1. There is no need to make Linux mainstream on the desktop. It is a solution in search of a problem.

2. Linux is, and has been for at least two decades now, much simpler to set up and use as a desktop OS than Windows. Quite a bit simpler, actually. Windows is no more user-friendly than any mature distro, it's just that people are accustomed to its mindblowingly convoluted design. It's not about user-friendlyness, it's about what people are accustomed to, and they're accustumed to garbage. So if we want to attrack them, we essentially have to turn Linux into garbage. Incidentally, turning Linux into garbage is the exact strategy of every single distro trying to go this route.

3. Mainstreaming things means making them appeal more to the majority, and the majority of people don't even know what open source is, nor do most people care to customize their OS or toolsets. Making Linux mainstream would only serve to make closed source garbage software mainstream on Linux. When you see distros or software try to get Linux into the mainstream, they essentially talk about stripping everything good about Linux and turning it into Windows-esque garbage as if that's what anyone was asking for.

4. The only thing that matters is that people adhere to open protocols and open standards. That, however, has nothing to do with the popularity of OSes. You should be able to use an OS that you built yourself from scratch without caring about what other people use. This is also not a problem as long as people and software adhere to open protocols and open standards. That's where the real fight is, and thankfully, we've been winning on that front for the past two decades or so.

Fact-checking should be a sport. Now, I'm not sure that this bill is benign. But I've done a little bit of fact-checking, and I think the story is incorrect. My understanding of the bill is that wind and solar will continue to remain eligible generating resources, as defined by the bill. Following links and looking around Wyoming's legislative website, I've found two documents: 1. A PDF of the bill in question. See page 3 for a definition of "Eligible generating resource": http://legisweb.state.wy.us/20... 2. Title 37: Public utilities: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LS... (scroll down to find Title 37). Now, note that on page 3 in the bill, it lists coal, oil and those sorts of things. Okay, you won't find solar and wind in there... but, in (D), this is included "Net metering system, as defined by W.S.37-16-101(a)(viii)". Now, here's something for news hunters to realize. A lot of well-meaning reporters jump to conclusions like the rest of us. Even though that may seem like an intimidating thing, it's actually quite simple. Those numbers mean something. They're an address. They will help you find more information. Now, the 37 clearly means Title 37. So grab Title 37, which is distributed in .docx format, and see that at the top, you have the string "371101". Now, look for "3716101" (37-16-101 without dashes), it'll be called: "Definitions." - interesting, right? You'll find (a) right below, which lists a bunch of things, so find (viii) as per the reference in the bill. It'll say: "(viii)"Net metering system" means a facility for the production of electrical energy that: (A)Uses as its fuel either solar, wind, biomass or hydropower; (B)Has a generating capacity of not more than twentyfive (25) kilowatts; (C)Is located on the customergenerator's premises; (D)Operates in parallel with the electric utility's transmission and distribution facilities; and (E)Is intended primarily to offset part or all of the customergenerator's requirements for electricity." Note that (A) says: "Uses as its fuel either solar, wind, biomass or hydropower;" Now, I don't know enough about the subject matter to really give an opinion on B-E, but it seems clear to me that solar and wind power, as defined in existing Wyoming law, IS INCLUDED in the definition of an eligible generating resource in this new bill which the story revolves around.

We are still writing text-based programming code for the same reason that we're still writing text mathematics. It's better. There are only two reasons why anyone might prefer anything else than text. One is aesthetics, which is plainly irrelevant. The other is dyslexia, which is a handicap (with all due respect). Programming will continue to be in text for the same reason that mathematics will continue to be in text; it is the simplest, most elaborate and easiest way to achieve what is wanted.