I suspect the reason some people think this is remarkable is that a bunch of projects (like the Linux kernel) make a big deal out of staying on v2.

So where would that leave web applications that have a legitimate use for "all this HTML5 crap"?

Hopefully, with a relatively fine-grained exception system that allows this to be overridden explicitly when it makes sense to.

Sure, the OpenJDK exists, but you have to test your long standing and legacy applications against it.

Our vendors have started doing this for us.

One of the big Java-based tools we build on top of suddenly announced that they now support OpenJDK 8 and 11. It's pretty awesome.

From where I'm sitting, it's not even a little dead.

From my perspective, it never had any real place on the desktop or in the browser. But it had a place on the back-end of big internal enterprise applications (like, the stuff that makes sure peoples' insurance gets paid for by your employer). And, I still observe it having a place there.

This is why I wrote a browser extension for my main desktop browser that literally blocks it from being able to play any media (video or audio) at all. I'd rather do without YouTube and Netflix on the desktop than have to deal will this deluge of crap.

Upon seeing that it's open source, I'm already starting to brainstorm how to help local schools and libraries set this thing up. Neat!

This will just lead to browsers muting sound by default

I actually wrote a browser extension that prevents my browser from loading any media of any kind at all. Coupled with turning off all plugin support, it's been an absolute delight. Never any sound, rarely any motion.

...then you are not performing backups.

I've at times had to code up things I haven't been happy with, but rather than refuse to do it, I tried to modularize stuff so it could be fixed later when management changed.

This is, I think, better than refusing, and having someone else code it up. To quote Mordin Solus, "someone else might have gotten it wrong".

(And in at least one occasion, that worked -- for one product I worked on, we managed to safely and quickly kill the "phone home" DRM before it got out into the wild. Felt filthy working on it, felt good to bury it.)

You can't legally VM Mac OS. It just doesn't have compatible licensing.

You can if it's 10.7 or newer and your host is a Macintosh itself.

Prior to 10.7, you had to run the server flavor of the OS and be on Macintosh hardware. Which is why I own a copy of OS X Server 10.6 -- lets me run it in a VM.

But after 10.7 came out, Server changed to an app you run on top of the regular OS instead of a distinct version of the OS, and they updated the licensing at that time.

If you're confused about what you are and aren't allowed to do: VMWare keeps track, and if you have the latest build of VMWare Fusion, it'll only let you install versions you're allowed to run.

My first thought was that they were basically doing libusb bindings for JavaScript (and then exposing those bindings within a web browser).

But, no, those bindings already existed: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fschakko%2Fnod...

I must be missing something. I'll go dig for technical details to try and figure out what.

The next time a similar story comes out for BeOS, I'll probably be interested.

I guess operating systems acquiring HiDPI support is one of the reasons going for the flat look.

My own guess is that someone has a color e-ink display in the works.

The last time I checked, cheap color e-ink displays simply couldn't show enough colors for photos. They were fine for charts and graphs, and fine for color-coding text, but if you tried to do something photorealistic in them, well, it was worse than old 90s-era 16-bit displays.

Flat icons with few colors would work spectacularly well on such displays.

If these icon changes are actually in support of color displays that draw almost no power and are completely readable in full sunlight, then bring on the ugly icons please!

Incorrect. Buying a *single* ticket is worth it, since it puts you on the playing field at least.

I do not agree, because everyone is already on the playing field.

There is always a nonzero chance that you'll find a winning ticket, or receive one as a gift. That's a true thing that many people haven't internalized.

If you can internalize it, then you're always playing, and the question is whether the increase in odds from your zeroth purchase to your first purchase is worth the cost. (I have never decided that it was, so far.)

Is Linux really aiming that hard at becoming a toy OS for thirteen year olds like Windows?

Speaking as an old-time Unix neckbeard, the best evidence I've got is that the answer is "yes". (cf. "systemd", "Network Manager")