Whenever Canonical releases a new version of Ubuntu, I'm always game to take it for a test drive. I use an EeePC 1005HA netbook and a VirtualBox VM (Windows 7 x64 host) to do my testing. For the last three versions (10.10, 11.04, and 11.10) I've had issues with the netbook overheating and shutting down the hardware. Additionally, the sleep/hibernation functionality never seems to work just right. Sometimes, when I close the netbook, it won't go to sleep at all and the LCD screen will stay turned on. Other times, the netbook will sleep peacefully, but won't boot back up when I open the lid (as set in my preferences) or hit the power button. I have to remove the battery and do a hard boot. As for the VM, Ubuntu runs incredibly slow even with the guest additions installed. I have to sometimes triple click on single click buttons to select something, and Gnome likes to generate random error messages. On the flip side, I can run Windows 7 x32, Windows 7 x64, and even Windows XP x32 on the netbook, and won't have any of the issues I see with Ubuntu. The same goes for using the three Windows variants mentioned above in the VM. Yes, less power consumption is a great thing, and yes it's awesome that interface tweaks are happening to make it prettier, but until stability issues with fairly common chip-sets are resolved, I won't be using Ubuntu on a daily basis. However, Linux Mint, which is based on the most current stable release of Ubuntu seems to take all of Ubuntu's shortcomings and clean them up. Mint just seems... tighter. Everything flows better, and I don't see the glitches that I normally see in Ubuntu.

First you have to target your subset of computers and/or users, write the deployment (could be anything from ten minutes to several hours), test your deployment with several various scenarios in a VM environment, and have your setup peer reviewed. Following that you must write a MOP (Method of Procedure), have THAT peer reviewed, file a change control request and wait for the request to be approved by several folks (up to the VP level at my former company). Next, you would have to wait for the change control conference call (twice per week) and have the final approval done by change control. Finally, you would then schedule the change for the next available change window (twice per week) and implement the change. All of that can take at least a week, easily. It has nothing to do with an infrastructure that isn't modern (Windows Server 2008 R2, Microsoft SCCM 2007), but more to do with making sure testing is up to snuff, your change is done the best way possible, and that everyone and their brother knows it's coming.

I worked for a large corporation on a team that deployed software to ~50,000 desktops and ~10,000 servers. Whenever we wanted to deploy a new software package (Via Microsoft SCCM or Group Policies) it was a huge undertaking, even for the simpler applications. At minimum, it takes at least a month to develop a plan for and deploy an application, and that was just on our end. If it was something that involved websites, and/or browser plugins (Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, etc) then it would take even longer because testing would have to be done on every internal web based application. That alone took several months and a dedicated project team. Once the software change was ready for deployment, it took a week to develop the scripting and deployment policies. After that, it was deployed to a pilot group for two weeks, and then a test group for a week. After that, it could be put into production. However, if there was the slightest hitch along the way, it could set us back several weeks. Enterprises move VERY slowly on their software deployments. If Mozilla is interested at all in keeping Firefox in the enterprise world, they're going to have to slow down, or at least release an "Enterprise" version so that deployment teams can keep up. Six week release cycles are just going to cause folks like me, who manage software deployments, to stop deploying it at all.

I've been wearing glasses since I was in the third grade and don't really see a need for this product. Not everything needs to be digitally enhanced. Additionally, once nuclear armegeddon strikes, I don't want my vision to be impacted. I'm going to have to be able to see those zombies.

If only I were 18 again. I would love to participate in this.

They probably are, however, I doubt it's as invasive as we think it is. The amount of staff that would be needed to sift through the volumes of data collected by traffic monitoring is massive. They probably look for certain keywords or phrases and follow the patterns of "hits" generated by those phrases to see what kinds of things are trending. Sort of like listening to radio chatter. Does it suck? Yes. Is there anything we can reasonably do about it? No. Does it bother me? Yes. Am I going to stop using the Internet? Fat chance.

To be fair, T-Mobile USA and T-Mobile UK operate as separate companies. Just because T-Mobile UK does something doesn't mean that T-Mobile USA will be following suit.