I agree that this is a really nice from Microsoft, but why not go for the "original", i.e. Ocaml?

hm. Does the kanji for "turtle" really come up so often? Whenever I saw the name (kame), it was usually written katakana anyway... I really wonder how many of these added kanji are of _real_ importance...

all theoretical free-market models make certain assumption: 1) The participants act rationally and 2) the cost of information is free.
If you take out these assumptions than the free-market model is theoretical on a weak basis, and, scientifically, not "better" or "worse" than fascism or communism or whatever.

Think of this: If you have two types of orange juice, one is cheaper and high on dioxins due to improper processing of the manufacturer and one is more expensive. Otherwise they are mostly the same. Is it rationally to buy the poisend one?

try to estimate cost vs. life expectancy in a function and derive the local maximum.

After all, when it comes to health we should never forget what a life is worth... in terms of hard currency.

As someone who is currently doing academic programming in Ocaml, I can only agree and stress the significance of adding F#. Microsoft is actively pushing functional programming into the industry.
Sure, I don't expect that it will reach the popularity of C# of VB.net, but coming from Ocaml, it's just fantastic:

- finally a proper IDE with code completion and just... a _real_ IDE (sorry, but emacs + tuareg-mode is no comparison)

- finally a usable debugger. The gdb-like thing deployed with ocaml is just a joke

- proper documentation. I really have to credit Microsoft here for providing excellent documentation, even encouraging or paying capable authors to write a book

And that's why it will never be the year of Linux on the desktop. Because for that, commercial applications need to be there, and with this attitude, there will never be widespread commercial applications on Linux.

but if they didn't survive my security measures, they can't sue...

So, if all his points are invalid, then why is marketshare for Linux on the desktop so insignificant?
"Microsoft is the evil" unfortunately dosn't work, as marketshare for Apple has risen in recent years - despite the fact that their software/hardware is mostly closed-source/proprietary and also not cheap.
All marketing? I don't think so. Despite what the slashdot crowds say, poor aceptance of users is not due to "don't know", it's because users are actively avoiding it.
After the horrible Vista-PR it was really a chance for Linux, this chance is gone. And why? Because if you really take a look, hands down:

- The same problems 10 years ago still plague Linux today
- A Windows 98-desktop allows for more productivity than a todays linux-desktop. (Think of CAD,2D,3D,Office,Audio/Videoproduction, Hardware compatibility) etc. etc.

So it works for you. Great.

Thing is, if it in fact would work so great for everyone, then why is Linux-on-the-desktop marketshare almost neglectible?

and btw., to pick just one thing out of many: "Enterprise: no standard way of software distribution".
I think the notion is here more like centralized software/lifecylcle management, i.e. something in the direction of Novell Zenworks. There is some work in that direction, mostly from Novell and RedHat which is no wonder as their man focus is business customers. Still though, compared to Windows...
You know that most companies for example won't switch from IE to Firefox for exact such reasons?

And if you ever had an affair, you know what the parent is talking about.

Ah, never mind, this is slashdot.

but seriously though, a nice scientific heuristic concerning conspiracy theories is that they all violate ocams razor...

And _why_ shouldn't your gf be able to go to BestBuy and get Software? Why is it so friggin' hard for ISVs to ship software for Linux? Why does the maintainer of your distro-repo pretends to serve you with all software you will ever need?

maybe a slightly defective battery? I have a X61s with the extended battery and get 4+ hours (WLAN off) or 3+ hours with wlan. And that under Linux which is known to suck more power than Windows...

My notion of Computer Science is, that you will always find published papers on the homepages of the relevant authors. Regardless, of what the publishers say. If the publishers make you require sign away your copyright you will almost always find the relevant paper either in some "draft version" or some "technical report", slightly reformulated but essentially the same.

I always thought that this is the standard also in other disciplines. What is the publication standard in other disciplines?

I am sorry, but this is not true anymore. Or rather, it depends on how you define "ahead".
Japanese cell-phones are all about the "bling".
Take my phone for example, which looks great on the feature-list: 3 MP Camera, Japanese-English dictionary, Web-browser etc. etc.
Thing is, that most of the features are so hard to use, that noone ever uses them.
The Web-browser is a joke. It works in theory, in practice it completely fails at every second web-page.
Sure, you can view i-mode pages (which is quite a big thing in Japan) but in the "western"-world everyone is interested in the "real"-web.
There is basically no function to synch the calendar/mails with the PC. No software as far as I know (docomo). Nobody synchs his cellphone with the PC, that's why.
There is no bluetooth, even among the latest models, so, how to connect to your PC, i.e. for sharing mp3/pictures etc.?
It's so hard to enter a word in the dictionary (you have to go through 4 or 5 layers of menus), that you're faster looking it up in a paper-dictionary.
Japanese people use their phone for three things: Phone, e-mail/messaging and surfing i-mode.
That's it. In 2000, that was maybe 10 years ahead. Nowadays it's a joke.
btw, you know what was the comment of my gf, when I said that I would like to have a phone with a full qwerty-keyboard, complaining that, at that time, no phone was available?
Who would've want that anyway? It's too bulky, it looks ugly!
It's all about the bling (TM). If the iPhone sells reasonable it's not because of the revolutionary way of actually being able to use the features. It sells because it from Apple and considered "cool" and "western". Brand recognition, like Starbucks.

no. Such person would us then stab in the back.