I agree with your post. Just a minor nitpick:
> Massive duplication of data. Joining dozens of tables to get commonly needed data
You are contradicting yourself, aren't you? Keeping the schema in the normal forms means adding more joins to the queries.
I guess that amongst 72M iPhones sold in 2011 you can find at least 17M identical ones. Apple sells only few models at a given time, and the variability is not that high (the SoC sourced from two different foundries is probably the biggest difference).
I highly doubt C64 is the best-selling computer of all time. Wikipedia estimates 10M-17M C64s were sold. It of course depends on what is a computer: for example, many smartphones have CPU(s), memory, storage, and even display. According to this page, in 2011 Apple sold 72M iPhones: https://www.statista.com/stati... . Also, 10M Raspberry Pi computers were sold till 2016: https://www.raspberrypi.org/bl.... I guess Arduinos have similar numbers, but they are hard to track because of clones.
The magnetic strip can easily be erased by a strong magnet (e.g. a neodymium one from a broken HDD). I erased the one on my credit card myself two years ago. However, I have since discovered that there are still payment terminals in Europe, which use solely the magnetic strip. For example, the highway toll gates in Italy and France.
I was not talking about not being able to reach the other device on the third layer (IP). My point was that even though we have perfectly good _application_-layer protocols for file sharing (CIFS, which GP thinks should be blocked), we are still doomed to share data between our devices using a third-party public cloud over HTTP[s].
Why would we? There are plenty of usable protocols for service discovery, file sharing, instant messaging, etc., but because of NATs and firewalls, everybody is doomed to use HTTP[s] to some public cloud service instead. The fact that I cannot easily copy photos between my laptop and a cell phone of my friend laying on the same desk and connected to the same WLAN without coming through the remote cloud service is pretty disappointing.
I know our servers won't accept it either since they don't even listen on it, are you saying Google is unusual in not accepting IPv6 only email? 'cause I reckon that's "standard".
Yes, Google is unusual - they do listen on IPv6 SMTP, but they reject the incoming mail as possible spam way more often than when it is being sent to them over IPv4. I had the same problem, and I had to explicitly force IPv4 for outgoing SMTP to Google in my Postfix configuration.
> it's an acronym for 'dynamic host configuration protocol,' and is a key building block of network management.
The above explanation is a clear proof that Slashdot is not a "news for nerds" site anymore.
Probably by writing a reply.
I voted 2-3 years, because this is when I last assembled a PC. Then I have realized that the microcontrollers are also computers. I guess I have built 5 to 10 Atmel AVR-based boards for various DYI purposes during the last year.
Maybe this one will be next:
Why limit yourself to the X11 clients? I am perfectly happy with mutt (www.mutt.org). It is _fast_ (especially with local mail storage), does what I want it to do (I don't need calendar, for example), and can be used everywhere, including remote ssh session from my Android phone.
But it seems my requirements are different to what the OP needs.
Also, unrelated, but I feel like the GNOME 3 hate is really blown out of proportion. Sure, some users were driven away, but the exact same thing happened with GNOME 2 and people called it trash and crap and whatever else.
And they were right.
I have been using GNOME since GNOME 1 times, and I think for former GNOME users the GNOME 3 fiasco is not something unexpected, it is a logical outcome of the overall trend in GNOME development.
I remember Sawmill/Sawfish being replaced by Metacity, which even in the latest GNOME 2 releases was not able to do things which were supported in Sawfish since day 1 and still are.
I remember Galeon being pushed out of GNOME and replaced by Epiphany (seriously, did anybody used Epiphany?), and again, Galeon was more capable than Firefox (and of course than Epiphany, but no surprise here), until it bit-rotted enough to be removed from Fedora about year and half ago.
I remember GDM being rewritten for GNOME 2.20, omitting XDMCP support altogether (a display manager without XDMCP, would you believe that?) and removing the config file, in which the user previously could set his own X server options, allowing, for example, correct multi-seat support. Those features were promised to be added later, but they never were, with the notable exception of the XDMCP support. And guess what? GDM in GNOME 3 is said to support multi-seat, but it generates its own hard-coded xorg.conf for secondary seats somewhere under
So no, GNOME 3 has not been a surprise, at least for me. GNOME 3 has been a logical outcome of the general trend, which has been visible in the GNOME development for several years. That said, GNOME 2 was bearable for me for general use (with Galeon, xdm, and Sawfish). When GNOME 3 was released, I have finally switched to XFCE.
Money isn't everything -- but it's a long way ahead of what comes next. -- Sir Edmond Stockdale