If you read the whole article you will see that there are many computing intensive benchmarks, where Linux outperforms OSX by nearly a factor of two. Saying that there is no noticeable difference is simply wrong (see Page 11, Page 12).

So many negative posts here. So let me be the first to say: Good job!

It's very good they open source it, even if only for legacy apps (Motif). The open-source code base for CDE is also nice to have in Patent lawsuits for prior art mining. It's nice they went out of their way to clear the legal issues, now that no money can be made anymore with either.

So thanks to the Open Group!

Science did not know
Identical Particles
Exist. Bose did.

There's not much more content. Bose introduced the concept of identical particles. This lead to Bose and Fermi statistics and new insight in physics.
Plus: Bose had trouble publishing it.

In my opinion they don't want to keep only the public from viewing these agreements, they want the other corporate partners not to know the details, because they could use it to renegotiate the terms.

Imagine this hypothetical situation:
Microsoft has an agreement both with Sony and with Apple. They both agreed on different but confidential patent agreements.
Sony paid (or swapped) more than Apple.
Apple releases their agreement.
Sony sees this and has a reason to renegotiate.

Sorry, didn't get it. My reply therefore doesn't make sense.

"also writing "OS X 10.5" is like ATM machine..."
If there was only a little bit of truth in that statement:

OSX 10.5 doesn't get security patches anymore, as written here: http://www.sture.ch/node/196
So using 10.5 (and if the link is correct also 10.6 from now on) is a bigger security threat than this single Trojan reported here.

There is no official information about the OSX lifecycles.
However there are well educated guesses: http://www.sture.ch/node/196

Apple not providing this information is a big problem. If they would, consumers would have a reason to cry foul.
But they don't and this leads to the fact that many many Mac users, still running 10.5 think their operating system is still safe, although they didn't receive security updates for a long time (June 2011). I except this to repeat when 10.6 runs out of support.

Google should a) force open-source the drivers and b) require the mandatory unlocking of the bootloader a year after the last official update for the phone was issued. They should work on making Cyanogenmod the official end of support upgrade path, because the phone companies won't step up to the task.

Why the two requirements?:
a) Android updates break driver interfaces similar to every xorg update. Without the drivers being updated they won't be compatible for long. ICS also has some features which need hardware (a GPU in this sense) but the community can work around those limitations. They cannot however make a closed-source driver compatible without updating it.
b) Cyanogenmod installs need jailbreaking most of the time. Requiring unlocked bootloaders at eol will be a signal: Once official support is out, you are on your own.

To sum up what I write downstairs: The open source ATI drivers coming from this effort are the best drivers available currently for Linux if you count out 3D performance.

For all cards except the two newest series (6xxx and 7xxx) they work flawless; they are the most stable drivers I ever had for any card (I used nvidia and ati; no intel chipset yet). No tears, everything works out of the box without tampering with anything. They 'work' better than the catalyst drivers, because there you will still get problems with Gnome3 sometimes; also the tear-free mode is not working with some compositing setups.
The only thing they cannot match is 3D performance. If you are working as a sysadmin in an office environment using no 3D apps, these drivers will give you the least headaches.

Whoever modded you insightful: Try the open source drivers first. Slapping a binary blob on a CD is a horror scenario I don't want to live. The radeon drivers are living proof that staying up to date with the kernel ABI is very much possible even with a small-ish development team.

It's not replication, the quantum state of one photon is transfered from one photon to another.
Here's an easy explanation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qmSdC7aQpY

Replication will never be possible as a quantum state cannot be copied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

Publishing articles nowadays is terribly easy and does not cost a thing (arxiv); filtering and getting good referees however is not.

My solution for this would be a public network of papers, where everybody can publish, read and 'sign' those papers. If you agree with a paper, you put your signature under it and the worth of this paper goes up. As your 'worth' goes up your signature also gains in weight, when signing other papers. Every paper gets a comment section, where reviews can be written and errors pointed out.

If a well known professor therefore signs your work, others will catch up to it. A 'good' paper will gain in publicity quickly due to being sent around a lot. One would also need to include a system of diminishing returns, as to avoid groups signing only their own papers. Ironing out these points of abuse will be the hardest part of this system.

The specification above only consists of four to five sentences and yet I would call it more robust than the currently arbitrarily chosen journals.