Even though I own my own smartphone, where I work (a very large IT company) there is an increasingly lengthy list of requirements and checks for any device connected to the corporate network.

I value my choice and don't want my employer to get me a phone but if I use it for work it is an increasing amount of hassle

Personally the new web technology that I'm most keen to get my hands on is the pushState/replaceState stuff that is going to be in the next release of Firefox after 3.6. It makes it much easier to deal with forward/back in AJAX web apps

More on topic, it is good to see Microsoft looking to implement new web technologies again.... if they implement much of HTML5 and they seem to be doing that now and this new Indexed DB stuff it looks like the Golden Age of the web will continue for some time.

And Opera 10.50 has just been released too, the first version of Opera with <Video> tag support.

With Chrome, Safari and Firefox all evolving quickly, the future of the web is looking good. I just wish they would all support an open, royalty-free codec.

Recent reports also note that the Nokiasuarus Maemonicus has been evolving in a new strain: Meegoasaurus Rex which prefers open spaces

Android (and Palm's new WebOS) phones seem fairly cool but I'd rather use a phone that had more of the normal Linux userland. The FreeRunner still has lots of very rough edges but the new Nokia N900 with Maemo 5 looks really mouth-watering

.

As a Brit, this appointment won't affect me directly. But indirectly US Government policy has an important global effect. I'll be watching closely to see whether ODF becomes widely used as a document format by the US Federal Government.

The ODF Alliance have welcomed the appointment, as have Tim O'Reilly and a host of other people so I'm hopeful that it will turn out to be a good thing

I disagree with the whole underlying point of the article. I think Mozilla should be able to stop someone taking their source, adding a whole bunch of unstable "improvements" as patches and calling it Firefox. It would damage a brand that is one of the best brands that FOSS currently has. It doesn't stop people getting the browser, if they don't Mozilla's restrictions they could call it, say, EarthHorse.

The article throws around terms like "restricted distribution" and "severely limiting all activity" but gives examples like CentOS where CentOS and Red Hat exist happily together but with Red Hat still able to build up a brand with some protections.

The article ends "just like patents and traditional copyright, it's totally incompatible with the spirit and ethos of open source software.". People here may not like the length that copyright lasts for but the GPL relies on the fundamental idea of copyright. Similarly there may be some issues with trademarks but if so they need patching not a whole sale revolution as this article seems to suggest.

This Guardian article argues that the story is complete hot air, the two sources (Tech Crunch and ValleyWag) are both unconvinced themselves and the Twitter execs seem to be in the wrong part of the US to be locked into negotiations with Apple.

Leaving aside whether it is true or not, it seems a very strange fit. Apple doesn't seem to gain very much in its core business from the acquisition

A pair of rabbits will produce offspring fairly regularly. This does not mean that the number of rabbits grows at a linear rate.

You want us to out breed Windows users? We need to make contraception contravene the GPL!