Probably because of the extremely high performance requirements. There's a lot of packets going through a 10Gbit interface and if you run some Python code for each of them you're gonna choke the machine.
This does not seem to be an argument. Any language (maybe with some restriction) could be compiled to the appropriate byte code/assembly.
FYI, it is very easy to add a users group on Debian/Ubuntu. Having used both systems, I like to have a users group and a group per user. It gives much more fine grained control over things.
This. I am an OpenSUSE user and for me it is the best distro overall (polished, great infrastructure: BuildService,...). The user/group management is very annoying though. I ended up writing my own scripts to support this as the command line tools do not even have any such option. Once I brought this up in the forums. Unfortunately, reactions were quite negative. Please make this an option (even if it's only on the command line).
In terms of capabilites Qt and GNUstep/Cocoa are equivalent (roughly). The beauty of ObjC (the language underlying GNUstep/Cocoa), however, is its simplicity yet power which dwarfs C++ quite substantially in terms of ergonomics. If you are not familiar with ObjC you can best compare it with Java. As a matter of fact the Java environment is quite inspired by OPENSTEP which was developed jointly by NeXT and Sun, after which Sun moved to Java and eventually dropped OPENSTEP (for no good reason;).
As much as the content part of Wikipedia has been a success, infrastructure seems to have been a critical limitation several times - in terms of stability and funding. The last fund drive for just one quarter of $500k showed that there is a substantial annual fee for devoted Wikipedians. Wouldn't it be much more in the spirit of the Wikipedia-project to switch over to a distributed hosting scheme which many public institutions (like universities - but also of course google) would very likely embrace and making Wikipedia-hosting essentially free? Apart from technical issues shoudn't be this the aim of future hosting making it free and reliable?
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because of the extremely high performance requirements. There's a lot of packets going through a 10Gbit interface and if you run some Python code for each of them you're gonna choke the machine.
This does not seem to be an argument. Any language (maybe with some restriction) could be compiled to the appropriate byte code/assembly.
FYI, it is very easy to add a users group on Debian/Ubuntu. Having used both systems, I like to have a users group and a group per user. It gives much more fine grained control over things.
This. I am an OpenSUSE user and for me it is the best distro overall (polished, great infrastructure: BuildService, ...). The user/group management is very annoying though. I ended up writing my own scripts to support this as the command line tools do not even have any such option. Once I brought this up in the forums. Unfortunately, reactions were quite negative. Please make this an option (even if it's only on the command line).
In terms of capabilites Qt and GNUstep/Cocoa are equivalent (roughly). The beauty of ObjC (the language underlying GNUstep/Cocoa), however, is its simplicity yet power which dwarfs C++ quite substantially in terms of ergonomics. If you are not familiar with ObjC you can best compare it with Java. As a matter of fact the Java environment is quite inspired by OPENSTEP which was developed jointly by NeXT and Sun, after which Sun moved to Java and eventually dropped OPENSTEP (for no good reason ;).
As much as the content part of Wikipedia has been a success, infrastructure seems to have been a critical limitation several times - in terms of stability and funding. The last fund drive for just one quarter of $500k showed that there is a substantial annual fee for devoted Wikipedians. Wouldn't it be much more in the spirit of the Wikipedia-project to switch over to a distributed hosting scheme which many public institutions (like universities - but also of course google) would very likely embrace and making Wikipedia-hosting essentially free? Apart from technical issues shoudn't be this the aim of future hosting making it free and reliable?