Agencies like the FBI, CIA and NSA have long relied on the general ignorance of the public, and even of Congress, on various technical matters. Further, they had their claws into academia and were thus capable of controlling the dissemination of information in regards to technical matters. These agencies still believe they are dealing with various kinds of ignorant rubes who will believe any technobabble their representatives care to spew. But this isn't the fertile ground for their particular brand of bullshit. The IT world is dominated by people of a rather different mindset, and while companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple couldn't really be regarded as friends of liberty, what they are is highly protective of their revenue streams. Crapola plans like encryption back doors and universal spying on their traffic is already damaging these companies' international reputations, and risks undermining many years worth the work of selling their platforms to foreign buyers.

And this, as sad is it is, is why these agencies will lose. Not because any of the Captains of IT Industry or anyone in Congress gives a flying fuck about liberties, but because it poses a threat to profits. I guess the little guy has to accept that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, and hope the IT companies win the day, but what bothers is that we may win the battle, and lose the war, simply because instead of a bunch of government spooks spying on every bit that gets transmitted over the Internet, we'll have a bunch of corporate spooks.

Even Marx himself predicted that a necessary period of transition from Capitalism to Communism would be the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". We can all debate the niceties of Marxism, but the fact was that its formulator and primary theorist believed that the people would need to be "shepherded" to the Utopian Marxist society.

The real problem for Communism is that the industrialized countries never bit. There were a few abortive revolutions in the mid-19th century, but the leadership of these countries were smart enough to recognize that political liberalization was the antidote to a restive working class. Most countries saw enfranchisement of larger numbers of people, increasing influence of legislative assemblies, and a more populist approach to government.

That's why the only countries that actually grasped on to Communism were primarily agrarian states like Russia, China and Cuba. In pure Marxist theory, agrarian states have not developed to the point where they are ready for the Communist revolution. That's why you have offshoots like Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and the like, all offshoots required to explain why economies dominated by agrarian workers should skip the whole mercantilism/capitalism stage and go straight to Communism.

My personal feeling is that Communism, like other Utopian socio-political and economic ideologies like the various strains of Anarchism and Libertarianism, are impossible to implement. Anyone attempting to will have to make so many compromises that the ideology itself becomes compromised.

That's not to say Marxism doesn't have its uses. Certainly Marx's insistence on history being seen through the lens of economics was critical to the transition of that entire branch of academia from political narratives to a more comprehensive view of the functioning and interactions of historical societies and events. But as a socio-economic and political model, it's a flop. It can't be implemented without dictatorship, and as we've seen so many times, once the dictators gain the power to effect the Communist transformation, they are so corrupted by that power that they actively kill the revolution themselves.

The CEO in question is using a government program, so he isn't the only player here.

And Microsoft's market share of mobile devices is almost as pathetic as BlackBerry's. So why would any mobile app developer even give a fuck about some porting tools?

Face it. Microsoft lost the mobile game; not once, but like three times now.

I doubt either. I'm predicting that Microsoft remains a niche player in the mobile world, as it desktop market remains stable or very slowly dwindles. Nobody writing apps for mobile app platforms gives a flying shit about Microsoft's offerings. Maybe if porting was super easy, they might give it a go, but if that's the plan, then I think we're in for more dismal Surface and Windows phone sales.

Frankly, I don't know why MS just doesn't distribute an Android layer for Windows.

Which means nothing so far as Android or iOS apps are concerned. Porting an app designed for Android or iOS would likely mean significant changes to the user interface of the app.

No shit. I don't give a flying fuck what new browser Microsoft puts on Windows 10. When I get my first copy of Windows 10, I'll install Chrome, make it the default and the odds of me ever seeing IE or its successor will largely be nil.

Except that, as Metro so clearly demonstrated, mobile apps suck on a desktop monitor.

My memory may be failing, but the IBM's license agreements only applied to Win16 and Win32s, and not to Win32, thus IBM could not place the Win32 API in OS/2, and thus developed a developer migration toolkit.

This reminds me a lot of how IBM tried to deal with 32 bit Windows compatibility. They created a set of libraries and APIs to try to facilitate the easy porting of Win32 software to OS/2. In the end, developers simply didn't bite, because IBM's desktop market share was too low to make it worth it. I see Microsoft running up against the same problem; why bother going through the effort, even with assistance, of porting mobile apps from the two dominant platforms (and by dominant I mean dominating something like 90%+ of all mobile devices)?

... which is often biased and/or twisted

Yes, another iteration of Embrace... Extend.. Extinguish.