GNOME 3 Winning Back Users
This is an attitude that I see a lot and no doubt will come up multiple in times in this thread, and I've got to say - I just don't get it.
When Gnome 3 came out I hated it as well so I switched to Xfce and I've been happy with that. I didn't rant and rave about the Gnome guys though because the way I see it, they're volunteers. The attitude above is tinged with a real sense of entitlement like they owe you something, but they absolutely don't.
I'm sorry that you don't like their changes, I didn't either. However, it's not their responsibility to do things the way you want. These guys have an offering and they're competing with a number of others. It's up to you to either pick the one that most suits you (which will never provide with you with a perfect fit) or make your own solution that does things exactly as you like it. You can then make it available to the public and who knows other people might use it as well!
How will you feel when they tell you that they want you to change it do something else though but you don't want to go that way? You'd be well within your rights to say "I'm a volunteer, this is the way I want to go, if you don't like it then I'm sorry but take a look at one of our competitors".
You are perfectly entitled to ask them to do things differently and try to influence the future direction but if they don't agree with you, sorry but they're the guys writing the code so they'll do it the way they think is right. If they get that wrong too many times then nobody will use their product and people will flock to the better alternatives. That's the beauty of open source.
How can you genuinely consider switching to Microsoft in response to this - how much choice do they give you exactly?
Are SSDs Finally Worth the Money?
One interesting side effect of having a legitimately fast SSD is even though you save power power on not spinning a platter around you can end up using that power (or more) with increased CPU usage. Ex: Semi-Random reads from mechanical drive might be pulling data ~40MB/sec on a good day... the CPU doesn't have a lot to process at once or just does in chunks so all that nice power saving tech comes into play (reduced clock or cores or what have you). Now, pop an SSD in and start getting 300-500MB+ semi-random read speeds and your CPU will find itself a hell of a lot more busy having to actually process all of that.
It's a good "problem" to have, if you can even call it a problem ;)
If you need to read 1GB of data off disk (say, loading a game or something) wouldn't you use exactly the same amount of CPU power whether you load it at 40MB/s or 400MB/s? Either way all of that data needs reading from storage and 'processing', why does reading it slower mean it takes less power?
If anything I would've thought and SSD takes less power overall because you can wake up the full CPU, do any processing and then put it back into a low-power mode. If you're streaming data slowly you need to keep at least 1 core active to handle the stream.
Fragmentation Comes To iOS
Clearly going forward, there will be just two resolutions that developers need to worry about. One for the iPhone/iPod, and one for the iPad, as the older resolutions are being phased out and don't exist in any new products.
The old iPhones/iPods/iPads don't cease to exist just because Apple brings out a new one. There is an absolutely enormous installed base of "old" resolutions out there that might still buy your apps, so you can't just start ignoring them.
If you want to develop an iOS app you now need to consider whether you accept your app being run in "black bars" mode on the new phone (almost certainly not), or handle the fact that resolution changes depending on which device your app is installed on. I haven't looked at the API so I don't know how much of a PITA that may or may not be, but it definitely needs to be taken into account.
The fragmentation is not nearly as bad as on Android, but it definitely exists and needs to be catered for.
Is Ubuntu Getting Slower?
Were they testing each distribution on exactly the same hardware?
If so, that sounds completely fair to me that it would be slower. Go and (try to) install Vista on a machine that originally came with XP (pre-SP1) and see how much slower it is. Is that a fair test either? I think not.
As software gets more useful (and Ubuntu has, Vista not so much) it gets bigger and thus gets slower on the same hardware. Hardware advances at the same time though, so in real terms they keep about equal. When you test new software on old hardware of course it's going to be slower though.
Will ParanoidLinux Protect the Truly Paranoid?
A truly paranoid person would be suspicious of absolutely everyone and everything. That would mean writing your own OS on your own hardware etc etc.
Since this is impossible, go and live in hiding with no human contact or chance thereof.
Why would you download this 'super-safe' OS from some people you never met, through a public unencrypted network, if your life depended on it?