Slashdot Mirror

> didn't Apple choose Intel because of their supposedly low power consumption?

No, apple chose intel because they sold their soul to Wintel (tm).
It's not even a choice really, but more of a business requirement.

http://www.gcn.com/16_24/news/32421-1.html
http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/07/cx_ah_0107apple.h tml

From the article: "Our belief is that the winner in this space will be those that have the largest ecosystem," Whitman said. "What I mean by that is: the largest number of registered users, the largest number of voice minutes, the largest number of developers who develop the platform, the best product ... that users are willing and want to pay for."

Aside from the marketing fru-fru use of of the word "ecosystem," she makes perfect sense. Except that she can't assume that just because someone sells something on eBay, they will use Skype. As for the largest number of developers, it's not like these other guys are small potatoes.

As for advertising... maybe it's just something in the background of your free phone calls, like a softly playing radio station. Maybe it just has onscreen ads every time you use the software (e.g. the Eudora model). Maybe they mean they'll sell your Skype number to telemarketers!

The real question is, how can eBay blend its online auctions and PayPal with VoIP features? Voice chat with a seller? Real live auctioneers during the final mad minutes of an auction? Auctioning off vanity Skype numbers, or access to Skype-based porn?

Yes and no it is a joke. I thought it would be interesting to see people's reactions to such a radical proposal. :-) BTW: Here is part of the list of the richest people in the world and how rich they are:

Rank Name Age Worth ($bil) Country Of Citizenship Residence
1 William Gates III 49 46.5 United States United States , WA , Medina
2 Warren Buffett 74 44.0 United States United States , NE , Omaha
3 Lakshmi Mittal 54 25.0 India United Kingdom , London
4 Carlos Slim Helu 65 23.8 Mexico Mexico , Mexico City
5 Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud 48 23.7 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia , Riyadh
6 Ingvar Kamprad 78 23.0 Sweden Switzerland , Lausanne
7 Paul Allen 52 21.0 United States United States , WA , Seattle
8 Karl Albrecht 85 18.5 Germany Germany , Mülheim an der Ruhr
9 Lawrence Ellison 60 18.4 United States United States , CA , Silicon Valley
10 S Robson Walton 61 18.3 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
11 Jim Walton 57 18.2 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
11 John Walton 59 18.2 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
13 Alice Walton 56 18.0 United States United States , TX , Fort Worth
13 Helen Walton 85 18.0 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
15 Kenneth Thomson & family 81 17.9 Canada Canada , Toronto
16 Liliane Bettencourt 82 17.2 France France , Paris
17 Bernard Arnault 56 17.0 France France , Paris
18 Michael Dell 40 16.0 United States United States , TX , Austin
19 Sheldon Adelson 71 15.6 United States United States , NV , Las Vegas
20 Theo Albrecht 83 15.5 Germany Germany , Foehr
21 Roman Abramovich 38 13.3 Russia United Kingdom , London
22 Li Ka-shing 76 13.0 Hong Kong Hong Kong , Hong Kong
23 Amancio Ortega 69 12.6 Spain Spain , La Coruna
24 Steven Ballmer 49 12.1 United States United States , WA , Redmond
25 Silvio Berlusconi 68 12.0 Italy Italy , North of Milan

You can find it at Rich List

BTW: 194 Steven Jobs 50 3.0 United States United States , CA , Palo Alto

(Wow. Didn't know BG was richer than the sheik. Thought with the price of oil being what it was that the oil king would be richer. :-/ )

I doubt that the author of the article has much of a clue about ANYTHING he wrote about and consequently distorted things so much that it is meaningless. It's probably a waste of time to discuss something that has been so horribly mangled because people are reacting to the author's errors.

As the parent comment notes, he mis-represented what OSS was. There were plenty of other obvious errors, but I'd like to suggest that even the title and basic thesis are in error because it's not really open source software that is the key factor, but rather, low power, distributed, frequency hopping, spread spectrum, mesh networks.

Heck, the guy even thinks that Apache is a mining company, so how reliable can the article be?

Quote #1: "...the General Public License, a subversive bit of lawyering that turns property law on its head by prohibiting the users of open-source software from charging money for it."

There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits people from charging money for GPL software. See Red Hat, Novell, IBM, et al.

Fuck-up #2: Linking http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinf o/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=APA to the Apache web server!

  -Charles

I read this feed on forbes three days ago. It contains more information, including: "Autopsies revealed that by the end of the 10-day HU210 treatment regimen, new neurons had been generated and integrated into the circuitry of the hippocampus region of the rat's brains. This process, known as neurogenesis, was still in evidence a full month after treatment had been initiated."

So you see, they're actually basing it on autopsies, which tend to involve cutting open dead creatures and poking around their insides looking at what's going on. I think they actually MEASURED the number of brain cells and found more in the treated rats. Pretty fancy huh, scientists measuring things?! heh.

According to Forbes, Verizon is the 18th largest company in the world, with over $7 billion in profit and $166 billion in assests. Not many companies around that can buy that out. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/03/30/05f2000land .html

Let's see some of your "evidence". And let's talk a bit about the "farmers" you cited, who vote for Republicans: 80% of the farm subsidies go to 4 giant farming corporations.

Yeah, I wish Microsoft would "SCREW" me too! I nerve of them making Symantec accept $2.5 billion in sales. Cruel and Heartless.

In a note of irony just yesterday this news report;
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/10/10/symantec- earnings-antivirus-1010markets07.html?partner=yaho otix

Symantec Earnings Boosted By Renewal Price Hikes: Credit Suisse First Boston raised earnings estimates and the price target on Symantec (nasdaq: SYMC - news - people ) following the company's price increase on its annual subscription renewals for the majority of its consumer products.

So our options are; get gouged by symantec or accept free software... hmmm choices choices...

References:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/firewalls/2 000-q3/2361.html
http://www.issociate.de/board/post/218692/The_prob lem_with_Zone_Alarm.html
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/0318/102_2.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html

"We believe that this heavily promoted [Sun and Google] announcement is overblown, and does not represent a real definitive product threat to Microsoft's Office," S&P Equity Research.

The Sun and Google partnership is "primarily as an enhanced distribution platform for each company," the research firm said.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/10/04/sun-googl e-microsoft-1004markets13.html?partner=yahootix

Not going to happen, because Apple is extremely protective of FairPlay (Their DRM scheme). When Real made their songs iPod compatible, Apple immediately released an update that made Real's songs incompatible.

I think the only solution would be a standardized DRM scheme that could be attached to any type of codec, be it WMA, AAC, or MP3, but I really don't see Apple licencing Fairplay to other companies or paying Microsoft for WM10 DRM compatibility (even though MS practically gives it away).

The Apple vs Apple deal is currently back in court again, for reasons that have everything to do with the iPod and the iTMS.

I'm honestly surprised that Apple Computer hasn't simply made a cash tender offer for Apple Records at this point.

"Newer products--the Xbox videogame machine, the MSN online service, the wireless and small-business software--collectively have racked up $7 billion in losses in four years."

"The Xbox game console is hot, but its division has lost $4 billion in four years and isn't yet in the black."

I can remember using Google long before September of 1998, because I was introduced to Google by a classmate who I have not seen since I left that school in the spring of 1998.

That rings a bell; I think Google was some experimental thing for a while. I assume 1998 was the official launch date.

Info here and here, possibly. However, it mentions that the old name was 'backrub'; was it called Google when you first used it?

According to Forbes, Steve is worth $3.3 billion. I think he can buy enough turtlenecks without having to sell more nanos. :-)

Basically this is not true. AOL accounts for something like 2%-3% of Google's operating profit. See article at Forbes. Google will be fine with or without AOL. In fact, it may be better off in a world where Microsoft has to deal with all the problems that AOL has faced over the past few years.

Salesforce has something like 75% to 80% of the market compared to Microsoft CRM's 35%. Microsoft CRM hasn't been updated in ages.

See this Forbes article for the statement from Salesforce's CEO. This info also comes from blogs like Mini-MSFT.

Quote from the Forbes article: "The Xbox game console is hot, but its division has lost $4 billion in four years and isn't yet in the black."

The business press is often full of baloney. "Hot", but lost $4 billion? It's easy to sell things for less than they cost.

I never heard of Carl Icahn till I read today's posting. He's the 49th richest person in the world according to Forbes.His political contributions are to both Republicans and Democrats. (But mostly to Dems.)

Some people would say he's a Wall Street predator the way he bullies companies like TWA. He's got such a big pile of money he can influence companies like Blockbuster. The same guy thinks he's the closest thing a shareholder has to a friend. Even serious analysts admire him.

He's even part of XO Communications and tried to takeover the ailing Marvel Comics. There's a book about it called Comic Wars.

"You learn in this business: It you want a friend, get a dog" - Carl Icahn

To turn things around... Do you think all other consumer electronics companies are perfect and have never had class-action action suits filed against them?

hy? Because it sets limits on damages for willful and even fraudulent patent infringement so that large corporations will find patents easy to ignore.

In other words, if you are a big corporations, you might be able to knowingly ignore patents while startups and inventors don't have the same benefit.

There are some good improvements in the Patent Reform Act of 2005 but this fundamental flaw is going to hurt innovation by making the patent system benefit a small percentage of companies at everyone else's expense.

There is a long history of disputes between Apple Computer and Applecorps, dating back to the founding of Apple Computer. Check out Forbes and other news or just search on Apple vs. Apple.

It would be interesting if it were true... Two of those THREE are NOT american

The link you supplied gives me a 404. However I was able to find this which gives me links to the following lists. The following are the top six (sorted by market value):

1. ExxonMobil (US)
2. General Electric (US)
3. Microsoft (US)
4. Citigroup (US)
5. BP (UK)
6. Royal Dutch/Shell Group (Netherlands/UK)

This compares to the following top 6 by profit:

1. ExxonMobil (US)
2. Royal Dutch/Shell Group (Netherlands/UK)
3. Citigroup (US)
4. General Electric (US)
5. BP (UK)
6. Bank of America (US)

Finally, the Forbes default ranking gives:

1. Citigroup (US)
2. General Electric (US)
3. American Intl Group (US)
4. Bank of America (US)
5. HSBC Group (UK)
6. ExxonMobil (US)

I think its interesting how the GP defines "richest"... by profits instead of Market Value or Assets.. so here are the top ten richest companies by Market Value:

1. ExxonMobil (US) - Oil Company
2. General Electric (US)
3. Microsoft (US)
4. Citigroup (US)
5. BP (United Kingdom) - Oil Company
6. Royal Dutch/Shell Group (Netherlands/United Kingdom) - Oil Company
7. Wal-Mart Stores (US)
8. Pfizer (US)
9. Johnson & Johnson (US)
10. Bank of America (US)

And by Assets:

1. Citigroup (US)
2. Mizuho Financial (Japan)
3. BNP Paribas (France)
4. ING Group (Netherlands)
5. JPMorgan Chase (US)
6. Allianz Worldwide (Germany)
7. Royal Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom)
8. UBS (Switzerland)
9. Bank of America (US)
10. HSBC Group (United Kingdom)

It would be interesting if it were true... Two of those THREE are NOT american: Forbes list of largest companies (sorted by profits):

ExxonMobil (U.S.)
Royal Dutch/Shell Group (Netherlands/United Kingdom)
BP (United Kingdom)

Chevron Texaco ranks 7th (ie: not in the top 6), and is a U.S. company.

I think Microsoft has come to realize that its more profitable to allocate resources for arresting hackers and worm-writers than setting aside teams devoted to bug-fixing. Remember the Stephen Glass story Hack Heaven? Sometimes life imitates con-art.

Hasta la Vista, XP!!!

Kind of like this article from 5 years ago, or this one from 3 years ago, or this one from Dec. 2000.

In 5 years, there will be an in every garage. Yawn...

If you don't mind the folding / rolling part, Hitachi's electronic paper might be what's best. We can always use a case resembling a hardcover book to carry such e-paper around.

Microsoft's Ballmer Threatened To 'Kill' Google

Kodak is a good company to look at in this regard... Here's a forbes article.. Good summary - Despite the massive job losses, Kodak has managed to save some of its film plants by converting them to produce emerging technologies with its film emulsification know-how. It remains to be seen if the film can be adapted for other uses. It goes to mention how Kodak currently dominates the the US digital camera market with a 23.8% share. Kodak's going through some massive growth problems that's for sure.

Here's a quote from a Forbes Magazine article on the subject

(http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/08/31/
creative-patent-switch-cx_dl_0831creative.html?par tner=yahootix)

They don't sound very impressed with Creative's claim.

"The "breaking news" e-mail alert issued to reporters Tuesday morning by Creative Labs was bound to attract attention.

It trumpeted news that the company had received a patent for an important interface used in portable media players. The alert named Apple Computer four times, noting that Creative Labs had applied for its patent well before Apple's iPod hit the market. The implication, as subtle as a freight train, was that Creative planned to assert its patent against Apple.

The news alert included instructions for an afternoon conference call, presumably to discuss the matter with Creative executives. This was big news and scads of reporters, including many from the national media, were lured into calling. But rather than discuss what was promised, Creative used the opportunity to shill for a new line of handheld digital entertainment products, which were barely mentioned in the patent news alert."

and

"Since Creative itself stoked the flames by naming Apple and the iPod in the headline of its news release, the company was repeatedly asked whether it planned to sue Apple to recover royalties. But McHugh stayed on message, preferring instead to leverage its captive audience by discussing its upcoming products. "

I don't think Apple's going to be throwing any royalties in Creative's direction any time soon.

According to Forbes, Apple's global market share for last quarter (computer sales), was 2.5%.

"Piper Jaffray maintained an "outperform" rating and $52 target price on Apple Computer (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ), noting Apple's market share of worldwide PC shipments rose to 2.5% in the second quarter, up from 2.3% in the first quarter. "

The market share in the United States is over 4% now, and they are now the fourth largest computer manufacturer in the country (after just passing IBM/Lenovo).

As another poster points out, that isn't there installed base, just sales. I tend to see a lot more older Apple laptops than older Dell laptops. Just saying :)

Andrew

especially America's right wing hate Socialists with a passion

Cuba and Venezuela by contrast are left leaning Socialism which is focused on things like universal health care, education, elimination of poverty, land reform and Republican's in particular HATE people that do nasty stuff like that.

I can show you tons of private citizens (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, etc.) that are far better off financially in the U.S.A. than upper members of the govt. The wealthiest 400 (non-govt.) U.S.A. citizens are worth $955 billion, just shy of $1 Trillion dollars! You won't see personal wealth like that in any society based on Socialism, unless of course it is the wealth of the leaders of that Socialist nation. At least in America, "We The People" have a chance to better ourselves through hard work and a little luck.

There are _many_ differences between a "text book" Socialist govt. and what Cuba and Venezuela implement. In Cuba and Venezuela, those in power are extremely wealthy and well provided for, while the rest of those two nations suffers. To me that is _nothing_ like what a "text book" Socialist govt. should be. Do you think Mr. Chavez is suffering with his poor? Nope. Do you think Castro is suffering with his poor? Nope. The problem with _every_ Socialist govt. to date is that those in power always take care of themselves first. The rest of the nation comes second.

I personally will take Capitalism and Freedom over Socialism any day. At least with Capitalism I can have a chance to provide for myself if I have the skills and dedication.

Wow. Apparently over 500 people submitted a Forbes story where Richard Stallman strongly criticizes Slashdot and Newsforge for not supporting open source, and Slashdot editors refused to post the story:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/08/26/open-l inux-proprietary-cz_dl_0826open.html?partner=yahoo tix

It would be embarassing, wouldn't it? Here's Richard Stallman with such gems:

Stallman says it bugs him that VA Software-owned Web sites, like SourceForge and NewsForge, take money from Microsoft to run "smear campaign" ads on its sites. And he is not impressed when folks at places like Slashdot and NewsForge claim he is their hero.

"They dwell on how much they admire me or my principles, because they want said admiration to pass as a substitute for doing the right thing," Stallman says.

Would any Slashdotters and NewsForgers dare to live up to Stallman's ideals and bite the closed source hand that feeds them? Would any of these cyber Che Guevaras push their employer to "Do the right thing"?

Probably not. But no doubt they'll keep smack-talking about "openness" and "freedom"--and denouncing the "enemies" of the movement on VA Software Web sites.

Wow. Apparently over 500 people submitted a Forbes story where Richard Stallman strongly criticizes Slashdot and Newsforge for not supporting open source, and Slashdot editors refused to post the story:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/08/26/open-l inux-proprietary-cz_dl_0826open.html?partner=yahoo tix

It would be embarassing, wouldn't it? Here's Richard Stallman with such gems:

Stallman says it bugs him that VA Software-owned Web sites, like SourceForge and NewsForge, take money from Microsoft to run "smear campaign" ads on its sites. And he is not impressed when folks at places like Slashdot and NewsForge claim he is their hero.

"They dwell on how much they admire me or my principles, because they want said admiration to pass as a substitute for doing the right thing," Stallman says.

Would any Slashdotters and NewsForgers dare to live up to Stallman's ideals and bite the closed source hand that feeds them? Would any of these cyber Che Guevaras push their employer to "Do the right thing"?

Probably not. But no doubt they'll keep smack-talking about "openness" and "freedom"--and denouncing the "enemies" of the movement on VA Software Web sites.

Wow. Apparently over 500 people submitted a Forbes story where Richard Stallman strongly criticizes Slashdot and Newsforge for not supporting open source, and Slashdot editors refused to post the story:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/08/26/open-l inux-proprietary-cz_dl_0826open.html?partner=yahoo tixhttp://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/08/26/ope n-linux-proprietary-cz_dl_0826open.html?partner=ya hootix

It would be embarassing, wouldn't it? Here's Richard Stallman with such gems:

Stallman says it bugs him that VA Software-owned Web sites, like SourceForge and NewsForge, take money from Microsoft to run "smear campaign" ads on its sites. And he is not impressed when folks at places like Slashdot and NewsForge claim he is their hero.

"They dwell on how much they admire me or my principles, because they want said admiration to pass as a substitute for doing the right thing," Stallman says.

Would any Slashdotters and NewsForgers dare to live up to Stallman's ideals and bite the closed source hand that feeds them? Would any of these cyber Che Guevaras push their employer to "Do the right thing"?

Probably not. But no doubt they'll keep smack-talking about "openness" and "freedom"--and denouncing the "enemies" of the movement on VA Software Web sites.

I found this Interesting article that has some informative info on the person himself.

Also, take the recent big articles in New York Times and Fortune, calling out for MORE subsidizing of fundamental technology, because corporations can't develop it themselves. It's so costly and unprofitable, the public must subsidize the costs and risk, so private companies can privatize the profit.

Normally it's not widely admitted, except when politicians like Bush start shifting the subsidies around, making enemies.

Protectionism is just a tool. Whether it's useful (and for whom) depends on the situation.

Oh yeah - those poor slimebag weasels aren't being allowed to scam people.

The threat of those 'taxes' (to use your incorrect politically-charged terminolgy) stops the weasels, and anyone else who wants to have the same lame business plan.

This country absolutely, undeniably needs another 49 or so like him. Examples like this, and this,and this and this should clue you in.

China and India form a tech-industry alliance, as the Prime Minister of India once suggested?

http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2003/06/26/rtr 1011719.html

Will the US THEN finally wake up and realize that we have done far more damage to our economy and our standing as a superpower by "free trade" than by hitting offshoring with crippling fines and sinking that ship of death?

And yes, outlawing offshoring precipitously would force companies to hire and train domestically. It WOULD increase our base of educated Americans and it would lead to more jobs here. What are companies going to do, stop making software?! If people want the software it's going to be made, and if a company fears to take our jobs overseas to do it they'll suck it down and make it here. Or some other domestic company will take their place.

We can hit foreign competition with heavy tariffs so they can't lowball us. Which means sweatshops and prison labor camps overseas can't compete with (slightly more) ethical workplaces here. It would be the industry equivalent of banning steroid users from the NBA, and you don't see the NBA being beaten by cheap offshore baller associations, do ya?

The US needs to bite the bullet, lose the import dependency and start standing on our own two real (as opposed to "assets on paper") feet again. We will suffer now to strengthen our domestic base or we will suffer later when (not if, WHEN) foreign nations find a way to shut us out of the industrial loop.

Here's a quote from Intel in this article

Separately Wednesday, Otellini addressed its smaller competitor, Advanced Micro Devices (nyse: AMD), which today took out full page ads in national newspapers to challenge Intel to a "dual core duel" to see whose chips are faster. Said Otellini, declining the opportunity to attack, "I think that companies and products are best judged in the marketplace."

http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/065.htmlForbe s Article Ronald Katz has sued and won big companies over processes like "routing calls through a call center", or using a telephone to check a bank balance or transfer funds. (IVR) - Interactive Voice Response While Katz never invented any of these technologies, he decided to patent the process, which was never patented before. He was awarded the patent, but unfortunately for the users of this technology, they were sued. Even though AT&T bell labs invented most of the telephony technology, they never patened the "Process". Unfortunately for them, Mr. Katz did.

The world isn't running out of oil, its running out of cheap, easy to extract oil. It doesn't help that Iraq's oil production is now in a shambles thanks to George W.

I should take that at face value; that is, as pure uninformed flamebait. Instead, I'll take a moment to correct you on two points:

First, Oil production is not in shambles. Production was at 2.5 million bpd "Before U.S.-led forces defeated Saddam Hussein".

The latest figures show that oil production is now at 2.75 - 2.85 million bpd . This is up from about 2.3 million bpd last month.

Not "in shambles".

Second, I assume you're being semantically dense when you blame the temporary damage to Iraq's oil production on George W.

In spite of the fact that little damage was done to Iraq's oil fields during the war itself, looting and sabotage after the war ended was highly destructive, accounting for perhaps 80 percent of total damage. Starting in mid-May 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- which had the lead in restoring Iraq's oil output to pre-war levels -- began a major effort to ramp up production in the country. On April 22, 2003, the first oil production since the start of the war began at the Rumaila field, with the restart of an important gas/oil separation plant (GOSP). In May 2004, Iraq's Qarmat Ali water injection facility reportedly was 75 percent operational again, helping boost production from Rumaila and other southern oil fields. (Taken from the DOE factbook.)

Contrary to common misbelief, the US did not invade Iraq to steal their oil. The US currently purchases about 25% of Iraq's exports, or about 600,000 bpd. This puts Iraq at number six as a supplier to the US, behind Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, each over 1.5 million bpd. Iraq is a bit player in this game.

But I'm happy to see that they're finally free of Saddam.

There are several problems with this.

• Apple doesn't want a user's first experience with OS X to be full of frustration, incompatibility, and clunky graphics. They want a curious PC user's first experience to be like an Apple store - slick, white, and accessible
• What happens when an OEM, in order to save money, ships the stripped down OS X with their boxes? Customers will experience problems and call Apple, only to be told that their OS is unsupported. Apple's great consumer relations score will go down the tubes.
• Even stuck with a dumbed-down version of OS X, it would be hard for a user to part with $130 just to get a smoother ride.

Well which one? Adobe? Microsoft? Or were you referring to the guy that made the program to bid 3 seconds before my ebay auction expires? It is possible to make more money in software than hardware.

"Also, if they switch, then they start over with a marketshare of 0%, and have to fight against Windows brand recognition, and against the people that depend on certain parts or apps in windows. Not cool."

The ipod & itunes are increasing apple's brand recognition. As for fighting Microsoft, apple doesn't have to destroy Microsoft in order to succeed. Apple has less than 5% of the computer market. If they sold 5% of the computers after the switch they would be doing great for apple. As for starting out with 0% marketshare, I'm sure those who currently have a mac will completely forget apple when they see a dell running Microsoft.

The relevant page from the article is here described in the heading as "improbable", but the article text says "impossible". Obviously the author doesn't read Slashdot.

Besides I thought I did address your original question. I gave you a rational reason for MS to hold off on Software Patent pressure.

Maybe you play chess? Understand this, You need to move the peices a bit before claiming Check Mate. Or are you so enamored by Bill Gates or disillusioned by RMS that you believe that since MS hasn't declared "check" that they are not playing the game to win?

Or maybe you so savy that you know something we don't? That MS has only has the warmest and most loving feelings towards open source? Are you an Economist? Visionary? Soothsayer? When MS pays attention to you, you either get absorbed or destroyed. Maybe you can show us otherwise? But what you call FUD, I call History.

You say talk about things they actually do? How about crushing the competition by any means necessary. I'd believe even the most devout MS fanboy would have to admit to the predatory nature of Microsoft, or maybe you would just prefer to hold your hands to your ears and yell "Na Na Na!" until finally through the miracle of denial, the sheep can truley sleep peacefully with the lions.

I hate to break it to you, but that myopic view of nirvana doesn't mesh with reality.

Let me teach you how the world works, It's really quite simple. The world is driven by Greed with a capital "G". IBM doesn't love OpenSource, but they encourage it whole heartedly because they make money from it. As long as thats true we have nothing to fear from them or their patent portfolio because IBM loves money.

MS also loves money, but unfortunately MS only loses money from OpenSource. Make no mistake, we are their only true competitor left standing. Their shody products look bad in comparison and can't compete in price for the few products that actually shine. Because of that, and to protect their precious monopoly, MS will do anything it can to control or extinguish OpenSource. This is not being Evil, it is simply a business strategy.

Software Patents, DMCA, TCPA, Palladium.. These are only chess peices being positioned for battle. It's not hard to see the goal. Opensource is a rogue element, a wild cannon. It needs to be controlled so that the IT field can be pinned down and milked for the maximum profit. How far do you think Microsoft will go to get more control so that they can make more profit?

Wake up and smell the Money.

"People" do not want underpowered small and annoying hybrid cars.

Hybrid cars enter the fast lane
By Holly Hubbard Preston International Herald Tribune
SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 2005

Mark Cappellano, a vintner in the Napa Valley of northern California, waited eight months for his new car, a 2004 Toyota Prius. After he took delivery of the car, which runs on a hybrid system incorporating a gas engine and an electric motor, Cappellano drove it to Los Angeles and back - a round trip of more than 800 miles, or 1,280 kilometers.

Gas Prices Soar; Drivers Look For Alternatives
Hybrid Cars Are Not Only Solution

...
The Prius still has a waiting list, and the newest Toyota hybrid, the Highlander SUV, is catching on, too.

...
Even though the hybrids are getting a lot of press, drivers are getting more interested in conventional cars that get good gas mileage.

Toyota plans 10 new hybrid vehicles; sets long-term 1 mln-unit sales target
TRAVERSE CITY, Michigan (AFX) - Toyota Motor Co said it is developing on 10 new hybrid vehicles, after the segment saw strong sales in the US market.

Two years after it was introduced, Toyota's hugely successful Prius still has a waiting list and some buyers are waiting more than six months for delivery.

These are just some of the results I got when I news googled hybrids sales "waiting list". There are people lining up to have their names added to waiting lists for hybrids. While not every one is looking at hybrid some are also looking at convential cars that get good mileage.

Thank you AC, but here is a more direct link.