"It used to be research was done primarily by private industry."
I think it's safe to say that most research throughout history has always been driven by government and specificially the military. The vast majority of inventions and innovations come from the military and government. So, I'm not sure what you are basing this on, but I don't think that having government involvement in funding research is a new thing or a bad thing.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think you are misinterpreting the point (or maybe it's just me). The point is (even though I still disagree with it) that Google quickly filtered their searches based on the Chinese government's demands to filter out the word democracy, yet they are not willing to filter out child porn.
The real problem is that he's comparing apples to oranges. Google had to comply with the Chinese government or be found in violation of China's laws. The same is not true with child porn in the U.S. Google can, and does, try to protect the children from porn but there are no laws that would require/allow Google to filter as is demanded in this law suit. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised to see Google being sued by pushers of child porn if they tried based on a violation of their "free speech". Damned if you do damned if you don't I guess.
I agree with your well thought out and valid points. However, I think that we should keep in mind the reason/necessity/market for the cell phone. Sure it's to make phone calls, but I don't think it's really that specific or simple. I think the real allure of the cell phone is the convenience and freedom. It's the ability to do more without being confined by wires and offices. Therefore, it only makes sense to add features to devices to increase individual freedom and convenience.
Having said that, it would be nice if they could perfect each of these new features before just throwing them together (perfect meaning high quality, reliability, AND security).
FTA: The Microsoft spokesperson said that Vista's firewall is just one layer of security in the new operating system: "New features such as User Account Control (UAC), Windows Defender, and Internet Explorer Protected Mode along with improvements to Windows Firewall and Windows Update work together to help shield Windows Vista PCs from malware."
The point is that there is no one solution to security. You need to have a layered approach (i.e. hardware, software, policies, etc.). Placing a router in front of you and the Internet isn't enough. Corporate networks do have a lot more in the way of the user and the Internet. Thus, the reason they don't want a lot of ports being blocked from the user desktop perspective; they've already got ACL's, firewalls, etc. to block what they want blocked.
Turning this feature on will cause a firestorm of help desk tickets at the corporate level and cause your phone and mine to ring off the hook with calls from clueless relatives trying to figure out why they can't go online. IMHO I think it is a good decision for the right reasons.
I don't think this is usurping parents' roles at all. Even though as a parent I agree that parents need to take responsibility for their children, I as a parent can choose to go buy any game I want for my children. This bill just bans the children from banning it for themselves. Since we live in a society where you have to reach a certain age to be able to make certain decisions and gain certain privleges, I do not see any problem with that. In fact, this law helps to enforce the fact that the parent is ultimately responsible by not allowing a business or industry help the child circumvent a parent's authority. At the same time any parent can choose to allow their children to play any game they want. Makes sense to me as a consumer and a parent.
But this is exactly the kind of thing large companies are trying to get away from. FTA:
Making each computer unique would make life a lot tougher on attackers, she said.
This is costly for companies with large networks as it requires too much overhead to manage this kind of a diverse network.
"This is a little tricky because we don't want to make everyone write their own operating system or e-mail reader from scratch or even learn a new interface," Forrest said. "The look and feel of the program and underlying functionality when it computes needs to somehow be constant."
The solution to these problems used was VM software. The problem is that running this on each machine is going to consume valuable resources. Having said all that, I think this could lead to a valuable security solution but it sounds more useful for large networks/companies than it does for the everyday user. Thus, it needs to pass the Executive smell test (which is always dollars). IMHO, practicing a layered approach to security using several hardware and software layers is the closest and best currently available alternative.
I've read all the slams on the "stupid" people that work at these retail stores and the greedy ones that are just selling you the most expensive thing because they are on commission. Let's face it. If they knew what we know (yes, I'm generalizing but I think it applies to most everyone reading this), then they wouldn't be working for minimum wage at a retail store. I think everyone needs to give these kids working their way through school, in most cases, a break and use some common sense when setting expectations. When you walk into one of these stores, you shouldn't expect that you are dealing with a computer engineer or skilled programmer who is intimate with the technology.
Am I making excuses for those who BS or lie? No. But try looking at this from their perspective. I'm sure we were all new to technology at one point and it isn't easy to be working in technology (even just selling it) and admitting you don't know much, if anything, about it. It is what it is and unless we are willing to pay $5K for a computer so these stores can hire engineers to sell them to us, we will just have to set our expectations accordingly.
Linus, you may be right and you may be very smart, but you should try a little tact. Here's a good definition for it that I learned from a drill sergeant: "Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell and look forward to the trip."
Being nice and respectful doesn't mean you can't tell it like it is.
With all due respect, the argument that we let this inappropriate action go so we shouldn't worry about this other that is even arguably not as bad is invalid. In other words, saying, "Mom, Billy got away with it. So, why can't I?" isn't a good reason to not crack down on something.
Having said that, I agree that violence is a real problem too. I also think that front is being fought by those who are trying to get violent video games and such banned. Do I agree with either of these sides? Sometimes. But whether you agree or not, to simply point out that Americans need to get over being prude since we appear to not mind violence doesn't move the debate forward.
I think if we want a law, we the people should be the ones to vote for it, not have it decided for us and legislated accordingly. I also think that we as parents (yes, I have 4 young children) need to decide what is appropriate or not for our children and not count on or trust anyone else to do it for us.
"Something about all of this just doesn't strike me as right (besides the whole freedom of the press, and confidentiality of sources issues)"
Is is just me or does this situation seem more like corporate espionage than leaking a news story? Freedom of the press is critical to have a truely free society, but what news story did this break? What was it with this story that the people needed to know in order to maintain a free and informed society? I may be off base, but it just seems to me that the people involved in this (not Apple) are hiding behind a law that I think doesn't apply to them.
I agree with you that this points out a flaw with MS. But, the point he is trying to make is that because everyone doesn't have access that it is interesting and cool (for us geeks) to be able to see the code. I for one wouldn't mind having access to that code and having an opportunity to work with those applications despite, or maybe even because, of the problems and flaws they are infamous for.
My comment is regarding THIS article and the lawsuit between AMD and Intel. My purpose is not to champion Microsoft (as I am not a big fan). However, I see no need to use every lawsuit and opportunity on/. to slam Microsoft for the sake of slamming them. I think this line of thinking and type of comments actually helps Microsoft by making legitimate articles and arguments become just another "M$ bash fest".
Mod me how you will, but something has to be said. After reading these posts, I would have thought this was a fight between Microsoft and Intel. Many of the posts are from people trying to dive into the mind of Microsoft and speculate that this is payback for Intel testifying against them. I have to ask what would happen if Microsoft went along with Toshiba and refused to cooperate? Does the term damned if you do and damned if you don't come to mind?
Why do we need to "ban" any of this stuff while driving? Why not enforce the laws we already have? It is already illegal to swerve into another lane, rear end someone, run a red light or stop sign, and to drive recklessly in general.
The problem with having too many unnecessary laws on the books is that it endagers our freedom. Think about it. Given enough rules and regulations, you can be found guilty of at least one thing or another at any given time. I learned this as a soldier in the US Army. If they want to bust you, they have about a million laws and regulations defined in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to nail you with.
As annoying as people are on cell phones, I think we should just enforce the laws we already have rather than continue to regulate and encroach on everyone elses' lives.
"the alternative is to believe that more than half the country was dumb enough to believe that the same jackasses who failed to stop 9/11..."
I agree. How did we get 8 years of this guy? He didn't do anything to stop 9/11. He had all the warnings of prior terrorist attacks, suicide bombings, and threats. He even had Osama in his sights and let hime go!!! Yet, America was dumb enough to give this guy 8 YEARS! Now, to make things worse, we have his wife as a senator! What the hell has happened to our country?!
"It's harder to feel like you're accomplishing something."
First, less productive depends on what you're comparisons are based on. Second, could it be that the perception is that we are less productive, because we don't feel like we're working hard?
I went from working in the Army for a number of years to networking and programming where I make a lot more money. However, I felt like I was working much harder when I was getting paid less. Does that mean I'm not working as hard or I'm less productive? I would work for hours and hours everyday in the military and get little to nothing accomplished. I just think we need to realize that technology may make things seem like less work but that doesn't always equal less productivity.
"Why then, is it news that the United States has a great job market for IT Workers? This shouldn't be surprising at all. These workers are needed everywhere and anyone who can't see that hasn't looked at the stock market recently."
You are correct in the points you make, but I think you misunderstood or didn't read the TFA. The point is not that there is a lack of an IT job market created by the US. The point is to dispute the rumors and fears that suggest everyone in the US in the IT field is going to lose their job to some guy in India or China who will work for less pay. Or equally as bad, that our IT jobs here in the US will see a reduction in salary.
The article simply states that data shows that the IT job market in the US is thriving despite outsouring. Which I have to admit, is a little surprising to me. I for one believed that outsourcing would hurt our US job market in my field and am very interested in what this article says.
focusing on just making a great product. I think Xbox is winning this by keeping all the focus on them (free advertising/publicity).
I think what Sony needs to do is make a solid product and actually make sure they have a better game line up. One of the main reasons I switched from Gamecube to Xbox was because I was attracted by titles that I couldn't get on Gamecube. All that to say that I don't think that throwing a lot of hardware and technology is the way to go. Instead, software features and game titles are the great equalizer IMO. At the end of the day, I just want to play some great games and have them look and sound good.
Let me clarify what I meant by reasonable. It seems a reasonable interpretation of the law to apply the law for mailing addresses to email addresses. We have similar problems with spam going to both. They both are a medium for delivering a form of written information as well.
I just think that before we villify the City in this, we should note that they applied what they thought was a legitmate legal stance and were doing due diligence to protect peoples' private information.
Props to the kid for working harder at being involved than most adults on this planet. I'm not taking that from him and I think that what he did was a great thing. I just don't think it's a black and white issue and was trying to put forth a perspective from the other side according to the article.
"City officials turned down Nees, saying the teen could come in and hand-copy the list. Officials said giving out copies of address lists would leave the newsletter subscribers open to spam and computer viruses."
I know it would've been a major pain to hand copy, but if this was a real effort by the teen to research and uncover abuse, why not just copy them down? I mean this has taken over a year now. He could have hand copied them and been done with it long before now.
"Murray said the law, which restricts access to mailing addresses, doesn't extend to e-mail addresses..."
This tells me that the City wasn't asking the teen to hand copy the addresses just to be jerks about it. They were applying an existing law for mailing addresses to email addresses. Seems reasonable to me.
"Groth took the case on a pro-bono basis, but Murray asked for an accounting of Groth's fees in her ruling. Groth said Tuesday it's likely he could bill several thousand dollars for the case."
Before we attack the bloodsucking lawyer, the compensation for the pro-bono part of this was the judges idea. This goes to show that we probably need some way of reeling in some of these justices. I mean, it's one thing if she wants to pay this lawyer out of her pocket, but she just imposed a huge bill on the tax payers of that city to pay someone who was fine doing this for free (free meaning the publicity).
You have to be kidding me! I was not trolling. Do you moderators even have a clue? This, like many other posts after this, was a joke. Come on. Do I need to break it down for you to understand? Stuff powered by cow manure A.K.A Bullshit! Lighten up.
I'm afraid you are "not getting it". If you read and my post accurately, you will see that I say basically the same thing. Success in the view of the developer and most people that support OSS is defined exactly as you said. However, success defined by the OSS community is not the same as the business. You are knit picking at my words. I'm not agreeing with the enterprise environment's definition of success. The whole point of this thread was to talk about OSS in and its "success" in the enterprise environment. That is the definition I commented on and I stand by that. The fact is that business influences that success and thus affects what people in the OSS community will be able to call success. I understand that OSS is not about profit and commercialization. However, what good is it if it does not have an impact on people everywhere (both inside and outside the OSS community)? I would argue that OSS is not merely there just for us to be able to toy with code and be able to lay claim to brilliance that ordinary humans will never understan. OSS is great because of its potential to provide a free flow of ideas and innovation. Right now, that is being limited due to its lack of success in the home and business (success being defined as accepted use at home and in business and a viable alternative to commercial versions).
At least you got a 4 insightful for what I would have thought as off-topic at best and trolling at worst.
Although I agree with your assessment that the success of OSS is not solely dependant on its success in an enterprise environment, I think you underestimate the importance of success in that environment.
In a perfect world everyone would develop software and approach it the way you do (which I applaud). However, the fact remains that enterprises have a HUGE influence on what is successful and what isn't. Once an enterprise becomes invested in a product, it is in their best interest to support the wide use of that product. As this product becomes more of a standard and widely accepted by everyone (even outside of the enterprise environment), they are basically developing future talent at no cost.
Using your Microsoft reference, Microsoft has been able to successfully create a Windows competency throughout the computer world. This created a kind of standard and demand that really all started in the enterprise environment and spread like a virus to homes and everywhere computers could be found.
All this to say let's not under estimate the value of getting OSS accepted in the enterprise. This can be done with price, if not maturity, as most enterprises are always looking to cut costs and you can't beat free!
Slashdot Mirror
"It used to be research was done primarily by private industry."
I think it's safe to say that most research throughout history has always been driven by government and specificially the military. The vast majority of inventions and innovations come from the military and government. So, I'm not sure what you are basing this on, but I don't think that having government involvement in funding research is a new thing or a bad thing.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think you are misinterpreting the point (or maybe it's just me). The point is (even though I still disagree with it) that Google quickly filtered their searches based on the Chinese government's demands to filter out the word democracy, yet they are not willing to filter out child porn.
The real problem is that he's comparing apples to oranges. Google had to comply with the Chinese government or be found in violation of China's laws. The same is not true with child porn in the U.S. Google can, and does, try to protect the children from porn but there are no laws that would require/allow Google to filter as is demanded in this law suit. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised to see Google being sued by pushers of child porn if they tried based on a violation of their "free speech". Damned if you do damned if you don't I guess.
I agree with your well thought out and valid points. However, I think that we should keep in mind the reason/necessity/market for the cell phone. Sure it's to make phone calls, but I don't think it's really that specific or simple. I think the real allure of the cell phone is the convenience and freedom. It's the ability to do more without being confined by wires and offices. Therefore, it only makes sense to add features to devices to increase individual freedom and convenience.
Having said that, it would be nice if they could perfect each of these new features before just throwing them together (perfect meaning high quality, reliability, AND security).
FTA: The Microsoft spokesperson said that Vista's firewall is just one layer of security in the new operating system: "New features such as User Account Control (UAC), Windows Defender, and Internet Explorer Protected Mode along with improvements to Windows Firewall and Windows Update work together to help shield Windows Vista PCs from malware."
The point is that there is no one solution to security. You need to have a layered approach (i.e. hardware, software, policies, etc.). Placing a router in front of you and the Internet isn't enough. Corporate networks do have a lot more in the way of the user and the Internet. Thus, the reason they don't want a lot of ports being blocked from the user desktop perspective; they've already got ACL's, firewalls, etc. to block what they want blocked.
Turning this feature on will cause a firestorm of help desk tickets at the corporate level and cause your phone and mine to ring off the hook with calls from clueless relatives trying to figure out why they can't go online. IMHO I think it is a good decision for the right reasons.
I don't think this is usurping parents' roles at all. Even though as a parent I agree that parents need to take responsibility for their children, I as a parent can choose to go buy any game I want for my children. This bill just bans the children from banning it for themselves. Since we live in a society where you have to reach a certain age to be able to make certain decisions and gain certain privleges, I do not see any problem with that. In fact, this law helps to enforce the fact that the parent is ultimately responsible by not allowing a business or industry help the child circumvent a parent's authority. At the same time any parent can choose to allow their children to play any game they want. Makes sense to me as a consumer and a parent.
But this is exactly the kind of thing large companies are trying to get away from. FTA:
Making each computer unique would make life a lot tougher on attackers, she said.
This is costly for companies with large networks as it requires too much overhead to manage this kind of a diverse network.
"This is a little tricky because we don't want to make everyone write their own operating system or e-mail reader from scratch or even learn a new interface," Forrest said. "The look and feel of the program and underlying functionality when it computes needs to somehow be constant."
The solution to these problems used was VM software. The problem is that running this on each machine is going to consume valuable resources. Having said all that, I think this could lead to a valuable security solution but it sounds more useful for large networks/companies than it does for the everyday user. Thus, it needs to pass the Executive smell test (which is always dollars). IMHO, practicing a layered approach to security using several hardware and software layers is the closest and best currently available alternative.
I've read all the slams on the "stupid" people that work at these retail stores and the greedy ones that are just selling you the most expensive thing because they are on commission. Let's face it. If they knew what we know (yes, I'm generalizing but I think it applies to most everyone reading this), then they wouldn't be working for minimum wage at a retail store. I think everyone needs to give these kids working their way through school, in most cases, a break and use some common sense when setting expectations. When you walk into one of these stores, you shouldn't expect that you are dealing with a computer engineer or skilled programmer who is intimate with the technology.
Am I making excuses for those who BS or lie? No. But try looking at this from their perspective. I'm sure we were all new to technology at one point and it isn't easy to be working in technology (even just selling it) and admitting you don't know much, if anything, about it. It is what it is and unless we are willing to pay $5K for a computer so these stores can hire engineers to sell them to us, we will just have to set our expectations accordingly.
Linus, you may be right and you may be very smart, but you should try a little tact. Here's a good definition for it that I learned from a drill sergeant: "Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell and look forward to the trip."
Being nice and respectful doesn't mean you can't tell it like it is.
With all due respect, the argument that we let this inappropriate action go so we shouldn't worry about this other that is even arguably not as bad is invalid. In other words, saying, "Mom, Billy got away with it. So, why can't I?" isn't a good reason to not crack down on something.
Having said that, I agree that violence is a real problem too. I also think that front is being fought by those who are trying to get violent video games and such banned. Do I agree with either of these sides? Sometimes. But whether you agree or not, to simply point out that Americans need to get over being prude since we appear to not mind violence doesn't move the debate forward.
I think if we want a law, we the people should be the ones to vote for it, not have it decided for us and legislated accordingly. I also think that we as parents (yes, I have 4 young children) need to decide what is appropriate or not for our children and not count on or trust anyone else to do it for us.
"Something about all of this just doesn't strike me as right (besides the whole freedom of the press, and confidentiality of sources issues)"
Is is just me or does this situation seem more like corporate espionage than leaking a news story? Freedom of the press is critical to have a truely free society, but what news story did this break? What was it with this story that the people needed to know in order to maintain a free and informed society? I may be off base, but it just seems to me that the people involved in this (not Apple) are hiding behind a law that I think doesn't apply to them.
I agree with you that this points out a flaw with MS. But, the point he is trying to make is that because everyone doesn't have access that it is interesting and cool (for us geeks) to be able to see the code. I for one wouldn't mind having access to that code and having an opportunity to work with those applications despite, or maybe even because, of the problems and flaws they are infamous for.
My comment is regarding THIS article and the lawsuit between AMD and Intel. My purpose is not to champion Microsoft (as I am not a big fan). However, I see no need to use every lawsuit and opportunity on /. to slam Microsoft for the sake of slamming them. I think this line of thinking and type of comments actually helps Microsoft by making legitimate articles and arguments become just another "M$ bash fest".
Mod me how you will, but something has to be said. After reading these posts, I would have thought this was a fight between Microsoft and Intel. Many of the posts are from people trying to dive into the mind of Microsoft and speculate that this is payback for Intel testifying against them. I have to ask what would happen if Microsoft went along with Toshiba and refused to cooperate? Does the term damned if you do and damned if you don't come to mind?
Why do we need to "ban" any of this stuff while driving? Why not enforce the laws we already have? It is already illegal to swerve into another lane, rear end someone, run a red light or stop sign, and to drive recklessly in general.
The problem with having too many unnecessary laws on the books is that it endagers our freedom. Think about it. Given enough rules and regulations, you can be found guilty of at least one thing or another at any given time. I learned this as a soldier in the US Army. If they want to bust you, they have about a million laws and regulations defined in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to nail you with.
As annoying as people are on cell phones, I think we should just enforce the laws we already have rather than continue to regulate and encroach on everyone elses' lives.
yada yada yada. It's all mute when Clinton was offered Osama after he had been CAPTURED and said "nope, don't want him".
Mod me troll all you want. I expect that much from you bunch of blind mind numb liberals. Happy flaming
"the alternative is to believe that more than half the country was dumb enough to believe that the same jackasses who failed to stop 9/11..."
I agree. How did we get 8 years of this guy? He didn't do anything to stop 9/11. He had all the warnings of prior terrorist attacks, suicide bombings, and threats. He even had Osama in his sights and let hime go!!! Yet, America was dumb enough to give this guy 8 YEARS! Now, to make things worse, we have his wife as a senator! What the hell has happened to our country?!
"It's harder to feel like you're accomplishing something."
First, less productive depends on what you're comparisons are based on. Second, could it be that the perception is that we are less productive, because we don't feel like we're working hard?
I went from working in the Army for a number of years to networking and programming where I make a lot more money. However, I felt like I was working much harder when I was getting paid less. Does that mean I'm not working as hard or I'm less productive? I would work for hours and hours everyday in the military and get little to nothing accomplished. I just think we need to realize that technology may make things seem like less work but that doesn't always equal less productivity.
"Why then, is it news that the United States has a great job market for IT Workers? This shouldn't be surprising at all. These workers are needed everywhere and anyone who can't see that hasn't looked at the stock market recently."
You are correct in the points you make, but I think you misunderstood or didn't read the TFA. The point is not that there is a lack of an IT job market created by the US. The point is to dispute the rumors and fears that suggest everyone in the US in the IT field is going to lose their job to some guy in India or China who will work for less pay. Or equally as bad, that our IT jobs here in the US will see a reduction in salary.
The article simply states that data shows that the IT job market in the US is thriving despite outsouring. Which I have to admit, is a little surprising to me. I for one believed that outsourcing would hurt our US job market in my field and am very interested in what this article says.
focusing on just making a great product. I think Xbox is winning this by keeping all the focus on them (free advertising/publicity).
I think what Sony needs to do is make a solid product and actually make sure they have a better game line up. One of the main reasons I switched from Gamecube to Xbox was because I was attracted by titles that I couldn't get on Gamecube. All that to say that I don't think that throwing a lot of hardware and technology is the way to go. Instead, software features and game titles are the great equalizer IMO. At the end of the day, I just want to play some great games and have them look and sound good.
Let me clarify what I meant by reasonable. It seems a reasonable interpretation of the law to apply the law for mailing addresses to email addresses. We have similar problems with spam going to both. They both are a medium for delivering a form of written information as well.
I just think that before we villify the City in this, we should note that they applied what they thought was a legitmate legal stance and were doing due diligence to protect peoples' private information.
Props to the kid for working harder at being involved than most adults on this planet. I'm not taking that from him and I think that what he did was a great thing. I just don't think it's a black and white issue and was trying to put forth a perspective from the other side according to the article.
"City officials turned down Nees, saying the teen could come in and hand-copy the list. Officials said giving out copies of address lists would leave the newsletter subscribers open to spam and computer viruses."
I know it would've been a major pain to hand copy, but if this was a real effort by the teen to research and uncover abuse, why not just copy them down? I mean this has taken over a year now. He could have hand copied them and been done with it long before now.
"Murray said the law, which restricts access to mailing addresses, doesn't extend to e-mail addresses..."
This tells me that the City wasn't asking the teen to hand copy the addresses just to be jerks about it. They were applying an existing law for mailing addresses to email addresses. Seems reasonable to me.
"Groth took the case on a pro-bono basis, but Murray asked for an accounting of Groth's fees in her ruling. Groth said Tuesday it's likely he could bill several thousand dollars for the case."
Before we attack the bloodsucking lawyer, the compensation for the pro-bono part of this was the judges idea. This goes to show that we probably need some way of reeling in some of these justices. I mean, it's one thing if she wants to pay this lawyer out of her pocket, but she just imposed a huge bill on the tax payers of that city to pay someone who was fine doing this for free (free meaning the publicity).
You have to be kidding me! I was not trolling. Do you moderators even have a clue? This, like many other posts after this, was a joke. Come on. Do I need to break it down for you to understand? Stuff powered by cow manure A.K.A Bullshit! Lighten up.
Bullshit on this one : )
I'm afraid you are "not getting it". If you read and my post accurately, you will see that I say basically the same thing. Success in the view of the developer and most people that support OSS is defined exactly as you said. However, success defined by the OSS community is not the same as the business. You are knit picking at my words. I'm not agreeing with the enterprise environment's definition of success. The whole point of this thread was to talk about OSS in and its "success" in the enterprise environment. That is the definition I commented on and I stand by that. The fact is that business influences that success and thus affects what people in the OSS community will be able to call success. I understand that OSS is not about profit and commercialization. However, what good is it if it does not have an impact on people everywhere (both inside and outside the OSS community)? I would argue that OSS is not merely there just for us to be able to toy with code and be able to lay claim to brilliance that ordinary humans will never understan. OSS is great because of its potential to provide a free flow of ideas and innovation. Right now, that is being limited due to its lack of success in the home and business (success being defined as accepted use at home and in business and a viable alternative to commercial versions).
At least you got a 4 insightful for what I would have thought as off-topic at best and trolling at worst.
Although I agree with your assessment that the success of OSS is not solely dependant on its success in an enterprise environment, I think you underestimate the importance of success in that environment.
In a perfect world everyone would develop software and approach it the way you do (which I applaud). However, the fact remains that enterprises have a HUGE influence on what is successful and what isn't. Once an enterprise becomes invested in a product, it is in their best interest to support the wide use of that product. As this product becomes more of a standard and widely accepted by everyone (even outside of the enterprise environment), they are basically developing future talent at no cost.
Using your Microsoft reference, Microsoft has been able to successfully create a Windows competency throughout the computer world. This created a kind of standard and demand that really all started in the enterprise environment and spread like a virus to homes and everywhere computers could be found.
All this to say let's not under estimate the value of getting OSS accepted in the enterprise. This can be done with price, if not maturity, as most enterprises are always looking to cut costs and you can't beat free!