My compiles do not cost the company millions of dollars per compile. Also there is no threat of anyone dying due to explosion when my compile does not work. Why in the world would you equivocate a compile attempt with a an exploding rocket as if they were exactly the same thing?

In your world. Not in everyone's world. The part you seem to ignore is that now you are relying on people's memory about important details unless you write down what happened like in a summary email or other documentation.

Bahahahahaha. Have you actually worked for a serious company? Meetings happen all the time. Sometimes key people are not available for every meeting. Should things be documented? Yes. In things called emails. You seem to still insist that work can ONLY be done in meetings. According to you.

The problem I have is your insistence that every thing must be done in person. That is not necessarily true. Things can be discussed over email, zooms, phone calls, messages, etc. I can count the number of the times where work was delayed because the requirements were specified verbally and no one wrote them down. And then a game of telephone happens when multiple people disagree on key requirements and deadlines. There were no emails, no texts: just everyone insisting that everyone agreed on their interpretation of what happened in a meeting.

It should be part of the written specifications as sometimes—hear me out on this—not everyone who works on the project can be present at a meeting. For example if they join the team later. My company is cheap and refuses to pay for a Time Machine so people can attend a meeting in the past.

The complaint was not that some people work better when physically located near team members. The complaint was Musk insisted that people work in open offices specifically or they cannot work for him.

So you would rather rely on people’s memory of verbal communications instead of relying on records of written communications? That seems more ripe for failure. However, part of every engineering project I have been a part is the insistence on written documentation for things like specifications. There are procedures for things like requests, changes, approvals, etc. These systems are now electronic so a piece of paper does not need to be located in a specific filing cabinet. That can be done remotely.

We are not whining. We are warning people not to automatically believe ambitious promises that such efforts are easy. Here on slashdot, some people are already promoting Starship on how it can deliver 100 ton payloads cheaper than anyone else. The word "can" has not been demonstrated yet.

Er. No. People at SpaceX did. People seem to forget: Musk is not an engineer. He has limited understanding of the engineering. He just likes taking credit for the work his people do.

It was what Stockton Rush said when people told him carbon fiber was a bad material for his deep sea submersible. He sure showed them!

That sounds like some BS excuses when someone fails: "No I meant to drive my car in a ditch again and again. This is the cost of speed. Oh I meant to explode Starship. Multiple times. It is not a problem."

Some SpaceX vehicles like Falcon have done well after many attempts. Their Starship (which was the most ambitious) has not done well with the last one exploding on the pad, the one before that exploding shortly after launch--I mean it was a "controlled disassembly".

When it comes to Microsoft, what system sales? You want to compare Surface and Copilot with the Mac? I think you would find that Microsoft does not sell a fraction in hardware what Apple sells.

XOrg might have been stuck in that anything new they bring to X would have broken existing implementations but if they did not make any changes, X remained stagnant in features. A fork really is the best thing strategically. Any implementation not wanting any changes like OpenBSD can stay on Xorg whereas others can use XLibre that gains new features.

I do not know the technical reasons why the X Window system has largely been stagnant. I would guess that updating the X Window system these days would be like updating COBOL. Sure it can be done but there are few experts that are around anymore to understand the nuances of it.

Politics aside, I would say it is really old code that someone needs to dissect and understand. Maybe people talented enough just did not know that it was in need of major work.

X is still in the dustbin because the last stable release of X was X11R7 on June 6, 2012. The alternatives like XFree86 had a final release on December 15, 2008. The X.Org server has more recent patches; however, the last meaningful main update was 21.1 in October 2021./p>

Also: "Help! Someone get me out of this box!"
Thanks I'll be here all week. Try the fish.