According to the article, she was without internet access for two days. Then she called customer service, and access was then restored in less than an hour.

And I don't see where they tried to reach her ahead of time. It appears to me that all of the emails and voice messages were issued during the two days while her connection was down.

Yeah, right, the Linux philosophy. For which Linux itself is a prime example, of course, since it is kept so small in scale and fulfills only its core task of being a kernel (which is elementary resource management, in case you were wondering).

I feel bad for even replying, but on my CentOS 7 system, I do have netstat and text logs. I don't know who came up with the "systemd only supports binary logs" meme, but it's really getting boring, especially considering that RHEL 7 and CentOS 7 use text logs by default.

Except this is exactly what Red Hat does. Apart from paying engineers to work on existing free software, Red Hat also open sources every product of every single company they acquire, because it's the company's core principle only to develop open source software.

He didn't admit it voluntarily. He was basically forced to by several people clearly stating his name all over the internet, some implying it might be a backdoor. He basically didn't have a choice but to defend himself.

http://git.openssl.org/gitweb/... probably introduced it (judging from git blame), http://git.openssl.org/gitweb/... fixed it.

Actually, it doesn't. Examples are designated initializers, compound literals, anonymous structs/unions and variable-length arrays.
You are, however, correct about the fact that the low-level stuff is most of the time just the same and C++ is just as fit to low-level tasks as C.

I guess, it's more about the JS stuff than CSS for him. I listened to a talk of him once where he denounced unfree JS code whose execution the user basically can only prevent using whitelisting. And even so, some pages may become completely unusable if JS is disabled.
What he (or rather, someone from the FSF) actually did, was creating a Firefox plugin which would detect unfree JS, disable its execution and automatically send a complaint to the host site (as long as that's possible without JS). At least that's what he told.

CSS is (imho) not code just as HTML is not really code (although I know HTML5/CSS3 being Turing complete, but well). JS is in my eyes the much bigger problem (and the one I know RMS is actually concerned about).

Actually, it's rather x86 applications run at about 80% the speed of native MIPS applications.

These are only apparent movements. If I point a laser pointer to a wall, I may say “the dot moves” and everyone will know what I mean, but actually there's nothing moving there, it's only the location where the light from the laser pointer is hitting the wall that's changing.
Obviously I could calculate a velocity anyway and make that velocity greater than the speed of light by choosing the distance between laser pointer and wall big enough, but if it's all about whether you're able to assign a velocity, you may as well calculate the velocity of thoughts: Divide the distance of two places by the time you need to switch between them in your mind. Just look at the sun (or some more distant star to avoid eye injuries) and then at your desk and you're well above light speed.

The ability to define a velocity does not imply that something's moving.

(So, technically, those examples are “faster than light”, though I'd dispute whether something actually “goes faster than light", as the OP phrased it)

I think, if you can't freely compile the source code, the software is not exactly free. Freedom 1 at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html says that you need to be able to change the program (at source code level) and to incorporate these changes into the running program. This basically requires the ability to easily compile a working binary from source code.

I don't think they'll be skipping anything.

The “full” original statement actually is: “A new DirectX has always revived the industry, new graphics cards require more powerful CPUs and more RAM. But there will be no DirectX 12. That's it. As far as we know, there are no plans for DirectX 12.”

As fast as I understand it, he actually talks about any new major DirectX version, not just about DirectX 12. Which would in turn support your “minor version abominations” argument.