OSNews

My understanding is that calling anything other than java from java involves unsupported hacks...
Which means, by the standard, it's impossible.

Some language, *cough* python, .net, c (asm) *cough* support calling more base languages as part of their standard; and that's why they'll become popular and others will likely become only a part of history. Well, it's one reason.
"You need the xxx version of lib, but the lib need zzz version of the other lib, but there are many applications what are use it. You must reinstall your linux every half year."
That's only true in cases where source compatibility is broken (which doesn't happen much). You do often need .so.x version of some lib for binary compatibility (if you aren't willing to rebuild), but some libraries *cough* gtk *cough* have kept binary compatibility for years.
There's an easy solution, used all over in Mac and Windows, and Unix, proprietary programs: It's called static building. You build the library code needed into the program. It's probably one reason Microsoft wants to push .net (a huge standard lib), a reason why they standardized on c++ (the STL) and not c, and several other things: Customers don't want to waste half their memory on the same code 85 different times.

Dependencies are a part of computing. I'd much happier being able to use a machine with 256MB of RAM and having dependency problems solved correctly rather than a cheap hack (static building) and buying twice as much RAM.

This is a naive complaint anyway. Stable programs are going to be found in most distributions. The programs which people want to use that aren't in their distribution are more comparable to stuff found on cnet for Windows: And if you've ever looked for software there, you know you'll waste hours trying to find one with a license you can handle and a gui that isn't broken.
This is not meant as an insult to people who maintain small projects which haven't made it into distributions (hey, I'm one of them), I'm comparing the user effort in getting their program not the final quality of the program they get.
I am insulting the programs on cnet though, there's a lot of really bad "freeware" out there!

Free like in beer, maybe, but not "libre". Don't bash me, I like OS X, but that doesn't make the system "free" as in "open source" or as in "do what the heck you want with the system" (Copy & pass it on for example)

The only thing I wish I could do while I'm on my Linux box is force myself to forget OS X.

Cracktackular, innit? All that power + all that convenience.