It matters. Is Microsoft embracing open source because of a change in philosophy, having committed to the principles of open source? I would assert that only a fool would believe that. So we're left with them embracing open source because deep in Redmond's bowels, they turned the crank on some Excel ROI formula, and determined that "embracing" open source gives them the greatest potential for the greatest profit ... for now.

Should this worry us? I think it should ... because that crank, they keep on a'turnin' it ... and as soon as it spits out the opposite answer, out come the knives behind open source's back, and stab stab stab ...

I hear it's gettin' cold down there ...

To compensate for the low specs. Though, to be honest, 1GB RAM and any of the recent quad MetiaTek 1.3GHz processors, it won't be too bad - as long as the other components don't bottleneck it.

Agree completely with your comment that the decision wasn't based on cost - because they were deciding based on a study. The projections in that study indicated staying with Microsoft would be cheaper. But also important to note that that's not how it played out in the end - in addition to the expected benefits of re-investing in the local economy and establishing autonomous control, they also saved money.

Your description of the GPLv666 with a "Demonic Possession" section sounds very worthy of a Charles Stross novel, in every respect. Kudos!

Understood about Debian, but the children have wandered. From the Ubuntu wiki:

In fact, on one of my Ubuntu 13.10 systems I ran ldd on /usr/bin/* and /bin/*, and found many many binaries that link in GnuTLS.

What changes do you see becoming important or necessary in the GPL, if any? What future evolution of the GPL do you anticipate occurring, beyond v3?

There's nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing this effort, and in fact offering this AOSP-based operating system to other OEMs, for their use. They can even sweeten the deal by negotiating in that no fee for (purported) patent violations will be included. That would be an interesting strategy - they could still focus on WP for mid-to-high end devices, while attempting to ride Android's app popularity into the developing markets. And if they added the ability to run Android apps into WP, then there'd be increased incentive for app makers to port their apps into their own walled-garden market. Hmm ...

Just an observation, with the introduction of AOSP-based phones that don't license the Google Mobile Services, Nokia is now no longer able to license GMS, e.g., if they wanted to make a Android-trademarked phone. That is, without ceasing production of these devices.

... if the linked-to article actually said that anyone paid Google. It doesn't - there's no licensing fee for the Google Mobile Services (GMS), it's all just testing, submitting devices, and coordinating with Google.

This is Google's way of maintaining a more cohesive ecosystem, ensuring that any Android device will have a shot at running any Android app (as well as ensuring enough momentum to fund their [huge] investment in the cloud services involved)..

The real answer is they wanted to support the Microsoft ecosystem, not Google's. Good luck with that - you ain't as big as Amazon, Nokia.

If someone had suggested they could release an interface even more playskool, offputting and uglier than WP's tiles, I would have told them they were simply crazy. Alas, I was wrong.

Buried in the Reddit thread, pwnies says

He must have multiple personality disorder. That comment makes so much sense ... and yet his actual Reddit post is so absent of logic ...

So, the argument is that there's no clean way to accommodate casual user and power user workflows on the same desktop? Wait, tell that to my cairo dock and GNOME Do running on the XFCE desktop that my wife also uses (and believe me, if ever there was a wider chasm between power and casual user within one marriage, it would have likely triggered the implosion of the universe).

I think the reality this totally-free-to-say-what-he-wants MS employee is not mentioning is that MS has company-strategic user-hostile motives for Metro ... namely, to claw their way into a 30% cut on apps. Mark these words - very soon, MS will introduce a way for desktop, non-Metro apps to be distributed via the app store, downloaded from a Metro interface. I wouldn't even be surprised if they offer a way to configure it as "mandatory", the only way to install desktop apps (for the protection of users, natch). Then the underlying purpose for the otherwise-ridiculous inclusion of Metro on Server 2012 will become clear.

I don't know what data centers you spend time in, but 99% of the Windows servers I encounter in data centers (maybe more) are explicitly NOT headless. And with the MS certification programs for admins emphasizing the "GUI way" of doing things way too much, there's no reason to expect that to change with Windows Server 2012 adoption.

In fact, if you accept Azure as the best reference profile for Windows servers, I'm not even sure there's a way to get a headless Windows server on Azure (try searching "site:windowsazure.com headless" if you don't believe me).

What Desler said ... and also, you should define what you mean by "not 'Android compatible' but 100% Android" ... if the average user heard "100% Android", they would likely assume that the Play Store and all of Google's proprietary apps are on-board; and the Nokia offering is certainly based solely on the AOSP, the open source core of Android, without the Google services. Witness how the average consumer doesn't associate the Kindle Fire with Android, per se. The Nokia (soon to be MicroKia) offering would be of the same ilk. (Unless MS chose to join the Open Handset Alliance, and commit to a true Android phone - uh, yeah, snowball, meety fiery inferno)