No, we don't.
That's the mentality of people that think they can save the world, and this can only end in frustration. I think most FOSS proponents have fallen for it when they were younger. But we all realize sooner or later that only frustration comes from such a goal.

But OSX is made by a business, FOSS is not usually driven by business. Which could be a problem, but fortunately it never has been a problem, because it affects business, and economic forces have made people with some business sense to use FOSS.
There is still not to this day a company with enough business sense to drive FOSS like Apple with OSX, but it's not a problem because FOSS is, IMHO, a disruptive innovation.
If someone with business would have seized it, it would have destroyed a lot of incumbent, MS included, in less than 5 years. There's a reason MS does all it can to reign in FOSS, and there's a reason they still haven't managed to destroy FOSS. MS is very wary of disruptive innovations and tries to destroy them all before it's too late.

We don't have to step back anything. Anyway, most people working on FOSS aren't the business type, which is a problem if your goal is large expansion of FOSS. But people in FOSS someday realize that it's better to save yourself, that's a less frustrating goal. If your goal happens to save everyone around you, then it's a benefit. At least, it's not frustrating like thinking you'll save the world.
I look at what has been done in 10 years, and frankly it's impressive. Most people fear that all of that disappear with them, but there's no need to worry about that IMHO.
Canonical was the closest thing to lau,ch FOSS, but clearly Shuttleworth (sp?) lacked the business acumen to launch such a disruptive technology.

This I agree with, but it's not as simple as saying "someone do it".
Actually, it would require most people in FOSS or making FOSS to take financial education (for which there is no real course) and business courses. Only then can this work.
But that's not their main interest usually, even though most of them must be NT types (in Myers-Briggs personality).

But "make oldconfig" is there since years.
It's not tedious at all to configure your new kernel when you have your old config file. Only the new options or the modified ones will show up.
So the tools are already there for those that build their own kernel.

This doesn't make sense. You identify loosely that Nintendo and Amazon (even Apple but that's rarely the case) are in the content business, and yet you compare it with MS on the desktop which is another market altogether. Ms on the desktop is in the technology business, which has nothing at all to do with the content business, and what works in the technology business (like vaporware) doesn't always work in the content business, like MS learned the hard way.
The XBox division of MS was a far better and far more obvious thing to compare and yet you talk about MS on the desktop.

No they won't, videogames are not at all in the technology business.
And you're partly wrong anyway, Nintendo and the others don't want to be the gatekeepers of software or content, they want to maximise their customers and then keep them, which is what every business tries to do.
Being in the content business, that means gathering the most and best content around them of course. That's why they allow others to create content on their hardware, and don't chose arbitrarily who pass and who doesn't.

This is nonsense. Lots of people talk like the audience they want to attract already have a XB360. In which case they wouldn't need to attract them. Makes no sense at all.
This news is only of interest to XB360 owners, not to any audience they want to attract.
So this news makes no sense except if the goal is to prevent XB360 owners from buying a Wii.

In which user base? In MS user base?
This has no chance on Wii user base: they have a Wii, not a XB360, and I doubt the XB360 + Natal will be £50. Get real people.

It sounds like a very bad launch if the goal is to attract the Wii user base. Absolutely none of these studios have any good track record making games for the Wii audience, that could attract a user base. Those are the studios making the shovelware on Wii!
Only Sega managed to make a system seller on Wii, but that was with help from Nintendo.
Keep in mind that Nintendo is basically the sole developer attracting the new audience to the Wii.

It's not the "next generation" Wiimote at all. On the contrary, I think it's bound to fail hard because it was made for completely different reasons than the Wiimote.
Typical Nintendo tailor the controller to go with their games. The Wiimote was made to go perfectly with their games for everyone, meaning it was made to be fun for the most people.
Natal is a reaction trying to coop the Wiimote success, by being "more advanced" ("next gen" like you say), meaning it's done for technology first.
MS (and Sony) seem totally unable to follow the same values that Nintendo introduced, and are stuck in the old "more power means better". The HD consoles should have showed them that's not the case.

Also, the Wiimote provides touch feedback, and actually have peripherals allowing you to use motion control with both arms (not just one). I'm not sure not activating the touch sense is a good thing.

This is the problem: a controller is not "a device on your person", it's an "extension of your person". Natal removes that and I think that's a very bad thing. EyeToy games are not exactly successful.

This is complete nonsense.
This interface is for now not mass-marketed at all at a low audience, it's totally off their radar. The only thing on "low audience" radar is the Wii.
The only time MS tried to mass-market their product for a low audience (IIRC last holiday with Rare games and things like Lips), it was a big failure worldwide.
And it's not affordable at all. This "low audience" still has to buy the console, and we don't know the price of the device with the console, but it won't be £50.
This won't be chump change at all for most, especially those that already have a Wii. But these will be the minority, as they won't buy another console.

You were doing passable until "in the past". You wrongly assume that MythTV 0.22 is the same as 0.20, and this is your big problem. The same as 0.20 because 0.21 worked great already.

I see less people that failed a long time ago (surely with 0.20 or OS problems) than people I installed MythTV for, and for whom it works great. The sole thing not working "right" is the XMLTV part where I live, because it's not based on SchedulesDirect like provider yet (there are alternatives though).

No, you don't know better at all. As soon as you had problems, you ran everywhere saying it doesn't work, like you're doing now. I've actually used the development version of 0.22 without any issue till this day, and will soon swith to the stable one. So I've actually used 0.22 while you obviously have not.
And sure enough it works great, even better than 0.21 that was already working great.

And while you're stuck with your obsessive compulsive nonsense on version numbers, people that actually care are using it.
Besides, it's not .20, it's 0.20, and it's a version number, meaning it can become 0.22.1 for example. You must learn to read more carefully, you managed to miss the "0" a lot.
I guess you only focus on useless things.

MythTV has changed a lot since then. I've really started with version 0.21 (must have been 3 years ago at least) SVN, and the only crashes I experienced were with the frontend because of OS configuration problems (OpenGL, proprietary drivers, ...). The important part, the backend, never failed me once.

Yes, this bug has been fixed, among tons of other ones.

That's not true, there is MythTV. It has changed a lot since even 0.21, and these aren't just cosmetic changes. MythTV 0.22 is really a true milestone.
Don't let the state of MythTV 0.20 fool you and assume that it's still the same with MythTV 0.22, like a lot of people are doing in this discussion. You'll see lots of people talking about MythTV being buggy (meaning it has loads of bugs that makes it crash constantly) and very hard to use. These are basically myths now.
Of course MythTV still has hidden bugs, but from your description of your experience with it, I think you'll be pretty pleased. I've gone through the transition from MythTV 0.21, through SVN of 0.22, on my "production box", because the world was changing around MythTV (migration to DVB-T, HD and new sound codecs in Europe), it still works like a charm, and never failed me.

You remember wrong then. Or it's just semantic, I don't know.
Nintendo actually built up a corporate image of a "for every member of the family" entertainment company.
And strong evidence of this are their handheld consoles, which can't be played by all the family at once, but every member of the family can play games on them.
Perhaps that's what you meant.
Apart from that, Nintendo is just selling entertainment devices, and as for their home consoles, they're still selling a true home console. Home consoles always were local multiplayer devices, with at least 2 controllers that could be attached (there are some exceptions that were failures).

Given that Nintendo was heavily burned with lawsuits as soon as they tried to enter the western markets, I think history is far more complicated that simply citing one outcome like they did it to displease their customers.

What does this mean exactly? It makes no sense.
Nintendo financially relies on their customers, and their business strategy is aiming at a population that includes everyone, contrary to their competitors that only target some specific demographics.
And it has nothing to do with evading competition from Sony and MS. They're not preventing Sony or MS to target this audience at all. Sony and MS are the ones who actually are unable to target this audience, and are catching up to compete. Nintendo never prevented them to compete, and nothing of this has anything to do with financials.
Nintendo is the one making money on its console from the start, while the two big competitors were losing money: if anything that should lower Nintendo's ability to compete.
Financially, Nintendo just relied on their belief that the time was ripe for disruption, because the gaming industry was going more and more away from gaming.
Just look at the competitors' consoles: they are adding lots of features that have nothing to do with gaming, their games are more and more alien to local multiplayer.
Nintendo always financially relied on providing big values for gaming, not big values for specs.

There's sth missing here. I don't see how you made the correlation between "technically inferior hardware" and "mature games". This just makes no sense. All previous generation consoles had very successful "mature" games and all were technically inferior to the Wii.

The problem is pretty simple really. And it's just not true that Nintendo would not actively promote a "mature" game. But it makes no sense to believe that people that want "mature" games will come to the Wii for "Madworld". Some people seriously believe that?
Nintendo made efforts to have a GTA game on the Wii, which was turned down by Rockstar.
To bring an audience for some genres, you need a big game, not lots of small ones. People will go where the big games of that genre are available. How can anyone expect people that like "mature" games to come to the Wii for Madworld when GTA 4 is on HD consoles?
See the problem? It's pretty obvious.

For the teenager audience which is the target for these "mature" games, sure enough it's hard to fathom.

Monster Hunter Tri is actually the best selling 3rd party title in Japan among any of the home consoles of this generation. It will reach a million sold some day. So it didn't sell less than it would have on other consoles. It will stay the best selling 3rd party title until Final Fantasy XIII is out on PS3 in December.

Apart from that, I disagree with you that it will happen, and that's a good thing.
I mean, some 3rd parties advertise they are making a "mature" game for the Wii like it's an amazing thing, and media are quick to come saying they are failures.
Something is wrong in this picture, especially when some of them (Resident Evil) are actually big successes.
There's several problems, like the gaming media wanting to convey the belief that mature games can't sell on the Wii, as if it was a problem. At least they see it as a problem.
But the mature Wii audience sees through the BS, and won't buy a bad game (Madworld) just because it has a M on it.
One other problem, is that all these 3rd parties believed they could fool the Wii audience with their stupid scheme. How come you start making "mature" games 2.5 years after the console was out? These 3rd parties actually expected people wanting "mature" games to wait this long for a "mature" game on Wii, while they made several elsewhere? And they expect people to buy these games, whatever their quality, even though there is no promise of more to come to those that absolutely want "mature" games?
This makes no sense. Unless there is a load of "mature" games that are very good in quality coming to the console, it just won't work.

It's pretty apparent to me that some part of the gaming industry realized too late the huge market available on Wii and is struggling to take advantage of it because it's too late, while another part is afraid that these games would work on Wii, which would remove lots of resources from the competitors' home consoles for these same games.

You just missed all the facts in his post then.
Like lots of people mixing iPhone with "cellphones" when cellphone is needed to imply "huge market".

iPhone game market clearly is not on the mind of Nintendo. Sony I don't know, but sure enough not Nintendo. At best, Nintendo have tried to protect itself from a potential threat coming from iPhone apps market. The game market for the iPhone sure enough is not profitable for big publisher companies doing games for DS or even PSP. Those that entered the market (mostly western companies) are struggling and realising this is a very different market.
Small japanese companies like Hudson are successful. But none of downloadable apps on DSiWare compete with iPhone game market.

No he doesn't, that's only speculation from the article author. What he does is specifically saying that the iPhone download system DOESN'T fit their customer, meaning it doesn't fit their market.
That's the contrary of what you're saying.

Oh yes the iPhone does replicate some of DS functionality, but none that matters, and especially none that can make it compete with the DS. Notice that every people that share their experience of leaving their DS for their iPhone are forced to say that they don't care about any of the big number of important features that the DS has and the iPhone doesn't replicate: kid friendly, buttons (giving tactile feedback) and D-Pad, battery life, screens, game library, game reselling and used games availability, ...