Kennedy has posted his side of the story here: http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.html "Apologize? For what? Using a pen name when dealing with an overzealous reporter? Because that't the extend of the "deception" that everyone is so excited about. The company itself exists, has real clients and is profitable. Nothing they can say will change that or other facts, like: * We have nearly 24,000 users at xpnet.com. * We collect and analyze over 230 million system metrics records and over 13 billion process metrics records every week. * We publish our findings and make all of our resources freely available to the IT industry. People want to skewer me because they don't agree with my point of view. Microsoft wants to skewer me because I hurt sales. IDG wants to skewer me to cover their asses - because, as I pointed out to ZDNet/CNet, they knew about the Craig Barth ruse all along. And they did nothing. If anyone needs to apologize, it's IDG - but not for the reasons they've stated. It was their hunger for page views that ultimately drove them to turn a blind eye. Me? I just used a pseudonym in a few email exchanges and during a a couple of phone calls. The rest is all BS and posturing, and they (IDG & ZDNet) know it. RCK"

To be fair you are over simplifying the issue. Not all theories are created equal and they become more or less equal as time goes on and they gain more or less support in the form of evidence. I think we'll all have to agree that there is much more support for the theory of gravitational attraction than the big bang theory.

Base on the EX-Manager of R&D's reply they seemed to take the approach that in order for something to be user friendly, security has to be compromised.

This raises one question to me. Does making something user friendly have to compromise security?

I think it does not. I think that it requires an great detail of planning and development that most companies are too profit hungry to forgo.