more foot-shooting from MS

If you saw Windows Vista as I have Kats, You would be impressed. It's absolutely amazing. The platform they intend to show the world will blow the heck out of any previous Windows platform/ OSS platform. The API they allow is so useable in so many ways that it's rediculous to imagine why others would want to go back to the existing infrastructure.
They've really redefined what code is to so many degrees.
I wish, wish, I could show you what they've done..

Anyhow, to address your comment a little more specifically, they have their reasons. They want others to use their APIs to allow so much. They want others to use their stuff to really allow innovation. I wish I could tell you why, I really do. If you saw some of the stuff I've seen, you'd say "wow, that's cool". and that would be it. I mean, download Beta 2, to get a rough idea of what their APIs allow, but it doesn't really show the power of what Vista has to offer.
They basically just offered the platform, and Beta2 will use the platform. It's just so freakin' cool. That's my guess from what I've seen in dev vs. what I've seen in Beta1. As it stands, Beta1 is stable and offers a ton of functionality. You can't beat it in pure useability.

You'll see. Join us Kats...Join us :)

I should actually comment on the issue at hand...I realize that...only a month late too...
Anyhow, Slashdot is not really a "reliable news source". They take one article and slant it horribly towards being anti-MS.
That is all :)
We'll talk when we get back.

Your comment was totally relevant, even if it wasn't directly on the issue "at hand"..
But yeah, I agree that Slashdot is not a reliable news source, but it is useful in pointing me other, more reliable, news sources that have legitimate arguments against microsoft. :)
I can't wait to get this argument started again... :)

I don't like the argument that much but you have to admit it brings out some really good ideas :) I like the fact that we really can't convince one another, so we bring up all sorts of great ideas.

I've taken a more active role in reading the articles they post on /.
Typically, their referred articles are from these 2 bit columnists.
Now, That's not to say that they're all bad, but they have quite a few that are from not reputable sources.
I mean, I'm willing to bet that some of them are avid /. readers.
If that is the case (and the more I look into the authors of these articles, the more I feel it's valid), then what we have is a really stupid system where they take some facts, write an article, the /. it.

Now, if you don't believe me, take a look at a recent article comparing OpenOffice to Office XP.
What a stupid, stupid article that was. Yet it was newsworthy. Not only was it completely biased, but it didn't even make that much sense. Then the article was /.'ed and bang, it's "news"

True, a lot of it is cyclical. But most of the pro-Windows stuff I've seen has been from either (a) people working at MS, (b) studies funded by MS, or (c) people who've never tried anything other than Windows and so have no point of comparison. There's some stuff outside of these three categories which is definitely worth reading and which present solid arguments, but it's a lot harder to come by.