I agree with you here - they are trying to remain relevant by become an ecosystem, not a device vendor. If they can build a strong enough enterprise solution that runs on a number of devices, besides their own, they can offer companies a total solution w/o locking them in to a specific brand of hardware; and offer a total package for companies that want one standard device. I doubt they can stay viable as a hardware unique solution simply because that mens tehy must innovate in hardware as well as software, and they've had a hard time doing that.

The ultimate question is 'good enough" enough to overcome their advantages of scope and size in the enterprise market? Personally, I think they will rollout this new model, do reasonably well, and get bought either by MS or a big enterprise software company. I doubt Apple would buy them because it would mean redoing teh software to match Apple's POV and it would simply be easier to partner and build BES support and security services into their existing iOS.

No, I am saying it would be a valid comparison between OSS and proprietary code if programs that perform the same function were tested in each category. OSS quality has no impact on proprietary quality, and vice versa; but if you compare OSS and proprietary web browsers tehn it would be a reasonable comparison of teh quality of each vs the other.

The problem is you are assuming they all have a normal distribution. While that may be true for a large data set (in fact the central limit theorem would say so); we don't know what the distribution is for individual categories. While we don't know what exactly made the data set we do know teh results for various sizes of code. It seems a reasonable assumption that similar types of programs would have similar size code bases so you don't have really good small proprietary programs skewing results for really large ones or vice versa; and similarly for OSS code.

Not really; especially a the high end where there are relatively few products in each category. There aren't that many commercial choices in many of the categories; and also relatively few OSS as well. As a result it is less likely all the bad ones got left out, if they were you wouldn't have much of a data set. So, assuming they had similar software in each category the comparison drawn would be valid. Could we say any one program is equal to another? No, but we could say that for large programs OSS software is as bug free as proprietary; and vice versa.

I am not saying there is no bias and without seeing specifically what comprised the test data we don't know what and how big any bias is. I take issue with comments that the results are invalid because people assume all OSS was tested but proprietary was cherry picked. They don't like the results so the immediate reaction is to claim they are false. My contention is it is a reasonable comparison, especially for large programs, because the number of different programs that perform similar functions, in that category is small enough that if both data sets are reasonably large any selection bias is likely to have a small impact on the final numbers. I think for other size code base, if they have a similar mix of functionality, it would be reasonable as well though there may be more variability in results if you changed the actual programs tested. In the end, that is why I think you really need a list of what is in the results to reach a more definitive conclusion.

Let's accept the premise that proprietary vendors only submitted what they considered their best code. If the code bases tested matched similar function OSS codebases, then it is a valid comparison of similar types of software. It would say that OSS and proprietary software; of similar functionality, has similar defect rates (for certain size code bases). As with any study, the results should be taken with a grain of salt until you see the underlying methodology and data. That, of course, will not stop people form trumpeting the results as proof *their* OSS project is as good as proprietary in terms of errors, even though such a conclusion is not valid; but it does give people some assurance that OSS code, in general, is as reasonably good as its proprietary equivalent. It would be interesting to see exactly what was included in each data sets and such information would help shed light on the conclusions. In addition, depending on what OSS software was included, you could make a case that much shoddy OSS software was left out depending on what was included in the sample; which is why I conclude that as long as similar types of programs were tested it is a valid comparison.

I doubt they ran it against all open source software; just some subset that ideally mirrored the proprietary code in complexity and application. If so it would be a reasonable comparison. Since TFA says they used some 300 OSS programs of various sizes I'd say it was a reasonable approximation of real world defect rates. Since the TFA doesn't name any proprietary products included in the survey it is harder to decide if they are valid results but I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt.

An industry standard has nothing to do with actual practice. It is not an average. All it says is it is an acceptable error rate is x.

No, they're simply saying this doesn't meet my needs so I picked a different solution. They don't care about FOSS, they want a solution that works well for them. If FOSS is truly to go mainstream it needs to move beyond the "if you want it code it yourself" mentality. That's fine for hobbyist pursuits, but won't lead to broader success.

Guess what? They'll give it college students for free, or real cheap and then when they pull the plug after 4 years they have a new paying user. Piracy, who needs it when you can hook them and then withdraw the drug until they pay?

but how fast can you reach stratospheric levels. They want to be at the bottom of a very step revenue (and profit) curve so the can quickly make many time stehir investment.

True, but fair use, in US Law, is defines as a non-infringing use; which makes it an affirmative defense against a claim of copyright infringement. The right to control certain types of uses is not granted copyright owners so fair use is not a case of "you infringed but that is ok;" because teh law says anyone can use your material for these purposes and not violate your copyright.

True, but fair use does not require any use not make money for the person claiming fair use; for example you can use a clip in a critique of the that is published in a for profit magazine.

Actually, that is what it would take - or perhaps Von Danikin's idea of ancient astronauts? There's enough pseudo - science in there to qualify under teh "bones in teh dust" standard for opening eyes to alternate ideas. Of course, the law would be repealed immediately.

Except of course, one economic explanation why men tend to get paid more is they do not take maternity leave so they work more; the problem is pay scales are based on the group view of work rather than individual. If Yahoo gives one more than another salary ranges should be comparable as well. If they already are than I would say men may have a discrimination case.

Unfortunately, in a mad rush to show "we are serious about ..." school boards and administrators pass zero tolerance policies. As a result the stupid as well as they criminal get punished equally. Schools cannot apply common sense, as much as they may want to, because of the rules. Everyone gets all bothered by draconian punishment for a minor infraction but are unwilling to change rules because they don't want to be held accountable for making a decision that someone will second guess. That is not limited to schools, many lawmakers seem to share the same viewpoint (and then get all upset when something h clearly ridiculous happens as a result of a zero tolerence law THEY PASSED.)

Then you don't get access to their network with your device. I have a client that requires I allow remote wipe in exchange for Exchange Server access. For me, the ability to get emails anywhere anytime outweighs any concerns I have about giving them access.

Another issue, however, is labor and other law. What happens if you require employees to allow access and then expect them to work after hours? Are they entitled to overtime? Are you liable if they have an accident while answering an email? What happens if proprietary or private data gets leaked before you wipe? Who gets fined? While I can see the advantges of having one phone and getting reimbursed for its use, a company needs to look past the cost savings and assess the risk, financial and otherwise, before making this leap. While they may have gigabytes of procedures they put the onus on the employee in an attempt to avoid liability, they generally are the deep pockets with the most to lose.

Next time don't forget to add a Bitcoin clause