Can you give references for C.S. Lewis preferring the `chronological' order (someone posted a letter excerpt earlier in this thread, but it shows merely that Lewis wasn't particularly bothered about the issue).
The current american publisher's order was apparently decided by Lewis's nephew, and I've heard he did that for rather cynical personal reasons -- as part of some bizarre power struggle / desire to make his mark / something like that -- anyway, not out of consideration for the reader, or his uncle. There's quite a bit of controversy surrounding the change.
[Personally, I think The Magician's Nephew is a much worse introduction to the series than TLtWatW...]
I think the basic feeling is that Gates didn't start giving until he needed to do so to improve his image. So while his money may do a lot of good, it doesn't really make him a cool guy; there's a suspicion that if all donations were completely anonymous, he wouldn't bother.
Paul Allen on the other hand, seems quite passionate about the causes he gives to.
Yeah, I've seen all these arguments before (everytime there's a flamewar about C/R systems on some mailing list).
People's hatred of C/R systems may or may not be reasonable, but it definitely exists, and using a C/R system will very likely result in your missing otherwise reasonable email (sort of like a spam filter with a non-neglible false-positive rate). If that's OK with you, I suppose it's your choice.
Note that many people hate `Challenge Response' systems, and will simply decline to send you email if they receive a Challenge in response to their email. So to a large degree, it suffers the same problem as an `opt-in' system.
It's obvious that spamsters will attempt to abuse any system that allows email from strangers.
However that doesn't invalidate his point, which is that in some cases mail from `strangers' is legitimate, and you would be pissed if you missed it.
Some recent examples:
I got mail from my former stockbroker about , who thought email might be a better way to contact me than snail mail (she apparently got my email address from my Mom!) -- and she was right, it is more convenient.
I recently received email out of the blue from some old college friends I haven't heard from in many, many, years.
Since I work on free software, my email address is `out there', and I fairly frequently receive email from people that want to ask a question, which I'm happy to answer.
Obviously in all of these cases, there's some kind of previous association, but it's tenuous enough that any system requiring an opt-in from me is more than likely going to fail, and drop their email -- which would piss me off (and yes, it would piss me off more than spam, which I find mostly controllable via content filtering).
I think the answer is simple: people who like cool, small, cute, things will buy them.
Maybe in the U.S. that wouldn't fly, but there are lots of people like that in Japan. Some of it is for a purpose (e.g., if your room is smaller, you may be less willing to have a big-ol' tower case taking up space and looking ugly), but in part it's also simply preference, and fashion.
A laptop can also satisfy this, but the integrated nature of laptops is an unecessary restriction for many uses, and let's face it -- laptops are rather Old Hat these days. A cute little brightly colored cube is something new and interesting (at least for a while!).
[If you going into any Japanese computer store, there's pretty clearly a bigger market for small computers than in the U.S. In japan, the coolest cars are small, cute, and emphasize design; in the U.S., giant hulking SUVs are king.]
I work for a (big) Japanese company, and we periodically have to attend meetings where they describe how many zillions of yen we lost this quarter, and reveal next quarter's inspiring new slogan (`We're Lovin' Information Customer') which will enable us to destroy Sony.
The slides they show are exactly as you describe -- they're amazing, not just in the sheer quantity of text and numbers they contain, but in the ultra-dimensionality of it all. No, 2D is not enough; by dividing everything into sub-sub-sub-tables, intertwined into completely non-rectilinear arrangements, with text running horizontally, vertically, and in spirals around the edges of the vortex, they've got to be pushing some fundamental physical limits somewhere.
These actually often contain a fair amount of interesting information, if you spend some time deciphering them, and it's clear that these guys are pretty smart and know their numbers, and have done a lot of analysis, but really, really, need to stop using powerpoint...
All you other trolls, pay attention to his technique: say things that are (1) on topic, (2) inflammatory, but stated politely, (3) sound sort vaguely like they might be true, or at least aren't obviously false if you're reading quickly and not really paying attention), (4) put the really inflammatory things near the end -- many readers will stop reading early, especially if the beginning is boring, (5) includes a bit of ego stroking for some group while you're at it -- you might get a few mods up that way.
To address his `points': * No of course the GPL isn't a `problem', unless you're a big corporation looking to steal yourself some code. * Netbsd is nice and portable, but then, so is linux (those of you who have been snoozing for the past 5 years might be surprised); look to debian for a good example. The rest is just silly flamebait.
BSD has its good points (if nothing else I spent a few years in an office with a member of the netbsd core team, and he was definitely a smart guy), but please, give the fanboyish trolling a rest...
XFS is apparently a bit unusual in that it requires changes to the generic portions of the kernel as well, so its presence could adversely affect stability even when it's not configured; this is the main reason why Marcelo is reluctant to merge it.
However, he's apparently also decided to wait for a pending review of the XFS changes by Christoph Hellwig (who's a widely trusted kernel hacker, and more pedantic than most [pedantic used in a good sense here:-]), and perhaps will merge it based on that.
[From what I understand, part of the problem is that SGI still uses Irix as the `native' platform for XFS, and so the linux port of XFS tries a bit to make linux look like Irix in order to minimize linux-specific changes to the XFS code-base.]
This post is based merely on casual readership of the LKML, not on actual knowledge of the linux XFS implementation!
The idea of starting from scratch `because it's cool' is ludicrous.
You seem to not realize how much work it is to make/maintain a (decent) distribution. Hint: it's a huge, massive, amount of work.
Basing UL on a existing dist makes a great deal of sense, and frankly, debian (or maybe gentoo, but it's generally somewhat less polished / complete / robust) is probably the only existing distribution that would have incentive to work with UL to keep things working well.
I agree that J TV often sucks, but hey, so does U.S. TV (UK TV, OTOH, is far better than both).
But still there's a fair amount that's entertaining, if not very highbrow, e.g.:
Wacky public service shows, like a half-hour long celebrity extragavanza on how to properly freeze food or put your recycyling out on the curb (really).
Anything involving that comedy duo of the tall blonde cheerful looking guy with a mohawk, and the short stubby bitter looking guy with the really thick glasses (what the hell are their names?). They seem to have hosted a million wacky shows, and all of those I've seen have been very funny (like the one where they [and their cohorts] had 1 minute 30 seconds to perform these bizarre skits involving Complicated and Very Strenuous Actions, with no prior rehearsals)
Spooky Mysterious `This Really Happened' [Could it be... Satan?!?] shows. I think these are really well-done, much spookier than the equivalent shows I've seen in the U.S.
I think thanksgiving is generally classed as a harvest festival of sorts, so it's not surprising canada has one too -- basically a `whoa, we're not going to starve this winter!' celebration.
[BTW, they certainly don't celebrate the american thanksgiving in scotland at least; I lived there for a few years, and t.g. for me was always a chicken chinese takeaway and a vague feeling of depression...:-]
Huh? I had no theories at all about how it would end (and always skipped over any discussions on usenet or whatever). I'm pretty easily satisfied and would have been quite happy with another movie like Matrix Reloaded -- nonstop action scenes, but at least moving forward, and doing so with panache.
Instead I got... nothing. M3 was simply flat, it had no wit, no style, and little apparent direction; when they used cliches, they didn't even do them well (e.g., that love/death scene near the end is exactly the sort of thing I usually get all weepy over, but as performed it was like watching two wooden poles sitting on the floor squeaking a bit). The battle scenes were unexciting, the chase scenes were ho-hum, the fights seemed bloodless and drawn out, it was like watching stuff you had already seen a million times, in slow motion. There was no tension, no excitement, little sense that any of it mattered.
As with the other Matrix movies, the technical things were generally great (the last fight scene was pretty boring, but man everything looked grand in the rain), it's just a shame there wasn't really any movie to go along with them.
It's managers watching stressed out employees getting little done because they're constantly aware of the boss breathing down their neck. Maybe it could work for the lowest-level manual labor, but it doesn't work for anything that requires any concentration or thought.
A little privacy benefits the company just as much as it does the employees, though this is concept that many control-freak managers have a hard time coming to grips with.
True, but there's more to work than productivity. Anti-social people make a dismal work environment and drag down morale.
Um, since they're anti-social, they won't care, right? And, since they're the one actually doing the work, it's their opinion that should matter, right?
Anyway, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that anyone who's not a full-time genki-ass cheerleader is Ted Kaczynski.
As others have pointed out, rarely are people straight-out anti-social -- it's more likely that some people simply work better alone, but are friendly enough at lunch time.
[BTW, at my first job, I had my own office, but ended spending about half my time working in a common terminal room because I liked the company -- however, the other half of the time, I absolutely needed the peace and quiet of that office... shared environments are not conducive to concentration.]
Unfortunately, this is why Linux will fail. It's trying to beat Microsoft instead of just innovating.
You lack much clue.
Some projects (say, those with names starting with an `M' and ending with an `o') may be chasing microsoft, but the majority of big name free software projects, like linux and X, are pretty clearly just implementing what they think users want and what they think is cool. This is readily apparent if you actually know anything about these projects.
Since M.S. is the big boy on the block, it's pretty natural that the developers will occasionally compare themselves with M.S. products (thus Gettys' comment), but this is not the driving force behind any of these projects.
I've just sat and read through dozens of posts from Debian and BSD zealots telling me that graphical installers are a crime against humanity, an abomination to all right thinking people... Now you're telling me that they'd actually like one really, they just haven't gotten around to doing it yet?
What dozens of people have said is that graphical installers aren't necessary -- they may give dim old grandpa joe warm fuzzies, but they don't actually make it any easier for him to install anything.
On the other hand, GIs do look very pretty (and certainly many people love eye candy), they provide great screenshots for magazines, and those warm fuzzies that grandpa gets may give him a bit of extra confidence, even if the actual installation isn't any easier.
So GIs are kind of like chocolate sprinkles on top of your ice cream -- a nice extra if someone's willing to do the work...
Naw, he bathes regularly. I know this very well, because at least a few years ago, he lived in his office, and you could often see him in the morning going off to the showers... wearing nothing but a towel... [gack!]
[I've also sat next to him for extended periods at social occasions, and had no complaints, about the smell anyway.]
But keep in mind that Richard's goal wasn't just good software; he was also mourning the loss of a community that he felt had been caused by software becoming unfree. The community is just as much a goal as the software.
Huh? The xbox is clunky, huge, and looks like the industrial design was done by the programmers. It was clearly thrown together quickly from stock parts.
Apple, of course, is completely the opposite, and one of the reasons people buy things like the ipod is the great design (aesthetic, ergonomic, and otherwise).
Somehow I think usoft's tagline is going to have to be something like `It doesn't suck too much, and -- hey -- Windows!'
Um, no. If there's an ambulance there with the siren and lights going, you stop/pull over, until the ambulance is gone. You don't interpret the situation.
Oh, don't be silly -- of course conspiracies exist.
What makes the tin-foil-hat brigade nutty is their idea of long-lived, massive, and completely undetected, conspiracies. Those are extremely unlikely, for the simple reason that it's really, really, hard to keep something like that secret as long as humans are involved; the more involved, and the longer the time-scale, the harder it gets.
So pointing to famous conspiracies -- which of course were discovered -- and suggesting that there must be many more undetected just doesn't follow. At least the ones you named were actually found out pretty damn quickly; if you want to support the idea of long-term conspiracies involving half the government, you've got to use similar examples.
[The tinfoil hats usually seem to rely on the idea that the conspirators are so competent and disciplined that they quickly find and squash any attempts to reveal the conspiracy -- but this seems extremely far-fetched; look at the historical conspiracies you named, and you'll find the participants are more aptly described as `bumbling and borderline incompetent'.]
Seriously... I went to a meeting a while ago where the guy giving the presentation had done a particularly awful job of abusing powerpoint (each slide containing short, vague text, surrounded by large, animated, and completely unrelated pictures!).
The meeting lasted quite a while after he was done, but instead of discussing the topic at hand (and given his lame presentation there was quite a bit to discuss), the whole time was spent arguing about the fine points of powerpoint usage.
I'd go even farther than that -- starbucks is certainly a good example of the increasing corporate awareness of style, but it clearly illustrates how shallow and cynical that awareness is. It's full of very intentional design decisions that try to exploit people's desire to feel stylish or hip or cool or whatever, but it doesn't take a genius to notice the dreary sameness about it all, the attempts to sound `deep' or `funky' without saying anything even remotely controversial -- or the "(tm) starbucks" plastered over everything. Go to another starbucks, and hey, it's exactly the same, right down to the fixed grins on the employees, and their canned responses to questions. It's exactly the same sort of mass-produced conformism against which it was being contrasted.
This isn't to say that there aren't good things about starbucks. It may be homogenized and corporate, but there certainly is a kernel of good sense somewhere buried deep beneath all the (tm)s. For instance, around here the starbucks all do a much better job of taking advantage of windows and natural light than other coffee shops do.
Just to complete my rant, BTW, I think their coffee isn't all that great either; I wish I could buy my beans there because with their huge number of stores, it would be significantly more convenient, but I end up travelling a fair distance twice a week to find something fresher and more tasty.
After saying all that, though, I actually do end up going to Starbucks pretty often, mostly because their shops are entirely non-smoking... sigh.:-)
Kernel == OS, for purposes of this discussion. Read a book on OS design sometime...
Sorry, you're wrong; there's no such consensus. The phrase `Operating System' is a fuzzy one, and means different things to different people, in different contexts.
In practice, in the linux world, people also use the term rather vaguely, but I've found that more often that not it seems to be used to refer to a whole distro rather than just the kernel.
[and yes, I've read `OS design' books, and have decades (plural) of kernel-hacking experience...]
Slashdot Mirror
Can you give references for C.S. Lewis preferring the `chronological' order (someone posted a letter excerpt earlier in this thread, but it shows merely that Lewis wasn't particularly bothered about the issue).
The current american publisher's order was apparently decided by Lewis's nephew, and I've heard he did that for rather cynical personal reasons -- as part of some bizarre power struggle / desire to make his mark / something like that -- anyway, not out of consideration for the reader, or his uncle. There's quite a bit of controversy surrounding the change.
[Personally, I think The Magician's Nephew is a much worse introduction to the series than TLtWatW...]
I think the basic feeling is that Gates didn't start giving until he needed to do so to improve his image. So while his money may do a lot of good, it doesn't really make him a cool guy; there's a suspicion that if all donations were completely anonymous, he wouldn't bother.
Paul Allen on the other hand, seems quite passionate about the causes he gives to.
Yeah, I've seen all these arguments before (everytime there's a flamewar about C/R systems on some mailing list).
People's hatred of C/R systems may or may not be reasonable, but it definitely exists, and using a C/R system will very likely result in your missing otherwise reasonable email (sort of like a spam filter with a non-neglible false-positive rate). If that's OK with you, I suppose it's your choice.
Note that many people hate `Challenge Response' systems, and will simply decline to send you email if they receive a Challenge in response to their email. So to a large degree, it suffers the same problem as an `opt-in' system.
However that doesn't invalidate his point, which is that in some cases mail from `strangers' is legitimate, and you would be pissed if you missed it.
Some recent examples:
Obviously in all of these cases, there's some kind of previous association, but it's tenuous enough that any system requiring an opt-in from me is more than likely going to fail, and drop their email -- which would piss me off (and yes, it would piss me off more than spam, which I find mostly controllable via content filtering).
I think the answer is simple: people who like cool, small, cute, things will buy them.
Maybe in the U.S. that wouldn't fly, but there are lots of people like that in Japan. Some of it is for a purpose (e.g., if your room is smaller, you may be less willing to have a big-ol' tower case taking up space and looking ugly), but in part it's also simply preference, and fashion.
A laptop can also satisfy this, but the integrated nature of laptops is an unecessary restriction for many uses, and let's face it -- laptops are rather Old Hat these days. A cute little brightly colored cube is something new and interesting (at least for a while!).
[If you going into any Japanese computer store, there's pretty clearly a bigger market for small computers than in the U.S. In japan, the coolest cars are small, cute, and emphasize design; in the U.S., giant hulking SUVs are king.]
I work for a (big) Japanese company, and we periodically have to attend meetings where they describe how many zillions of yen we lost this quarter, and reveal next quarter's inspiring new slogan (`We're Lovin' Information Customer') which will enable us to destroy Sony.
The slides they show are exactly as you describe -- they're amazing, not just in the sheer quantity of text and numbers they contain, but in the ultra-dimensionality of it all. No, 2D is not enough; by dividing everything into sub-sub-sub-tables, intertwined into completely non-rectilinear arrangements, with text running horizontally, vertically, and in spirals around the edges of the vortex, they've got to be pushing some fundamental physical limits somewhere.
These actually often contain a fair amount of interesting information, if you spend some time deciphering them, and it's clear that these guys are pretty smart and know their numbers, and have done a lot of analysis, but really, really, need to stop using powerpoint...
Whoa, best troll I've seen in a while!
All you other trolls, pay attention to his technique: say things that are (1) on topic, (2) inflammatory, but stated politely, (3) sound sort vaguely like they might be true, or at least aren't obviously false if you're reading quickly and not really paying attention), (4) put the really inflammatory things near the end -- many readers will stop reading early, especially if the beginning is boring, (5) includes a bit of ego stroking for some group while you're at it -- you might get a few mods up that way.
To address his `points': * No of course the GPL isn't a `problem', unless you're a big corporation looking to steal yourself some code. * Netbsd is nice and portable, but then, so is linux (those of you who have been snoozing for the past 5 years might be surprised); look to debian for a good example. The rest is just silly flamebait.
BSD has its good points (if nothing else I spent a few years in an office with a member of the netbsd core team, and he was definitely a smart guy), but please, give the fanboyish trolling a rest...
XFS is apparently a bit unusual in that it requires changes to the generic portions of the kernel as well, so its presence could adversely affect stability even when it's not configured; this is the main reason why Marcelo is reluctant to merge it.
:-]), and perhaps will merge it based on that.
However, he's apparently also decided to wait for a pending review of the XFS changes by Christoph Hellwig (who's a widely trusted kernel hacker, and more pedantic than most [pedantic used in a good sense here
[From what I understand, part of the problem is that SGI still uses Irix as the `native' platform for XFS, and so the linux port of XFS tries a bit to make linux look like Irix in order to minimize linux-specific changes to the XFS code-base.]
This post is based merely on casual readership of the LKML, not on actual knowledge of the linux XFS implementation!
The idea of starting from scratch `because it's cool' is ludicrous.
You seem to not realize how much work it is to make/maintain a (decent) distribution. Hint: it's a huge, massive, amount of work.
Basing UL on a existing dist makes a great deal of sense, and frankly, debian (or maybe gentoo, but it's generally somewhat less polished / complete / robust) is probably the only existing distribution that would have incentive to work with UL to keep things working well.
But still there's a fair amount that's entertaining, if not very highbrow, e.g.:
I think thanksgiving is generally classed as a harvest festival of sorts, so it's not surprising canada has one too -- basically a `whoa, we're not going to starve this winter!' celebration.
:-]
[BTW, they certainly don't celebrate the american thanksgiving in scotland at least; I lived there for a few years, and t.g. for me was always a chicken chinese takeaway and a vague feeling of depression...
Huh? I had no theories at all about how it would end (and always skipped over any discussions on usenet or whatever). I'm pretty easily satisfied and would have been quite happy with another movie like Matrix Reloaded -- nonstop action scenes, but at least moving forward, and doing so with panache.
... nothing. M3 was simply flat, it had no wit, no style, and little apparent direction; when they used cliches, they didn't even do them well (e.g., that love/death scene near the end is exactly the sort of thing I usually get all weepy over, but as performed it was like watching two wooden poles sitting on the floor squeaking a bit). The battle scenes were unexciting, the chase scenes were ho-hum, the fights seemed bloodless and drawn out, it was like watching stuff you had already seen a million times, in slow motion. There was no tension, no excitement, little sense that any of it mattered.
Instead I got
As with the other Matrix movies, the technical things were generally great (the last fight scene was pretty boring, but man everything looked grand in the rain), it's just a shame there wasn't really any movie to go along with them.
It's managers watching stressed out employees getting little done because they're constantly aware of the boss breathing down their neck. Maybe it could work for the lowest-level manual labor, but it doesn't work for anything that requires any concentration or thought.
A little privacy benefits the company just as much as it does the employees, though this is concept that many control-freak managers have a hard time coming to grips with.
True, but there's more to work than productivity. Anti-social people make a dismal work environment and drag down morale.
Um, since they're anti-social, they won't care, right? And, since they're the one actually doing the work, it's their opinion that should matter, right?
Anyway, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that anyone who's not a full-time genki-ass cheerleader is Ted Kaczynski.
As others have pointed out, rarely are people straight-out anti-social -- it's more likely that some people simply work better alone, but are friendly enough at lunch time.
[BTW, at my first job, I had my own office, but ended spending about half my time working in a common terminal room because I liked the company -- however, the other half of the time, I absolutely needed the peace and quiet of that office... shared environments are not conducive to concentration.]
Unfortunately, this is why Linux will fail. It's trying to beat Microsoft instead of just innovating.
You lack much clue.
Some projects (say, those with names starting with an `M' and ending with an `o') may be chasing microsoft, but the majority of big name free software projects, like linux and X, are pretty clearly just implementing what they think users want and what they think is cool. This is readily apparent if you actually know anything about these projects.
Since M.S. is the big boy on the block, it's pretty natural that the developers will occasionally compare themselves with M.S. products (thus Gettys' comment), but this is not the driving force behind any of these projects.
I've just sat and read through dozens of posts from Debian and BSD zealots telling me that graphical installers are a crime against humanity, an abomination to all right thinking people ... Now you're telling me that they'd actually like one really, they just haven't gotten around to doing it yet?
What dozens of people have said is that graphical installers aren't necessary -- they may give dim old grandpa joe warm fuzzies, but they don't actually make it any easier for him to install anything.
On the other hand, GIs do look very pretty (and certainly many people love eye candy), they provide great screenshots for magazines, and those warm fuzzies that grandpa gets may give him a bit of extra confidence, even if the actual installation isn't any easier.
So GIs are kind of like chocolate sprinkles on top of your ice cream -- a nice extra if someone's willing to do the work...
Naw, he bathes regularly. I know this very well, because at least a few years ago, he lived in his office, and you could often see him in the morning going off to the showers ... wearing nothing but a towel... [gack!]
[I've also sat next to him for extended periods at social occasions, and had no complaints, about the smell anyway.]
But keep in mind that Richard's goal wasn't just good software; he was also mourning the loss of a community that he felt had been caused by software becoming unfree. The community is just as much a goal as the software.
Huh? The xbox is clunky, huge, and looks like the industrial design was done by the programmers. It was clearly thrown together quickly from stock parts.
Apple, of course, is completely the opposite, and one of the reasons people buy things like the ipod is the great design (aesthetic, ergonomic, and otherwise).
Somehow I think usoft's tagline is going to have to be something like `It doesn't suck too much, and -- hey -- Windows!'
Um, no. If there's an ambulance there with the siren and lights going, you stop/pull over, until the ambulance is gone. You don't interpret the situation.
Oh, don't be silly -- of course conspiracies exist.
What makes the tin-foil-hat brigade nutty is their idea of long-lived, massive, and completely undetected, conspiracies. Those are extremely unlikely, for the simple reason that it's really, really, hard to keep something like that secret as long as humans are involved; the more involved, and the longer the time-scale, the harder it gets.
So pointing to famous conspiracies -- which of course were discovered -- and suggesting that there must be many more undetected just doesn't follow. At least the ones you named were actually found out pretty damn quickly; if you want to support the idea of long-term conspiracies involving half the government, you've got to use similar examples.
[The tinfoil hats usually seem to rely on the idea that the conspirators are so competent and disciplined that they quickly find and squash any attempts to reveal the conspiracy -- but this seems extremely far-fetched; look at the historical conspiracies you named, and you'll find the participants are more aptly described as `bumbling and borderline incompetent'.]
Seriously... I went to a meeting a while ago where the guy giving the presentation had done a particularly awful job of abusing powerpoint (each slide containing short, vague text, surrounded by large, animated, and completely unrelated pictures!).
The meeting lasted quite a while after he was done, but instead of discussing the topic at hand (and given his lame presentation there was quite a bit to discuss), the whole time was spent arguing about the fine points of powerpoint usage.
It was pretty surreal...
I'd go even farther than that -- starbucks is certainly a good example of the increasing corporate awareness of style, but it clearly illustrates how shallow and cynical that awareness is. It's full of very intentional design decisions that try to exploit people's desire to feel stylish or hip or cool or whatever, but it doesn't take a genius to notice the dreary sameness about it all, the attempts to sound `deep' or `funky' without saying anything even remotely controversial -- or the "(tm) starbucks" plastered over everything. Go to another starbucks, and hey, it's exactly the same, right down to the fixed grins on the employees, and their canned responses to questions. It's exactly the same sort of mass-produced conformism against which it was being contrasted.
:-)
This isn't to say that there aren't good things about starbucks. It may be homogenized and corporate, but there certainly is a kernel of good sense somewhere buried deep beneath all the (tm)s. For instance, around here the starbucks all do a much better job of taking advantage of windows and natural light than other coffee shops do.
Just to complete my rant, BTW, I think their coffee isn't all that great either; I wish I could buy my beans there because with their huge number of stores, it would be significantly more convenient, but I end up travelling a fair distance twice a week to find something fresher and more tasty.
After saying all that, though, I actually do end up going to Starbucks pretty often, mostly because their shops are entirely non-smoking... sigh.
Kernel == OS, for purposes of this discussion. Read a book on OS design sometime...
Sorry, you're wrong; there's no such consensus. The phrase `Operating System' is a fuzzy one, and means different things to different people, in different contexts.
In practice, in the linux world, people also use the term rather vaguely, but I've found that more often that not it seems to be used to refer to a whole distro rather than just the kernel.
[and yes, I've read `OS design' books, and have decades (plural) of kernel-hacking experience...]