qwe123_troll

Heaven knows that having to act all politically-correct and tender-footed in the face of technical incompetence on the Internet, of all places, would drive me insance.

I get enough of that icky stuff at work.

It has everything to do with the kernel. You've taken a piece of code that belongs in kernel-space and put it into a user-space process.

There might be valid reasons to do so, but since I haven't seen any good explanation I'd just assume this project was coded for lulz or out of technical ignorance.

P.S. "avoids callbacks" and "minimizes complexity" is a red herring; all threaded code has these properties, regardless of how the threading engine is implemented behind the scenes.

Lemme see if I understood this right: you rewrote a large part of the kernel because you think your code will be better than code that's been tested by (literally!) billions of people over the course of 15 years?

Not that there is anything wrong with this approach (I rewrote glib'c memory allocator, which is atrociously broken for modern systems), but you better have a very good explanation for why you did this.

P.S. I won't touch on the fact that a good scheduler will necessarily need to run in kernel-mode, not user-mode. But that's a subject for another discussion.

Implementing a paywall would be rather pointless, since that's a very bad way to monetize traffic.

However, StackOverflow can make big money by cleverly partnering with corporations: instead of a site that answers "how do I do XYZ with ABC toolkit" they could gradually shift to a site that answers "doing XYZ with BigCorp ExpensiveSolution: how I increased ROI and fixed my dental problems".

The point is that between "comunity" and "traffic monetization" there is a clear and obvious conflict of interest, and it's pretty obvious which side of this conflict will be taken by SO's sponsors.

Incidentally, this is also exactly why Wikipedia doesn't display ads or monetize traffic.

There's no value in SO's database of questions and answers, they might as well give it away under whatever liberal license they want.

The real business value of SO is the engaged ("community") web traffic it receives. ("Community" == "higher ad CPM" and "highly contextual advertising" in business terms.)

Because to survive as a business SO needs to sell your sense of 'comunity' to a third-party resource.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, just be aware that when you're participating on SO you're only a 'human resource', to be marketed and sold sometime later in the future. Hopefully SO is run by decent guys and the buyer will be ethical.

Stackoverflow is not a community, it's a business, and their business is reselling that sense of community to third parties.

I've no quarrel with Stackoverflow, it's a very nice site and a useful project. I do have a quarrel with people whose brains seem to turn off once anything 'Web2.0' is involved. Just because it's on the web doesn't mean that the laws of economics and common sense no longer apply.

Barnum, that great scholar of suckers, said it better.

"...to the post-Microsoft era", you mean. And end of an epoch; goodbye, it was nice knowing you, though I can't say I particularly enjoyed it.