This kind of grandiose and untrue statement just makes "Linux People" look weird and niche. Linux achieved a lot and will still achieve a lot more in the future, but there is no way Linux has beaten MS - not for end users, not in enterprises and not in mindshare. The (unfortunate) reality outside of ./ is that few people know Linux and everybody knows Microsoft - and most of these people actually USE Microsoft products. And again, why should we really care about this? The market is much more competitive than it was years ago. There are other huge companies growing and possibly displacing Microsoft, like Google and Apple. While MS is still a formidable company and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, what about Apple products (a more valuable company than MS in market cap and as commercial and proprietary as they come)? Does Linux should try to beat that too? No, I say, Linux should strive to be the best it can be, focus on users and stop worrying about some nonsense ideological battle against big companies that provide useful products that many people actually love.

Nobody? RTFA! This post is exactly about how Google is beginning to restrict software freedom.

Do they have a point? Google's point is no different than Microsoft's, Oracle's, Apple's etc point when they want to protect their technologies to maximize profit. I don't think profit maximization is evil, but let's be clear here: if any other, older company was doing the same, bullets would fly from people screaming that company X, Y and Z are against software freedom. I think Google is doing the right thing for its shareholders, but the goal was NEVER software freedom: google is a profit making being. Adopting free software was part of the profit making strategy, and making the platform more closed now that it enjoys a substantial market share is just the obvious consequence of that.

Yeah, this is a good point. It always seemed to me that twitter got popular becuase people wanted to be startlets and be followed by the mob. Not that everybody who uses twitter wants that, but I think the possibility of being a star appeals to lots of people. I think there are other services that are probably better if all you want is to be followed by close friends.

In the past, MS was constantly harassed by competitors and governments, which added significantly to its cost in maintaining things like Windows versions without Windows Media Player and search engine choice dialogs. If competitors are doing things that are similar to what MS did in the past and got punished for, why wouldn't MS want to make sure they got punished too? Isn't it fair that if MS is subject to these costs, its competitors get also hit by then? Ultimately, it would be great if governments didn't micromanage the technology market and innovative companies like Google, Apple and Microsoft were allowed to create products that satisfy their customers without congressional hearings. But it isn't fair if only MS pays while everybody else does whatever they want.

Twitter was originally conceived as a way for everyone to voice their thoughts and provide visibility to others into their lives. After this, my only conclusion is that NO, technology by itself won't make everybody famous and followed. Things happen in the twitterverse just as they happen in the real world, that is, most people disappear in their irrelevance while a few get followed and admired by everybody. Sad but true, you're lucky if you even get your 15 minutes of fame...

Let me be the contrarian here on Slashdot: Congratulations Microsoft! It's great to see that MS is keeping the competitors honest by improving battery power among the other huge improvements they added to IE9. FF4 and C10 are great browsers, and I used Chrome for the past 2 years until I decided to switch to IE9. I'm not looking back...