Really, the story here is the following: 1. Google Docs sucks 2. There is nothing in Word that makes it peculiar compared to other traditional offline editors 3. The guy uses Libreoffice. So: How's Word really winning here?

I was a huge believer in Ubuntu and Shuttleworth. I always thought that the combination of free software and a unified vision from a benevolent dictator would do to ubuntu what Linus has done to Linux. Unfortunately Shuttleworth is no Torvalds. In the last few years, Ubuntu chase so many different directions not based on real innovation but on going after what other companies have done already. It was the Desktop (after Windows and OSX; remember when Unity was promised to be better than OS X? Well many are still waiting). It was Ubuntu on the netbooks, the revolution that never happened. It was Ubuntu TV, and we know how far that went. It is now Ubuntu for phones. The fact of the matter is, the vision might even be acceptable, but then if that it is, the development method should follow. Unity is a pretty recent creature, they could have designed with mobile in mind since the beginning. Instead, no, we will have lots of breakage, inconsistency, while the current version of Unity will most likely starve for the lack of polish that it has been in the needs for so long. I lost any confidence on the relevance of Ubuntu, simply because, as long as they keep chasing the market leaders, and changing goals, the half-baked product will never make it. To me this is, a failure on Mr. Shuttleworth himself.

I'll ask again. What is the MOST profitable (by large) of all MS enterprises? XBox, peripherals, etc don't produce nearly close enough revenue to the software division.

What is the profit of their hardware business compared to the software one? The former is pretty much an experiment. The latter is their essential bread and butter which is essential for their survival. Please name one of the hardware units within MS that were widely successful from a revenue POW. None. MS is a software company regardless of the petty projects they might have in the works.

What's the point? Google can "translate" their online Office utils into an app, just like they did with the Gmail app (and maps, etc). It doesn't make any sense to have an application designed for PC into mobile, like Libreoffice/Openoffice. Mobile apps need to be designed as mobile apps since the beginning. Otherwise we are back to Windows CE all over again.

Nobody can say how much at this time. However it must be priced competitively with iWorks. In fact if they might have a killer app if they sell it for 30$ for consumers and 50$ for businesses. You would have a way to tap in no time the existing and extensive iPad/iPhone userbase, connecting with the existing MS infrastructure. Heck, they wouldn't even need to distribute it: the App store would do it for them (although Apple would get a cut of the profit).

You are comparing apples with oranges. Apple doesn't sell FaceTime or iMessage, it sells iThings or Macs. MS sells software. Now unless they are going to bet the future or their mobile presence on RT alone, neglecting 80% of the market share is certainly a possibility, but, again, not a one that makes any business sense. If you go by the same rationale, MS should have never made Office for Mac, but it does. Google, for instance has its own stake in the mobile market (and a much more significant one than MS), but it recognizes that just neglecting Apple's is simply not an option. That is why you see Chrome, Gmail, YouTube and (soon) maps for iOS. Great products that are only apparently in contradiction with Google's mobile strategy. At the end if you sell services (like Google), or software (like MS) you want the largest user base as possible. Hiding your hand under the sand may give you great confidence that your mobile product will have an edge, but that might never translate into a sizable share of the market.

Maybe. But again: consider the current user base of iPads (and iThings in general). It would be quite idiotic to neglect those users of the benefits of Office to push their own platform, which has a 0.something market share. A full featured Office for iOS would allow MS to make millions and to keep those iThings aligned and connected with the rest of the MS infrastructure.

Gates was a undergrad (drop-out) at Harvard, not MIT.

I completely agree with you. Education is not just taking classes (online or not). It's about interacting with peers, it's about discussion, it's about interaction and inquiry. It's about giving the student the ability and possibility to learn in a real research environment, to face criticism to your idea or project (rather than for what you should know about your coursework). In other words, it gives you the ability to actively grow rather than absorbing possibilities. And let's not forget the networking that comes by going to a real school. These days you will only find a job with a proper networking and I still have to see how you can build it with online classes. It's not just a mean to the end, but networking is the manifestation of your ability to show your value.

Although it's statistically meaningless to perform even the most basic mathematical analysis with data from different times (MS Office statistics are from 2010, LO are from last year, etc), let's do the math. If Libreoffice claims 25 millions and OO.org 100 million, the math says Libreoffice user base is 25% that of OO.org, hardly the round-off error claimed by parent and about twice the percentage that OO.org is compared to MS Office. In any case, we are not comparing either one with MS Office, but LO and OO.org alone. Also keep in mind that LO started only at the beginning of 2011. Arriving at 25 % of OO, with no name recognition in less than a year is no small feat.

"the question is not how this compares to LibreOffice. That is a non-question considering that their market share is a round-off error. "

I am sure you have actual evidence to back your statement. Libreoffice is the de facto standard office suite in any linux distro. Besides, the fast pace and the publicity coverage it received (correctly so, I should say), compared to OO.org, made it a much more known product that you think it is (The Document Foundation in September 2011 claimed an installed based of about 25 million users).

Correct me if I am wrong, but this has more to do with the commands than with the flight-by-wire per se. Boeing has in some planes flight-by-wire, but by design they retain the yokes (rather than joysticks) that work simultaneously. I think they retain it just for this reason. So if something is to blame is the way commands are designed in the "front-end". The "hardware "back-end" works just fine.

This is a common misconception and oversimplification that does more damage than good. due to the way 10% of the water used for a fracking job is recovered (itself a huge environmental issue, but I digress). The remaining 90% stays within the rock adsorbed by the finely porous material that make up the gas shale, due to the thermodynamic conditions of gas/water - organic interface. Even with the best effort that water won't come up to the surface. This water will stay there at 3K km underground, way below the ground water reservoir. The real problem is in the cementification of the well. Due to lack of regulations, this is a huge problem in that the leakage takes place within the cement itself (or lack thereof). 2-5% of wells fail, not as a consequence of fracking but on the way the cement job is done. Try to think to what would mean if 2-5% of bridges would fail. I am not defending the procedure necessarily, but continuing to spread generic and essentially wrong reason for why we should worry that is the problem. BTW, this has been highlighted in a variety of studies, from academia (MIT in particular for the department of Energy) and environmental agencies that actually perform real science. Fracking isn't going away and by barking at the wrong tree we are not going to solve the significant issues revolving into the extraction of natural gas. identification of the real causes and establishment of proper regulation is where the action should be. Luckily that is exactly where the government is acting.

The crisis is NOT in Government-Funded Science, but eventually in funding extremely large projects. Funding small (intended in terms of size) basic research is a flexible and effective way to move forward an idea into something that can become a product. It proved essential for the development of high tech companies and to spur innovation in general. When the government either takes the job of venture capital (in funding R&D) or takes on multinational resaerch projects, it will end up not performing as expected. With this in mind, I am glad NSF budget has risen in recent years (despite the economic situation). It's the way to go.