Care to place a friendly (or unfriendly) wager on that? Though I don't own a google phone, I'd say it's safe to say my distinct feeling is quite the opposite.

Motorola alone sold a million Droids in only a few months, and the growth (in sales and mind share) that Android has seen in the year or so it's been out it's actually quite surprising. I hate to say it, but I'd almost compare it to Windows on the Desktop. Almost certainly there are a fair share of fanboys and anti-fan boys out there, but the vast majority of users don't give a rats ass and just use what they know.

My distinct feeling is that Android becomes heavily commoditized and ubiquitous (because any phone manufacturer can use it for free, and customize it to their liking rather than pay some huge amount to develop and maintain their own operating system). Because of that, it becomes wildly available and consumers just end up using Android by default because it's what their shiny phone that they picked out in the store came with. Granted, I don't see ubiquity happening in the short term, but I'd expect it to become more prevalent as smartphone market share nears and eventually passes "dumb" phone market share.

Now before the Apple fan boys chime in here and wave their smartphone majority flag, I'll clarify that I see the Apple shooting themselves in the foot by limiting themselves to one basic model (the iPhone) while being the sole provider of it (and limiting what network you can choose). Let's face it, most people holding iPhones right now (myself included) are likely geekier than the general population and tend to be early adopters of consumer electronics. That's a LIMITED market compared to the much larger market of cell phone users in general

The iPhone really is the Model T of cell phones. There's very little customization, and as soon as everyone gets over the shock of something new (i.e. a mass produced combustion vehicle, or a snazzy smartphone), The competition is gonna eat you for breakfast by catering to consumer demand.

But hey, that's just one man's opinion, about as equally valid as your own.

Absolutely! Linux on the desktop does share many of those common points. The key thing that distinguishes the two is that (in my opinion) Linux on the desktop doesn't actually compare well to Windows from a user's perspective. Unfortunately one of the major factors when deciding between the two is a dependency in what a person is used to. Fortunately, Android has FAR less of a battle to win in the smartphone space given how relatively simple phones are compared to computers and how poor Microsoft's offering is compared to the rest of the market.

It's only a matter of time before Android takes over top market share for smartphones, the only real question is how long it takes. Now before you start screaming fan boy, bear with me here.

- Android is free
- Android can run on almost any piece of modern hardware, on any carrier (you listening Apple? probably not.)
- Every major carrier and every major smartphone maker either already has an Android phone, or has one in the works
- Being open source, carriers and smartphone makers can customize it as little or as much as they want
- Once smart phone makers are hooked on free, the only reason to dump Android is if there's a better mobile phone operating system out there that's worth the cost. Tough to do considering Android will be constantly approved upon given it's open source. Seriously, why dump Android to pay a per unit license fee when Android can do everything most smartphone users want their phone to do (and more in some cases)?

Some disclaimers apply here:
- No I don't have an Android phone, but yes I've used it enough to be familiar with it (including 2.0).
- I don't think its 100% there yet, but it's not far.
- Apples UI design is definitely better.

I'm sure some will disagree with me, and that's fine. Obviously this is my opinion and a guess. If you're looking for some ammo though, I use a Pre, switched from an iPhone and am pretty darn happy with it.

Why is Microsoft farming out the programming of a relatively simple tool when they have 10s of thousands of programmers and consultants on their payroll? Issues like this are exactly why you shouldn't outsource work when you already have employees that could do the job.

Am I missing something here? I'm afraid I don't see the link between Microsoft's position in the BSA, and their accidental release of a FREE program (tool would be a better word) containing GPL code. I can understand that the definition of piracy could be interpreted loosely, and can even concede that a product could be pirated even if it was free (there could be intellectual property issues), but I'm just not getting the link between piracy and this particular issue.

Also, I could be wrong, but doesn't the GPL'd code taint the rest of the non-GPL'd code? It's my understanding that as soon as Microsoft started distributing this product, the fact that it contained GPL'd code could mean that the rest of the code is considered derivative. Simply replacing the GPL'd code with non-GPL'd code wouldn't work because the "derivative" code was required to be released as soon as the cat came out of the bag. It seems to me that MS GPL'ing the whole shibang is really the only outcome that could have happened here.

A company doesn't necessarily even have to test their product for as long as they claim it will last. Often times they'll just test the product at a usage level x times greater than is expected to be utilized on average and do the math. An example with context to this story might be testing a SSD with an amount of reads and writes 5 times greater than they'd expect an average person to use it. If it lasts for a year, they can claim it will last 5.

I'm not sure I'm following all the drama here. At issue is which product takes the best approach to solve problem X. Mr Ozzie seems to indicate Google's approach is overly complex to solve said problem, and infers that Microsoft's solution solves the problem with an appropriate level of complexity.

Now, I saw the entire Google Wave presentation, and also did some reading up on LiveMesh, and I'm not convinced they solve the same problem and can be compared fairly. LiveMesh appears to be an attempt to move an individual's content into the cloud (and be able to synchronize one's data to/from the cloud from any capable device). Google Wave on the other hand is really an alternate (more modern) approach to communication between users (with "synchronization" being a byproduct).

Let's put it this way. Significant success of Google Wave effectively replaces SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc on the net (existing open standards), and gives communications technologies a much richer feature set. Significant success of LiveMesh means a your data ends up in the cloud with modern methods to be able to access that data agnostically. Granted, things like MS Exchange get moved into the cloud as well, allowing email (or whatever they'd prefer to call your method of communication), but how does that remove our dependence on antiquated technologies like SMTP?

Both have potential for success, but I see no reason why the two can't co-exist. Personally, I'm more excited about Google Wave, just because it replaces a 40 year old, highly abused open communications standard with something modern, and also open. Microsoft can just go suck it if they think I'm going to move all my personal data into a cloud that they own, maintain, and operate.

I believe Dell pays Cononical a small kickback for every Linux PC they sell for support. This would explain why the two systems cost the same, though I tend to agree with you on principal that it would be nice to be able to get the Linux variant for cheaper.

Also, last I checked, Microsoft's license terms don't allow you to run an OEM copy in a virtual instance (i.e. the license is tied to the hardware). If you want to run Vista in a virtual machine you'll need a retail boxed copy, or a volume license of some kind.

Actually I don't believe you can. He likely has an OEM license which isn't transferable. As far as Microsoft is concerned, the virtualized environment is different "hardware" and hence requires it's own separate copy of Windows (even if you remove the installation running on bare metal).

Never heard of either till now, but isn't taking GPL code, adding patches and then distributing a binary without the availability of source code a GPL violation?