I use ZNC (http://wiki.znc.in/ZNC) as bouncer for years now. It is stable, fully developed, has support for multiple networks, SSL support, IPv6, a Web interface and lots of other features. Plus its easy installed as 'yum install znc'.
I did not read any advantage, neither in comfort nor in features that Shout has compared to ZNC.
What reason could one have to switch? Except to be on the bleeding edge?
What makes you sure, that the daemon listening on port 22 is is a 'true and sanctioned sshd'?
Because of it uses a port under 22?
If you have fear that a port of your server listens on any unprivileged port and it than you have far more problems with that box then the sshd.
_If_ a port is opened by a user that emulates the sshd daemon to grab your passwords that means that:
a) this is the usual port you use for ssh
b) your box is hacked, then the real sshd daemon that usualy would listen at this high port is replaced by something else. That means sombody has root access to that box (the sshd has to be killed for that)- big big OUTCH
c) you box isn't hacked but you have some non trustwoth people have access to that box, that use some exploits for rights traversal
All in all I would say, constructing a security issue of using a non standard ssh port is academic. If that could be abused you have far more problems on your system than that changed ssh port.
On our production servers I use the following:
1. ssh access with keywords is disabled
2. ssh access for root is not allowed
3. ssh access is allowed from one trusted IP address only
4. restrict users with access to ssh to only the needed ones
5. users with git access get as shell '/usr/bin/git-shell'
optional: If you're paranoic like me and like some technical baublery you step 3 this way that users have a VPN to the server with the trusted IP
Now that kind of Flame Wars start again.
I remember the times where in every Mac Magazine you've found a comparison between Macs and 'PCs' where they did measure the times of flipping Images in Photoshop and were proud when the Mac was 0.5 sec faster than the Windows pendant.
I don't care about those kind of benchmark, because its not really necessary in the daily routine of handling a smartphone.
Can I do some calls? - Fine
Can I sync my calendar and contacts? - Fine
If the reaction/ respond time of the GUI is acceptable and without some breaks, I don't care about 1/10 sec in respond time.
I tried fever http://feedafever.com/. Its a nice selfhosting feed reader.
But after a while using online feed readers i still use Operas build in Reader.
In the good old days of analog copiers this would be impossible - the scanner send the light through a system of mirrors to the drum, the drum gets static charged, the toner is pulled on the charged parts and gets transferred to the transfer belt, here the paper has the opposite charge and pulls the toner off of the transfer belt, goes through the fusing unit and here is the toner 'burned' to the paper. End of Story
On a modern copier the scanner transfers the data first to RAM and than usually to a hard disk (the most of the people do not even know that the "copy machine" has one and saves the scanned stuff to it).
From that hard disk the data where transmitted via laser to the drum
Tadaaa - you have the reason for having data be compressed on a modern copier.