Appropriate signoff for your fast food philosophy. You know nothing about life. You choose flings over marriage? You will die a bitter death. You will never know love.
Maybe that has something to do with the USA invading two countries recently, both times without the full approval or backing of the UN, using fabricated "evidence" as justification, and waging war against their respective populations for an extended period of time.
But you keep pretending that the USA has done nothing wrong.
You're an idiot. Go read some NK news, they don't even MENTION anything real that the US has done. It's a joke.
So your rebuttal to my comment that some US citizens are in denial that the US has really done anything wrong is... your denial that the US has really done anything wrong.
It sounds to me more like you have hopes Microsoft won't have the ability to reinvent themselves.
Not hopes. It's my educated opinion. Microsoft isn't developing a professional services division which IMO is essential to enter the high-end market. They've made pointless attempts to enter the hardware market through game consoles and TV receivers. How is that appealing to their current corporate customers? So no PS and no hardware; it is obvious Microsoft thinks they can stay relevant as a software-only company. With Linux on the horizon? Not a chance. Linux will eat the low-end and Microsoft can't enter the high-end in their current state. They're between a rock and a hard place.
The $15,000 Japanese 'pickup truck' didn't run Rolls-Royce out of business.
That was *also* my point. Go back and read my post again because you keep repeating *my* points back at me. I wonder if you even bothered to read what I wrote before replying.
I said: "It's also the reason why I believe Linux is going to cripple Microsoft. Linux offers 80% of the functionality for 25% of the price. Microsoft has to reinvent themselves as a "quality vendor" to survive, where the customer needs 95% of the functionality and will pay any price for it. I don't think they can do that. Look at the current market. Linux is squeezing Microsoft at the low end and Microsoft lacks the pieces to move into the high end; professional services, hardware division, end-to-end systems. The problem is that Microsoft is a software-only company. That lets Linux compete. Notice how IBM doesn't see Linux as a threat; that's because IBM isn't a software-only company."
Now explain to me why you'd make your comment about Rolls-Royce surviving if you'd actually read my first comment? My comment was *exactly* that "quality vendors" where the customer will "pay any price" for a 95% solution have nothing to fear from Linux.
The only explanations for your comment I can think of are (1) you didn't read what I wrote or (2) you didn't understand what I wrote.
There are some really, really marvelous tools out there. Both in software and in hardware. But I'll hazard to propose the notion that for regular productive work, the 90% quality of a Ford pickup truck, at $28,000 is much more practical and useful than the 99.5% quality of a Rolls-Royce pickup truck, which I'm sure you could special order for a few million dollars.
Yes, and my point is that Linux is the $15,000 Japanese "pickup truck" that almost destroyed Ford in the 80s.
Ford reinvented themselves and managed to stay competitive. I have very low expectations of Microsoft's ability to reinvent themselves.
Well, Thompson and Ritchie got paychecks from AT&T, and AT&T sold Unix to Novell which sold it to Darl's company.
Thompson and Ritchie got paychecks from AT&T, and AT&T created a subsidary USL to sell UNIX, and USL sold UNIX to Novell, and Novell sold limited rights to UNIX to SCO and SCO is not Darl's company, and SCO sold an unknown subset of their already limited rights to UNIX to Darl's company which is either Caldera or TheSCOGroup, depending on the context.
Important Factoid #1: Novell never dealt directly with Darl's company.
Important Factoid #2: It's entirely unclear what Darl's company actually owns.
Re:He Might Be Passe, But What He Is Doing Isn't
on
Wired on McBride
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Given the the codebase of all their products I think it's pretty much inevitable that there is some GPLed code somewhere in there. Lucky for them not too many people see the code and those that do probably don't know the linux codebase.
Maybe one day somebody will actually find which part of windows contains GPLed code and all hell will break loose. I would not want to be a MS shareholder on that day.
Similar GPL situations have already happened with NEXT whose NEXTSTEP now forms the core of MacOS X, and also with Linksys who is now owned by Cisco. I think this suggests that the most likely way Microsoft will be "caught out" by the GPL will be through a purchase of a smaller company.
I have very little doubt that there are already Microsoft products with inadvertant GPL code (and I'm not talking about their known GPL usages like SFU). But history shows that many GPL owners consider removal of the code as acceptable, and the FSF says they resolve a dozen cases per year in this discrete way. So I don't think a GPL situation will be "hell" for Microsoft.
Yeah, out of context this quote doesn't make sense. Just like a lot of 'facts' in moores movies.
I'm seeing a huge "grassroots" backlash against Moore's movies. Why is this? I've seen the typical complaints like "the gun wasn't actually in the bank!" and so on but Moore addresses each of these claims on his website. It certainly seems to me, after reading his comments, that the claims of his fabrications are the actual falsehoods.
Similarly I've seen claims that his books have fabricated statistics. But every statistic in his books has a footnote giving the sources for the information and in many cases the sources are the US governments own departments!
The other popular claim is that he shows the facts but shows them out of context. Well, what's the correct context? The detractors never seem to say what's wrong with the context so their claims aren't very convincing.
So I'm interested to know why you oppose Moore and are claiming this alleged "disinformation"? What has he done that has convinced you he is a liar? I'm willing to accept he is a liar, but I haven't seen the convincing proof yet.
The last time I looked at GCC --- and you can correct me where I'm wrong, but, without citing what Apple has done with Xcode, tell me what out-of-the-box dev environment you're referring to --- GCC was inferior to Visual Studio. Here's why:
Comparing GCC to VC is silly of you. GCC is a free product, written by volunteers, with no big budget behind it, and an entirely different purpose. GCC is a cross-platform framework for compilers and doesn't address interface building at all. The comparison of GCC to VC is like comparing amateur rocketry to NASA.
Face facts: the only way Microsoft can pretend they're not bottom of the heap is to point towards free software. If we include the real competitors to Microsoft - Sun, IBM, HP, Apple - then Microsoft looks so bad it's not funny. They've always been a "good enough" company. 90% of the functionality for 50% of the price. That's a good business model and it makes Microsoft very rich but it doesn't make for great software.
It's also the reason why I believe Linux is going to cripple Microsoft. Linux offers 80% of the functionality for 25% of the price. Microsoft has to reinvent themselves as a "quality vendor" to survive, where the customer needs 95% of the functionality and will pay any price for it. I don't think they can do that.
Look at the current market. Linux is squeezing Microsoft at the low end and Microsoft lacks the pieces to move into the high end; professional services, hardware division, end-to-end systems.
The problem is that Microsoft is a software-only company. That lets Linux compete. Notice how IBM doesn't see Linux as a threat; that's because IBM isn't a software-only company.
Microsoft is in a terrible position right now. I hope they crash hard; that would be fitting karma.
If you ever have the chance to actually watch the NK news or read it's papers, EVERYTHING is further proof of the US's warmongering. If it rains next Tuesday, it's proof of the US's warmongering. If a French guy eats a taco while on vacation in Mexico, it's proof of the US's warmongering. If something sitting on some guy's desk is a particular shade of red... well, you get the idea.
Maybe that has something to do with the USA invading two countries recently, both times without the full approval or backing of the UN, using fabricated "evidence" as justification, and waging war against their respective populations for an extended period of time.
But you keep pretending that the USA has done nothing wrong.
The reason that people target Windows is because it is, BY FAR, the largest consumer OS.
Nonsense. The reason*s* why Windows has more malware and viruses include:
Many Windows users run as the Administrator, or as a user with Administrator privileges.
Windows starts many services by default and they often have remote exploits.
"Bundled" Windows applications (Outlook and Internet Explorer) are riddled with holes.
Microsoft's applications have been "designed" so that trivial exploits can escalate into serious intrusions or system takeovers. There is no real attempt at privilege separation, privilege limits or other sensible precautions.
Microsoft makes little or no effort to educate their users or provide tools to mitigate the problem (there still isn't a Microsoft virus scanner, or a third party virus scanner bundled with Windows by default).
Microsoft has a poor history of responding to problems and/or releasing timely patches. Just look at the number of security firms that have to disclose a remote exploit to the public, citing inactivity from Microsoft as their motivation for disclosure.
Microsoft's marketshare is but one factor of many. You reductionists need to take off your blinkers and look at the big picture.
Many places charge as low as 5 dollars to have a disk resurfaced, and unless the disk is cracked it always works. The home-resurfacing kits are mostly jokes, but the professional ones work...
One of the home kits worked for me. I had a really badly scratched PS2 game (second hand, Prince of Persia, bought it on ebay). It refused to load a certain level. No amount of cleaning would make it work. I picked up a $5 kit, rubbed the chemical solution over it for 5 minutes, and the disc worked first time and every time after that.
If we got rid of pennies, I bet that store would lower their price to $19.95, not raise it to $20. The same psychology that applies to selling stuff for 1 cent less would apply to selling stuff for 5 cents less.
That's exactly what happened in Australia. We got rid of our 1c and 2c coins ages ago (maybe 2 decades). Prices went from $xx.99 to $xx.95.
While it may not be the strict definition of what an operating system is, it stops being Linux if you change the kernel but keep the GNU utilities. It wouldn't stop being Linux if you change the GNU utilities but kept the kernel. The question I think needs answering is does running the GNU utilities on MacOS X make it GNU/MacOS X? How about GNU/Windows or GNU/BSD?
It's not just about the GNU utilities. People forget that for Linux in 1991, GNU was *everything* except the kernel. The C library. The init scripts. The login process. The shell. The basic text editors. *Everything*.
It was a very fair call in 1991 to say that the Linux distros of the time were just GNU plus Linux. I remember even in 1992 when people asked "what's this Linux thing" the basic reply was "it's that GNU OS but with a different kernel". It's no longer a good call because there's far more in a modern Linux distribution than GNU plus Linux but there's no denying that the UNIX-like core in any modern "Linux distribution" is mostly GNU[1].
Yes, there is a GNU/BSD. No, it's not the same thing as the "GNU utilities" running on top of FreeBSD. It is the entire GNU reimplementation of UNIX running on top of the FreeBSD kernel. But running the "GNU utilities" on top of MacOS X or Windows would not make them GNU/Mac or GNU/Win, because GNU is not essential to those operating systems. They have their own startup and login behaviour, their own system libraries, etc.
[1] Actually even that is becoming less and less true. Modern distros occasionally swap out GNU components for BSD components or whatever. The Free UNIX scene is rather incestuous. There is a lot of cross pollination occurring.
Programs are made for the needs of today, not the needs of people 10 years in the future. By the time current GNOME is fast enough to be usable, it will be vastly obsolete, and the newest GNOME will be dragging down your 20GHz processor to a crawl once again.
The current GNOME is entirely usable on my current laptop which has a 1GHz processor. I have no problems with the performance. It is equal to or better than MacOS X in all performance aspects that I care about.
If you and this other guy can't afford a 1GHz processor, and you are both complaining about the performance of GNOME, then I think you need to go complain elsewhere.
I can tell you are a programmer, because you are trying to justify terribly slow programs. Your opinion is quite biased by that.
Yes. Strange that. A programmer having an opinion on programming.
It's because, if GNOME and KDE don't improve significantly, you won't see them being included in distros much longer,
While reading Planet Gnome a few weeks back I was struck by one of the developers attitude on people complaining about the crappy performance of MetaCity. His take on it was people were whining and not thinking about what was important.
He was right. You are wrong. Performance isn't important. Computers get faster. GNOME is in it for the long haul, and GNOME won't go bankrupt if nobody uses it. Just so long as the developers keep tinkering with it as a hobby, eventually the computer speeds will exceed what is required.
The danger in GNOME would be to concentrate on eking out minor percentage points of performance instead of adding truly useful features. Nobody will care in 12 months time if a Celeron 300 with 64MB RAM cannot run GNOME. And GNOME doesn't need to attract those users to survive.
There is a reason that every single desktop environment (barring GNOME 2.6) has dropped the "spatial desktop".
Microsoft dropped it because they were trying to impress the world how Internet Explorer was so integrated with Windows that it could not be removed, so they went on this crazy path of making everything on their desktop look like a web browser. Thus, the File Explorer which looks just like Internet Explorer (and is just as unusable).
Apple dropped it because MacOS X is not much more than Rhapsody which is basically a ported version of NEXTSTEP. I don't know how many of you here have used NEXTSTEP but the file browser in MacOS X is a 100% ripoff of the NEXTSTEP browser (even down to the behaviour of the triple pane).
One thing I don't know - and I'm pretty sure nobody else here knows, despite the very strong opinions held - is whether spatial or browser is the better file management user interface. I for one don't recall any UI studies done into this particular problem. What I do hear is a lot of anecdotal evidence, pointless name-calling, opinionated grandstanding, and faulty reasoning like "Apple changed, therefore the old way must have sucked".
Let's innovate some apps that can actually threaten the standing of MSFT and friends instead of retooling themes and icons on a daily basis.
Why? The whole point of writing code on the weekends for no pay is TO HAVE FUN. The purpose is not to destroy Microsoft. If retooling themes and icons is fun then THAT IS WHAT WE SHALL DO.
On the other hand, I always hated the old Nautilus - with the spatial one it's the first time I've begun using an actual file manager (as opposed to just the gnu file utils from the shell) in bloody ages. Many of my friends feel the same way. (And some, like you, hate it.)
Interesting observation. I never used the explorer-style Nautilus - it was inconvenient compared to a command line - but now that you mention it I just realised I've been using the spatial Nautilus for the past few weeks.
I was a MacOS 7 through 9 user for many years and I must admit, I don't like the explorer style file manager in MacOS X. I was quite happy with the old style Finder though. I'm sort of glad that the GNOME guys are sticking to their guns on this one.
If Nautilus had spring loaded folders I'd be a happier camper. Though I understand there's a patent issue involved (ie, the patches exist to give spring loaded folders to Nautilus but the GNOME guys refused to apply them because Apple holds the patent).
Instead of posting on a linux forum about how great linux is go out and talk to people. Omg! going out of the house! Ok, well maybe you geeks with no social skills should stay in your mother's basements and wait for us to tall you. But the rest of you linux users should get out there and spread the word in a real way.
Ok, well ignoring the obvious troll about "geeks" having no social skills - I wonder if a poll was done, how many "geeks" are actually married, with kids, and haven't lived with their parents since they were teens - I really don't think your suggestion is very useful. Why should we "geeks" waste our time spreading the word? That's not what interests us. You would seemingly turn Linux into an unpaid job; writing *and* marketting. Linux to me is a nice weekend hobby. A chance to write some code or discuss technical issues that interest me, instead of writing code that doesn't interest me at work. Before Linux I would write tiny applications of no importance. Now with Linux I can feel much more satisfied by the same weekend tinkering because what I write has a greater impact. If I had to stop coding and go out and start marketting the damn stuff - for no pay and at the expense of my time - then I wouldn't be having fun anymore. Why would I do it?
Whatever your coding isn't that urgent that you can't wait to do it later:P
Urgent? You seem to think this is a race, or a battle, or a war. Linux is none of those things. Linux is fun. Linux is relaxing. Linux is a great puzzle with endless opportunities. Linux is the ultimate geek toy. Introducing urgency is stress, and deadlines, and pressure. That sounds too much like work. No thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Spot the loving and caring Christian.
So your rebuttal to my comment that some US citizens are in denial that the US has really done anything wrong is... your denial that the US has really done anything wrong.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Not hopes. It's my educated opinion. Microsoft isn't developing a professional services division which IMO is essential to enter the high-end market. They've made pointless attempts to enter the hardware market through game consoles and TV receivers. How is that appealing to their current corporate customers? So no PS and no hardware; it is obvious Microsoft thinks they can stay relevant as a software-only company. With Linux on the horizon? Not a chance. Linux will eat the low-end and Microsoft can't enter the high-end in their current state. They're between a rock and a hard place.
That was *also* my point. Go back and read my post again because you keep repeating *my* points back at me. I wonder if you even bothered to read what I wrote before replying.
Now explain to me why you'd make your comment about Rolls-Royce surviving if you'd actually read my first comment? My comment was *exactly* that "quality vendors" where the customer will "pay any price" for a 95% solution have nothing to fear from Linux.
The only explanations for your comment I can think of are (1) you didn't read what I wrote or (2) you didn't understand what I wrote.
Yes, and my point is that Linux is the $15,000 Japanese "pickup truck" that almost destroyed Ford in the 80s.
Ford reinvented themselves and managed to stay competitive. I have very low expectations of Microsoft's ability to reinvent themselves.
Thompson and Ritchie got paychecks from AT&T, and AT&T created a subsidary USL to sell UNIX, and USL sold UNIX to Novell, and Novell sold limited rights to UNIX to SCO and SCO is not Darl's company, and SCO sold an unknown subset of their already limited rights to UNIX to Darl's company which is either Caldera or TheSCOGroup, depending on the context.
Important Factoid #1: Novell never dealt directly with Darl's company.
Important Factoid #2: It's entirely unclear what Darl's company actually owns.
Similar GPL situations have already happened with NEXT whose NEXTSTEP now forms the core of MacOS X, and also with Linksys who is now owned by Cisco. I think this suggests that the most likely way Microsoft will be "caught out" by the GPL will be through a purchase of a smaller company.
I have very little doubt that there are already Microsoft products with inadvertant GPL code (and I'm not talking about their known GPL usages like SFU). But history shows that many GPL owners consider removal of the code as acceptable, and the FSF says they resolve a dozen cases per year in this discrete way. So I don't think a GPL situation will be "hell" for Microsoft.
I'm seeing a huge "grassroots" backlash against Moore's movies. Why is this? I've seen the typical complaints like "the gun wasn't actually in the bank!" and so on but Moore addresses each of these claims on his website. It certainly seems to me, after reading his comments, that the claims of his fabrications are the actual falsehoods.
Similarly I've seen claims that his books have fabricated statistics. But every statistic in his books has a footnote giving the sources for the information and in many cases the sources are the US governments own departments!
The other popular claim is that he shows the facts but shows them out of context. Well, what's the correct context? The detractors never seem to say what's wrong with the context so their claims aren't very convincing.
So I'm interested to know why you oppose Moore and are claiming this alleged "disinformation"? What has he done that has convinced you he is a liar? I'm willing to accept he is a liar, but I haven't seen the convincing proof yet.
Comparing GCC to VC is silly of you. GCC is a free product, written by volunteers, with no big budget behind it, and an entirely different purpose. GCC is a cross-platform framework for compilers and doesn't address interface building at all. The comparison of GCC to VC is like comparing amateur rocketry to NASA.
Face facts: the only way Microsoft can pretend they're not bottom of the heap is to point towards free software. If we include the real competitors to Microsoft - Sun, IBM, HP, Apple - then Microsoft looks so bad it's not funny. They've always been a "good enough" company. 90% of the functionality for 50% of the price. That's a good business model and it makes Microsoft very rich but it doesn't make for great software.
It's also the reason why I believe Linux is going to cripple Microsoft. Linux offers 80% of the functionality for 25% of the price. Microsoft has to reinvent themselves as a "quality vendor" to survive, where the customer needs 95% of the functionality and will pay any price for it. I don't think they can do that.
Look at the current market. Linux is squeezing Microsoft at the low end and Microsoft lacks the pieces to move into the high end; professional services, hardware division, end-to-end systems. The problem is that Microsoft is a software-only company. That lets Linux compete. Notice how IBM doesn't see Linux as a threat; that's because IBM isn't a software-only company.
Microsoft is in a terrible position right now. I hope they crash hard; that would be fitting karma.
Maybe that has something to do with the USA invading two countries recently, both times without the full approval or backing of the UN, using fabricated "evidence" as justification, and waging war against their respective populations for an extended period of time.
But you keep pretending that the USA has done nothing wrong.
Basilisk.
SA has saved my bacon so many times I've lost count. You guys all deserve many free beers.
Damn. That's the best description of blogs I've ever read.
That one needs to go into the fortune file.
A Slashdotter who can't spell "ridiculous": inevitable.
Nonsense. The reason*s* why Windows has more malware and viruses include:
Microsoft's marketshare is but one factor of many. You reductionists need to take off your blinkers and look at the big picture.
Their next album has the following predicted hits.
I was going to buy the latest album but screw them. No album is worth the hassle of DRM.
One of the home kits worked for me. I had a really badly scratched PS2 game (second hand, Prince of Persia, bought it on ebay). It refused to load a certain level. No amount of cleaning would make it work. I picked up a $5 kit, rubbed the chemical solution over it for 5 minutes, and the disc worked first time and every time after that.
Dude, you crazy! Pink donuts are the best ones.
That's exactly what happened in Australia. We got rid of our 1c and 2c coins ages ago (maybe 2 decades). Prices went from $xx.99 to $xx.95.
It's not just about the GNU utilities. People forget that for Linux in 1991, GNU was *everything* except the kernel. The C library. The init scripts. The login process. The shell. The basic text editors. *Everything*.
It was a very fair call in 1991 to say that the Linux distros of the time were just GNU plus Linux. I remember even in 1992 when people asked "what's this Linux thing" the basic reply was "it's that GNU OS but with a different kernel". It's no longer a good call because there's far more in a modern Linux distribution than GNU plus Linux but there's no denying that the UNIX-like core in any modern "Linux distribution" is mostly GNU[1].
Yes, there is a GNU/BSD. No, it's not the same thing as the "GNU utilities" running on top of FreeBSD. It is the entire GNU reimplementation of UNIX running on top of the FreeBSD kernel. But running the "GNU utilities" on top of MacOS X or Windows would not make them GNU/Mac or GNU/Win, because GNU is not essential to those operating systems. They have their own startup and login behaviour, their own system libraries, etc.
[1] Actually even that is becoming less and less true. Modern distros occasionally swap out GNU components for BSD components or whatever. The Free UNIX scene is rather incestuous. There is a lot of cross pollination occurring.
The current GNOME is entirely usable on my current laptop which has a 1GHz processor. I have no problems with the performance. It is equal to or better than MacOS X in all performance aspects that I care about.
If you and this other guy can't afford a 1GHz processor, and you are both complaining about the performance of GNOME, then I think you need to go complain elsewhere.
Yes. Strange that. A programmer having an opinion on programming.
You are a very silly person.
He was right. You are wrong. Performance isn't important. Computers get faster. GNOME is in it for the long haul, and GNOME won't go bankrupt if nobody uses it. Just so long as the developers keep tinkering with it as a hobby, eventually the computer speeds will exceed what is required.
The danger in GNOME would be to concentrate on eking out minor percentage points of performance instead of adding truly useful features. Nobody will care in 12 months time if a Celeron 300 with 64MB RAM cannot run GNOME. And GNOME doesn't need to attract those users to survive.
Microsoft dropped it because they were trying to impress the world how Internet Explorer was so integrated with Windows that it could not be removed, so they went on this crazy path of making everything on their desktop look like a web browser. Thus, the File Explorer which looks just like Internet Explorer (and is just as unusable).
Apple dropped it because MacOS X is not much more than Rhapsody which is basically a ported version of NEXTSTEP. I don't know how many of you here have used NEXTSTEP but the file browser in MacOS X is a 100% ripoff of the NEXTSTEP browser (even down to the behaviour of the triple pane).
One thing I don't know - and I'm pretty sure nobody else here knows, despite the very strong opinions held - is whether spatial or browser is the better file management user interface. I for one don't recall any UI studies done into this particular problem. What I do hear is a lot of anecdotal evidence, pointless name-calling, opinionated grandstanding, and faulty reasoning like "Apple changed, therefore the old way must have sucked".
Why? The whole point of writing code on the weekends for no pay is TO HAVE FUN. The purpose is not to destroy Microsoft. If retooling themes and icons is fun then THAT IS WHAT WE SHALL DO.
Interesting observation. I never used the explorer-style Nautilus - it was inconvenient compared to a command line - but now that you mention it I just realised I've been using the spatial Nautilus for the past few weeks.
I was a MacOS 7 through 9 user for many years and I must admit, I don't like the explorer style file manager in MacOS X. I was quite happy with the old style Finder though. I'm sort of glad that the GNOME guys are sticking to their guns on this one.
If Nautilus had spring loaded folders I'd be a happier camper. Though I understand there's a patent issue involved (ie, the patches exist to give spring loaded folders to Nautilus but the GNOME guys refused to apply them because Apple holds the patent).
Ok, well ignoring the obvious troll about "geeks" having no social skills - I wonder if a poll was done, how many "geeks" are actually married, with kids, and haven't lived with their parents since they were teens - I really don't think your suggestion is very useful. Why should we "geeks" waste our time spreading the word? That's not what interests us. You would seemingly turn Linux into an unpaid job; writing *and* marketting. Linux to me is a nice weekend hobby. A chance to write some code or discuss technical issues that interest me, instead of writing code that doesn't interest me at work. Before Linux I would write tiny applications of no importance. Now with Linux I can feel much more satisfied by the same weekend tinkering because what I write has a greater impact. If I had to stop coding and go out and start marketting the damn stuff - for no pay and at the expense of my time - then I wouldn't be having fun anymore. Why would I do it?
Urgent? You seem to think this is a race, or a battle, or a war. Linux is none of those things. Linux is fun. Linux is relaxing. Linux is a great puzzle with endless opportunities. Linux is the ultimate geek toy. Introducing urgency is stress, and deadlines, and pressure. That sounds too much like work. No thanks.