There are quite a few Clang efforts to compile Linux ... I hope this brings more awareness to those efforts. Perhaps this is Linus' intention?

Maybe Linus should try compiling with Clang instead? :)

For what its worth, I hope this illustrates the necessity of Linux being able to be compiled by multiple tool chains. . Who knows maybe even in a few years, (decades), MSFT's C++ compiler---nah ...

I think it would be awesome if this resulted somehow in make being dropped ... Seriously. Why are we still using that? Headers? And ... And ... Okay, that's a whole different topic...

Why so much resistance? 6 Common Answers:

1. Because "Climate Science" has become a religion of sorts--and there is incredible intolerance towards sceptics--especially intolerance towards professional and Academic sceptics.

2. There is WAY too much conflict of interest. Way too much manipulation in political arenas in the name of "God" -- err, so-called "Climate Science."

3. There is WAY too much intolerance towards sceptics--which are absolutely necessary for scientific progress because much higher benchmarks for evidence are pursued.

4. Its hard to accept this debate, because its a changing target, equivocation: Is it "Global Warming", "Climate Change", or "Human Induced Warming/Change"? The first two most people don't have a problem considering--the theories are /scientifically valid/--because they can be falsified, (and have been, in some way). Valid theories should at least be falsifiable. But the last theory???

5. The Problem is the theory: "Human Induced Climate Warming/Change." Because, this theory has /very/ political consequences, establishing massive conflicts of interests both financially and politically. As a result, it is absolutely necessary to require a much higher burden of proof.

6. There needs to be a way to falsify theories--to accept them as valid. Remember the "Theory" of evolution? And by "Theory", I mean the singular theory.. Everyone was aware of "Darwin's Theory". But even Darwin understood the necessity for falsification and explicitly stated ways his theory could be falsified, (examination of the fossil record, the nature of blood cells, etc). Because Darwin's Theory was falsifiable, it was eventually falsified--leading to /many/ new theories about how evolution occurs, and how/why it occurs gradually, or in leaps.

So-Called "Climate Science" must be falsifiable to establish their validity, and to promote the development and maturation of the theories in general.

Do you remember the 80s?

Global Warming? Climate Change? or Human Induced Global Warming? Which one are we debating about now???

I remember when we were told that "AquaNet Hairspray" and CFCs were causing "Global Warming". I suppose the school lunch room cafeteria talks were not as enlightened as most--considering Michael Jackson and Madonna were drowning out most of the conversations.

Human "Induced" Global Warming has become a "religion" of sorts. There is very little tolerance towards those who are sceptical about the "science" behind it.

No one really opposes the idea of "Climate Change" in general. Climate swings, hot, cold--after all, we do have 4 seasons, (except in Canada, where there are three: "our hockey teams are /really/ bad"; "WOW, is that another igloo?"; and, " Wait, what? We are actually a city in North Dakota?" seasons).

You cannot blame the majority of the population for looking at the empirical evidence that all of us have have access to, and this evidence can validly be used to refute /very/ obtuse data sets in support of scientific claims that have /very/ political ramifications.

Rather, we should commend sceptics as they require "real scientists" to attain a much higher benchmark of evidence.

Its easy to accept Climate Change... Even possible to accept global warming. But "Human Induced" Global Warming Theories that affect politics? Whoa now. Slow down.

There is WAY too much conflict of interest behind the "theory" of "Human Induced" Global Warming. (And no, PhD researchers at universities are NOT neutral, who struggle to please their advisers, grant providers, trying to maintain immigration status, get their degree, not lose their internship, etc).

We need research reform at universities--definitely an outlet for whistle blowers in academic and professional fields.

I /really/ don't think that we can address this problem in good faith, without reform, considering all of the scandal behind this "science".

Perhaps I am being a little paranoid here, and worrying, unneedlessly, that the government is applying some equivocation fallacy here ... But hasn't the definition of Metadata always been relative? Hasn't Metadata always been recognized as content, in view of another System?

For example, phone numbers associated with a phone could be considered meta data, but when it comes to the address book on your google contact list, phone numbers are NOT metadata, they are the content.

The content of a conversation could be considered metadata in a larger context.

To be honest, I highly doubt there is a single database architect, or XML Schema designer, who would disagree that "Metadata" is actually the most crucial, and most revealing aspect of all "data content". Metadata is what reveals associations between people, etc.

The Metadata, once extracted, is no longer metadata, it is "data content" in another system... (The NSA's in this case.)

If the Senate was tricked into thinking that Metadata is not "significant" or important, or somehow "different" than content, I hope they will be brought up to speed on the facts.

The Xbox One is always on, but the televisions are not. And devices can be turned on remotely. Get a clue.

Also, "We are watching you." ... is a bit disconcerting every time I make a Skype call, right? It used to be the case that recording equipment had visual indicators to let people know--but these can all be disabled.

Why don't you do something intelligent: require that these peripherals and monitoring features can be evidently deactivated by end users, (privacy mode), put an elected official into the FISA court, or limit your own terms to cripple the power hoarding representatives like to engage in.

SOPA, PRISM, this??? Get some IQ Points, please.

Remember, you did swear to protect and Defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic. Please, feel free to fire yourselves.

NSA: you can't pretend that you are not storing content--when in fact your solution depends on corporations, like Microsoft, to warehouse the data. Snowden wasn't lying about this, PRISM includes this integration, (via B2B interfaces and workflow processes), but this content is still a part of the System--regardless if you have the content data on hand, locally. We know in politics the messenger is attacked. Technologists don't have the patience for politics. So, could we elevate this dialogue a little higher before people start believing their oath matters to defend the U.S. constitution against foreign and DOMESTIC enemies? Take some advice given to new recruits: Don't make yourself a target. We can see the obvious rhetorical deceptions. Perhaps Snowden is confused, but wait--you have been lying too? Kind of an empty accusation you are making here.

Computers don't "do" math. Physics was used to create computers... Sure. Computers execute logic instructions, which in turn is used to do math. So, indirectly, they do math, sort files, or whatever. Their "core", is executing logic. Logic is what is required, not advanced math.

Yes, the OP is quite right in the irrational habit of current college curriculums emphasizing higher math studies /way/ too much. Logic, Linguistics, Writing, etc, are for more practical when it comes to programming, networking, systems administration, writing scripts, configuring firewalls, etc. As far as the first computers. The dominate requirements were physics and advanced math when needed to support the physics in order to create the hardware. This is the same today when it comes to processors, etc. Binary and Octal aren't quite considered "advanced math". Cryptography, advanced Graphics programming, Codecs, etc, require math skills as needed, and you can outsource that if needed. I can't count the number of times I had to learn something in order to program it, and then forget all about it the month after--whether it was some calculus behavior, some DNA sequencing, or encryption algorithm.

Unfortunately, colleges no longer teach people how to think. That is apparent by the obvious susceptibility the population has towards rhetoric, and our current political dialogue. Tracking down problems, as you say, is an analytical process, a fundamental part of logic, and I would go as far to say linguistics, (i.e., pragmatics to a degree, etc). But again, I think people /may/ get a semester/quarter in logic, and that's it. Linguistics required in computer science programming degrees? Hardly... Colleges don't teach people how to think. They can't even quantify the value of the degrees they are selling. All the degrees are valued the same, and there really is no way to determine the return on investment.

Game Engine development has nothing to do with Mathematics. Game Graphics Rendering, and related algorithms, sure. And it can't get quite complex! But, that is just one area of computer programming. Encryption, Sound, Compression, codecs, etc... those specific areas could required a lot of math too, if you don't have a subject matter expert handy. Game Engine development, is mostly about process and workflow, optimizations, scraping for nano-seconds... Massively parallel processing. State Management. Mathematics, itself, is a form of programming. Programming is an expression of algorithms to be performed, states, etc. Mathematics is a specialization. But, there is no doubt that some really crazy mathematics and physics goes into Computer Hardware Sciences, the way electrons move ... It is really awesome stuff. But, if you consider C.S. to be programming ... No, Advanced Mathematics is not required, Groking linguistics and logic is.

Their are gaming industry trade schools, that are actually really good. Though, I would never personally hire someone with this background, or university background, unless they had actually accomplished something with their knowledge. At least a simple phone app, personal website, some sort of demonstration that they have passion, motivation, and can follow through. And if you hadn't noticed before, the U.S. Education system is incredibly backwards when it comes to education, especially when it comes to I.T., (computer science, whatever). There are a lot of very valuable industry certifications, especially from MSFT, Cisco, Java/Oracle, etc. Any of these are handedly more valuable than a college degree. And, these are infinitely more valuable with demonstrable experience. But, Experience, Passion, Self-Learning, etc, will always trump formal education and certifications. The industry changes too fast. You have to be agile. This is what employers look for. Not the rigidity of formal education.

Ironically enough, you are kind of proving the my original point. No, programming is not the most difficult branch of applied mathematics, but what you are actually trying to implement CAN BE. Almost all encryption projects, codec projects, etc, have a subject matter expert who documents the requirements. I can't tell you how many genetic alogrithms I have had to implement, encryption algorithms, etc, and I have absolutely no math training over Trigonometry. It isn't required. I have created created algorithms to parse 3DES, IPSEC, etc. Oh, and yeah, I often had to consult a subject matter expert. A Programmer should be a master of Programming, and know where to draw the bounds of their specializations. Knowing when to grab a subject matter expert is another quality of a great programmer.

I have been hiring IT professionals for years, hardware, networking, security, and software gurus. Give me a high school senior who has contributed to the linux kernal, published their own android game app, created their own web site, over an advanced mathematics student /any day/. The IT field is about self motivation, natural Intuition. Without these qualities, (which are the evidence an applicant being self taught), the applicant is really very useless. IT is a lot about creativity, abstract analysis, linguistics, and logic. Any applicant with a modicum of these fields of training is significantly more valuable than the Math Guru. And even still, give me the passionate high school self-starter--any day.

Technically speaking, Computer Hardware Engineering is definitely the playground of Math Gurus. However, Software Engineering, Networking, Security, etc, have nothing at all to do with Mathematics. Mathematics and Software Engineering both "inherit" from Logic by way of some cool associations with Linguistics, (Semantics, Syntactics, etc). It is really detrimental that many go into the industry without much greater backgrounds in logic and linguistics.