And from what I gather even their new
Chinese whispers...
(1) Microsoft adopts MIT license for
(2) Blog site reads the patent promise, notes that for most use of the
(3) Slashdot summary makes the leap to say that MS is "undecided about suing" users of its OSS.
(4) Burz makes the leap to say that this is actually "designed to leave you on the hook".
There are quite a few unjustified leaps in there. Burz, I wonder if you'd say the same about all OSS software that's licensed under MIT or BSD but which lacks a patent promise? Because such software would be in an even weaker state from your perspective than Microsoft's OSS
(disclaimer: I do work for Microsoft, and I did generate some patents for them, and I'm an engineer not a lawyer).
Here are (only two) benchmark results...
http://browser.primatelabs.com...
I see not one thing that says this is an x86. If it's not x86 it's still ARM and still windows RT even if they don't call it RT anymore. The result being you can only run software from the windows store, no legacy apps.
Wikipedia says the Atom x7 is an x86 chip
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
That's pretty harsh! What are you going on?
I got the impression that the article was written after interviewing someone from the company in person. Like you, I don't have anything concrete to go on, but that seems the likeliest explanation for the "go to market" date.And I'm sure the rep from the company had earlier been involved in fundraising and as part of that would have had to tell investors his expectations of energy efficiency.
BBC news articles about scientific papers, by contrast, invariably have the words "scientists say" and usually mention the paper's publication...
Let the machine do the dirty work. -- "Elements of Programming Style", Kernighan and Ritchie