate the sales dept. machines to your target OS and the virtualize. It gives you more freedom, control and security (create VM once destroy often). 6] Avoid GMail. DON'T trust the organization begind (I didn't say company because it is none). 7] Adobe Stuff does not work so well using WINE. It depends on the versions of WINE and the target application softare however.

Sorry, but this is not correct! Please have a look at the TOP500 to see for yourself what these machines actually compute. Unless you're not an IT professional I tell you there are things you cant achieve with a hommade cluster of PS3's or something thelike. Supercomputers from Cray for eg.g have a very specialized BUS to transfer data between units. It's not possible to have the same rates by simply connecting ordinary PCs via ethernet. You need special transport systems (BUS), special boards, management capabilities, enclosures, operating systems, etc. to do the really big computing. Think about weather prediction, the calculation of climate models or e.g. media analysis and distributed compiling.

Maybe, but that does explain nothing at all. CO2 is not responsible for anything on earth -- no matter what most people say. The whole CO2-green-eco-crap has become an ideology - no, a religion!

Same here. I also gave my stuff away for nothing. I'd like to play Quake 2 however if that's possible.

Yes, because that's what makes a huge difference!

The answer is, that none of the two are superior to free operating systems like BSD, GNU/ or for e.g. FreeDOS. In my opinion Apple is no better than Microsoft -- even worse. They kicked out all of the devs from the Quarz project, closed their OS over years and broke the underlying BSD. So if Jobs says users will benefit from "more integrated" stuff one should state the question at which costs that happens. I don't trust Google either and will *never ever* use their OS (not even for less critical operations). I have to mention though that I would choose the latter of those two in case they were the only OS in the world. I would do that simply to be able to have a choice regarding a proprietary user interface! :-)

The ultimate answer is: IT'S ALL CRAP!

I aslo think that is the most interesting aspect of the whole story. Movies showing space crafts with all their dishes at 'em will have to be rewriten. ;-)

I would never upgrade a productive OS but always save and reinstall. It's also important to realize 10.10 is *not* LTS. I'd never ever use a non-LTS since upgrading costs time and causes problems. I went through upgrade hell (and dependency hell) with earlier versions of Fedora too often. Since back then I'm cured from this upgrade-mania.

Exactly! I guess they will never ever get that damn thing safe enough to compete with evince, kpdf or whatever. Honestly the only reason to use that Adobe Acrobat Reader crap is because it supports dozens of non-free features; that whole scripting and stuff. When I try to print out a document from my post office to send a package or something I will always have to call them for sending me a non-script version of the document. I doubt they will ever listen to their customers or take their security more seriously...

Hey this is not true. Actually the article is one of the logest one I've read on ./ for some time. Whish more authors would write their articles in such a way. I also think there is a motivation behind this article which doesn't necessarily have to be money.

Damn right! I'm really lookin' forward to play the final game.