people lined up at your doorstep throwing wads of $50's at your head for that exact same program - even though you haven't written a single line of code since - you're going to say "No, no, folks - keep your money! I shouldn't expect to keep getting money for something that's two years old!

That is the "finite virtue fallacy". It supposes that a person with even a minor mortal failing has no right to comment on what is good or bad.

Simply because someone profits from an existing system does not prohibit him from arguing against the same system. For example, the CEO of Amazon.com believes that software patents are wrong, but as long as they remain legal, his corporate duty is to continue profiting from them. It might be nice if everyone could afford to sacrifice themselves for their principles, but it's unreasonable to demand that as a baseline.

Autodesk acquires Alias?

Imagine for a moment, what would happen if Adobe decided to take over Macromedia. It's a silly, far-fetched idea.

Wha? Oh, nevermind.

A couple of points (brief only because it's late): 1. I think the power of HLA is pre-execution of the simulation run, i.e. - allowing for ontological negotation of model creation and integration. Just as SRI uses XML to pre-load the configuration of their tactical and logistical simulations, but relies on DIS during gameplay, HLA will allow disparate simulation and model types to work together - however imperfectly. 2. I know about SRI and LVC simulations because I'm reviewing their JTEP effort for LinuxWorld (along with Damage Studios and Butterfly.net). Keep in mind that they are letting the constructive (JCATS) sim drive most of the game. The live and virtual elements drive around and react to the JCATS rules. Now - I know what you're thinking - how can the "real" entities tie into the constructive part? Well, because they're cheating - they actually "see", fight and react with simulated and constructed enemies and friendlies through special HUDs. Again, not necessarily rocket science, but according to John Shockley they're the first to do all three - at any scale. 3. While Linux is marginally successful, it is also new in the M&S world. I agree with your contention that cost is the primary driver (hence SOUTHCOM buying Dell's with Red Hat for their simulation center as opposed to SPARCs) for pushing Linux into this sphere. But I also have in my memory (without some ready references) that in the 99-01 time frame that M&S vendors started talking about really communicating their state data so that they could win joint contracts - part of the cost/benefit trend that drives the Open Source model (but that can exist without it). I have also seen more and more IMPLEMENTATIONS of these protocols being done in Open Source software. What the cause and effect (if any) between these two is something I'm still investigation. I would really appreciate a chance to throw my slides your way for a further reality check (and discussion) before I get pelted by tomatoes Tuesday ;) My email is cam@augmos.com - look forward to hearing from you... Cam