I'm a long time Linux desktop user. I watched all the different desktop environments evolve over the past 15 years and KDE has become far and above the best with Mint Linux's GNOME based MATE and Cinnamon a solid 2nd place. Lightweight desktops still are viable alternatives too but I wouldn't put desktops like XFCE, LXDE or Enlightenment in the same class as KDE, GNOME 3 Shell, MATE/Cinnamon and Unity. Not because the lightweight desktops are inferior but because they serve a different purposed and to that end, serve it really well. Overall KDE is well polished, simple and intuitive enough for beginners but doesn't get in the way of power users. If you haven't tried the latest versions of KDE I would recommend you do. You might be presently surprised.

Thanks Captain Obvious...nice to see you finally have a relevant opinion.

Sorry, I'm throwing the bullshit card on this one.

That's kind of my point, even though Apple has a mainstream OS based on BSD, BSD itself hasn't seen the same growth, especially compared to Linux. From what I've read from some BSD advocates and some messages on FreeBSD mailing lists it seems (and correct me if I'm wrong) that most of the advances to BSD that came from Apple weren't from Apple committing code to BSD distributions but from the BSD community pulling what it could from Apple's available code. Not considering that most of the key libraries that make OSX possible are proprietary. I just don't think Apple "gets it" when it comes to open-source. In my opinion, if Apple was truly committed to open-source, BSD would be right up there with Linux. Apple's iOS is based on OSX's Mach-BSD kernel but you really don't see any other devices running BSD, while Linux is everywhere. It just seems the real BSD community has to languish in Apple's shadow rather than getting the support that the Linux community enjoys. And your point about CUPS is somewhat of a double-edged sword, by buying the rights and moving to a BSD style license they can use what they want without the requirement to contribute back their changes. I just feel when it comes to Apple they see "open-source" as just another resource and their support of it is metered out in a methodical way to help themselves. IBM's investment into Linux was for it's own benefit, I won't deny that, but they recognized the long term benefits of having the contributions of the Linux community in return and it paid off in the end. Before, they were in a shrinking *NIX market with heavy competition from Microsoft pushing into the server market. IBM's AIX had stiff competition from Sun, Digital, SCO and HP with Microsoft making heavy inroads into the enterprise. IBM realized the power of open-source while Sun (albeit too late in the OS market), Digital, SCO and HP didn't, and look who succeeded? Solaris, Digital Unix, SCO and HP/UX all heavily utilized GNU/BSD software on their systems, but didn't contribute much back, so outside developers didn't support them. Apple is in the same situation. How committed is the open-source community to Apple? Not very. Mac's and OSX are the least profitable part of Apple's business now with most of their revenue coming form iPhones, iPads and iPods, which are quickly being pushed out of the market by Linux devices. I just think if Apple was a better player in the open-source community, aside from doing the right thing, would be more successful. Apple's inherently closed culture is, and has always been, it's roadblock to success.

I don't deny that when a company like IBM contributions to open-source it's out of a sense of pure altruism, even IBM now says it's recouped it's investment into Linux, but no one can deny the impact it had on the Linux community and when IBM did make that commitment, it was a huge risk on their part. Apple is in the same position to contribute to the BSD community but just doesn't. When you consider just how much Apple has taken from open-source, I just find what they actually return to be questionable. Apple's closed culture is what almost killed the company in the first place and when they opened up with OS X it saved them, but now I just see them starting to make the same mistakes that almost made them fail in the MacOS 8/9 days. Although I'm primarily a Linux user, I've always liked BSD (the first open-source OS I ever ran was the M68k port of NetBSD on, ironically, an old Mac IIci) and with Apple being the biggest user of BSD's technology, I just think it's ashamed Apple hasn't done more for the BSD community. I really think it's just comes down to potential competition. If Apple contributes key technologies back into the open-source community, then there's the possibility of people creating competing technologies to Apple's own, potentially using Apple own contributions, but by taking what it can and keeping it's few open-source projects on a short leash, Apple attempts to play both sides of the field to it's own benefit.

OMG OED, WTF? LOLZ! STFU & GTFO...YDTM (Your Dead To Me, while were just adding crap to the dictionary, why not just make up some new stuff to add)

Apple only "contributes" when it's beneficial to them. Webkit is GPL licensed because they forked it from Konqueror's KHTML rendering engine and were stuck with a GPL licensed code base. Apple abandoned GCC because GCC is GPL licensed and LLVM uses a more permissive BSD style license and the only reason they even sponsored Clang was to get Objective-C support in LLVM for their own benefit. Why do you think they're so fond of BSD licensed open-source software? The BSD license allows Apple to incorporate open-source code back into their proprietary products without the requirement of contributing their code back to the community. When you compare Apple's contributions to open-source software to other major corporations that use open-source software, like IBM, Red Hat and Google, Apple's contributions are mediocre at best. IBM invested over a billion dollars into Linux, but I don't see Steve Jobs writing any checks to FreeBSD.

Exactly, just to be sure I went and read GPLv3 license agreement and it clearly states you can use GPLv3 licensed software, both source and in object code, commercially. Unless Apple is making changes to Samba and refusing to make those changes available, then Apple's claim that it can't use Samba commercially under the GPLv3 license is patently false. It's ironic that open source software saved Apple when it developed OS X but doesn't bother to contribute anything back to the community.

From the GPLv3:

"4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.
A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work.

A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, “normally used” refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.

Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying."

...but now I can't get the string back into the tin can.

So your saying that Flickr is completely free of any and all content that doesn't violate copyright or it's own policies? According to Flickr's Wikipedia entry, "In September 2010, it (sic Flickr) reported that it was hosting more than 5 billion images." Over 5 billion images and not a single violation of copyright or Flickr's policies? Let's say Flickr had 100 employees verifying images for policy violations 40 hours per week at a rate of 100 images per minute, which of course is a gross exaggeration. It would take a little over 17 years to go through 5 billion images, but somehow the images in question were singled out and deleted almost immediately. Now either Flickr has one hell of a crack staff monitoring those policy violations or the images were censored. Censorship "Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Flickr is just a business, like any other. Profitability is it's motivation...nothing more, nothing less. Freedom, morality or social responsibility are meaningless to a company like Flickr. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo or Facebook are no different. Corporate censorship is a policy, not an exception. Flickr is full of images that are not "of the users own work" or contain copyrighted content, but the photos of the Mubarak regime's torture of it's citizens is singled out and deleted immediately. Why? Political controversy is unprofitable, but violating copyright laws, when it can, is profitable. Even though Flickr would have been protected under the DMCA act's "safe harbor" provisions, which is how it gets away with it's current copyright violations, the company chose to remove the images even before a complaint was lodged. What Flickr did was deplorable from a human rights standpoint, but business as usual from a corporate standpoint. You shouldn't be shocked or surprised by Flickr's response. If you were, your faith was misguided. This is the reality of the world now. Now that corporations control the vast majority of communication on the Internet, come to expect censorship as the norm. People used to say the revolution will not be televised, but in today's age, it won't be posted, emailed, blogged or tweeted. Welcome to the 21st century.