ComputerWorld reporter Gregg Keizer last week quoted a company source as boasting, “Outside of Microsoft, I don't think anyone knows more about Windows performance than us.”. ..
  ComputerWorld reporter Gregg Keizer has frequently been first on the scene with details when DMS has released a new study. We found at least a dozen stories under his by-line at ComputerWorld based on reports from XPNet, many including quotes from DMS Chief Technology Officer Barth. As we note later in this report, our reporting strongly suggests that “Craig Barth” does not exist and is in fact a pseudonym for InfoWorld contributing editor Kennedy since the late 1990s

The advantage of Open Source is that you or anyone else can fix the software if/when security problems are found, whether in the OS, core libraries, network stack, or any Open Source applications. We are not dependent on the original developers to make any such fixes. I have done this a couple times in the past by fixing security issues in open source code before the developer fixes were available (I could have waited a day and got the developer fixes).

"At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important." ..
"To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors." ...
"To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. There are different tactical approaches — razor companies make the razor cheap and the blades expensive, while the old IBM made the mainframes expensive and the software ... expensive too. Either way, a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don't have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won't." ...
"In other words, Google's future depends on the Internet staying an open system, and our advocacy of open will grow the web for everyone - including Google."

Isn't Microsoft still buying the xbox market (by selling at a loss)?

The only news here is how desperate some people are to show that OSX is vulnerable to malware - even when the malware never is installed on the system...

WSJ: Apple Moves Closer to Making TV Set [wsj.com]
New York Times: What’s Really Next for Apple in Television [nytimes.com]
Business Insider: Apple Could Announce New TV This December, Says Top Apple Analyst [businessinsider.com]

And my broken watch is right twice a day. Doesn't change the fact that it is still broken.

The most likely explanation based on the facts we know is the following:

Re-org is imminent, and Mattrick left due to reason X. Ballmer takes over for now because the reorg is already imminent and he doesn't want to reveal it yet since it will all come out in a few days. So he tells the Xbox team, report to me and concentrate on getting ready for the Xbox holiday release and hopes to avoid people getting complacent over their work on Xbox One, even if for a few days. All this could be true regardless of reason X. You're getting needlessly caught up with reason X which has nothing to do with whether Ballmer will lead the Xbox One release into the holiday season. There might not be an Xbox division even, there's rumors of a new hardware division which includes Surface.

Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular. ...
If there is going to be a re-org in a "few days" , there will be new bosses for all parts of MS anyways. And if there is a new boss in a few days, there won't be speculation for the holidays, will there? That makes no sense.