Post author Stephane Rodriguez links to a couple of Microsoft-provided definitions of Custom XML.
The first, from Office Program Manager Brian Jones, dates back to 2005:
?Custom XML is the support for custom defined schemas. It?s that support that allows you truly integrate your documents with business processes and business data. You can define your data using XML Schema syntax, and then you can use that data in your Office documents. By opening up our formats with our reference schemas, and supporting your custom defined schemas, you get true interoperability of your documents.?
I did some more searching. I found a 2008 retort to Rodriguez?s post that also attempts to define Custom XML. From .Net evangelist Wouter van Vugt:
Custom XML markup ?is about embedding custom XML defined outside of Open XML to support solution which aim to structure a document using business semantics, not only using formatting. A great advance since you want to get to the data, and not by saying that the customer name is the 3rd paragraph. The issue is that you cannot just allow any arbitrary XML to be stored in the WordprocessingML package. This would become application specific, and it would break validation since all XML is valid. Not a great idea.?
Yea this is how the software engineers that I work with talk. I have no fucking clue what they are saying!
Still, if MS were to go out of business, there is no guarantee Apple would be the "successor" to rule the computing world. Not to say it wouldn't change but Apple's current business model sets them up in a niche market. To broaden the brand, they'd likely have to open up OSX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zep
you didnt read what he was referencing.
he was referencing the fact if microsoft closed its doors there was an implication that the next successor would be apple to gain the majority market share.
Still, if MS were to go out of business, there is no guarantee Apple would be the "successor" to rule the computing world.
In my opinion, Linux is becoming more relevant every day and could soon give Microsoft some competition in the OS area, especially on the lower end of the market.
Apple isn't really threatened by Linux because the OS is only part of what makes Macs so appealing. Besides, OS X is in no danger of being upstaged by Linux in terms of out-of-the-box features, support, and refinement.
..and you're left with Apple being an expensive monopoly.
Not only that, but you have to buy their limited product line hardware too.
Apple's Mac market share would double in a few short years if they paid just a little more attention to the needs of it's consumers and business clients.
They are getting better, but it's been a slow grind.
Not only that, but you have to buy their limited product line hardware too.
Apple's Mac market share would double in a few short years if they paid just a little more attention to the needs of it's consumers and business clients.
They are getting better, but it's been a slow grind.
The question is whether Apple actually wants more market share, and if they do, whether the pace at which they've grown hasn't been what they've wanted all along.
As it is, they dominate the high-end computer market. Their profit margins are fantastic and they don't need a huge market share or huge volume to be profitable.
In my opinion, Linux is becoming more relevant every day and could soon give Microsoft some competition in the OS area, especially on the lower end of the market.
Apple isn't really threatened by Linux because the OS is only part of what makes Macs so appealing. Besides, OS X is in no danger of being upstaged by Linux in terms of out-of-the-box features, support, and refinement.
Apple is threatened by Linux, it has better security, more customization and less bloat than OS X and it's free for most distros. In fact Pixar used Linux to run their renderfarm under Steve Jobs, he knows.
Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu installed, the best desktop version of Linux. 10% of netbooks run Linux according to a article I read. I use it in VM Fusion, getting up to speed on it and will be installing it or buying it preinstalled on my new netbooks. It's very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X and the GUI is customizable. But it's not really for 'GUI only' newbies, one will need to hit the command line once in awhile and have a understanding how computers work.
Many Mac users would be surprised how similar Linux is to OS X under the hood. Permissions, Bash, command line are nearly the same.
The reason Apple is threatened by Linux, especially Ubuntu, is that it offers the security and ease of use of OS X, without the high price of the premium hardware attached.
Microsoft and Apple have been corning the market for years now. One plays low quality and the other high quality. Apple stays out of the business market and Microsoft keeps their lemmings buying anti-virus and produces OfficeMac.
Apple even sells OfficeMac, preinstalled if someone wants it. I find NeoOffice or Open Office (same thing, NeoOffice converted Open Office to a Mac version first, before Sun finally did) a excellent alternative to anything from security prone Microsoft.
Apple is threatened by Linux, it has better security, more customization and less bloat than OS X and it's free for most distros. In fact Pixar used Linux to run their renderfarm under Steve Jobs, he knows.
Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu installed, the best desktop version of Linux. 10% of netbooks run Linux according to a article I read. I use it in VM Fusion, getting up to speed on it and will be installing it or buying it preinstalled on my new netbooks. It's very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X and the GUI is customizable. But it's not really for 'GUI only' newbies, one will need to hit the command line once in awhile and have a understanding how computers work.
Many Mac users would be surprised how similar Linux is to OS X under the hood. Permissions, Bash, command line are nearly the same.
The reason Apple is threatened by Linux, especially Ubuntu, is that it offers the security and ease of use of OS X, without the high price of the premium hardware attached.
Microsoft and Apple have been corning the market for years now. One plays low quality and the other high quality. Apple stays out of the business market and Microsoft keeps their lemmings buying anti-virus and produces OfficeMac.
Apple even sells OfficeMac, preinstalled if someone wants it. I find NeoOffice or Open Office (same thing, NeoOffice converted Open Office to a Mac version first, before Sun finally did)
if there were adobe software available on linux, mac os x would be threatened by it big time
There is GIMP, it's certainly no Photoshop. Also far as I know there isn't any InDesign type software for Ubuntu neither.
But for most users, that's enough. Adobe type software is for professionals or soon to be professionals, they can buy or invest in the right hardware to meet the software, namely a Mac or two.
But for general users who just want a netbook, Ubuntu is a excellent alternative to Windows and it's constant need for anti-malware and headaches.
Heck I even run Chrome OS, that's going to be something. A browser type OS with limited features for netbooks, perfect for newbies who just want to email and surf.
Apple has been pissing off it's professional market for years now, so has Adobe for that matter. Netbooks are going to rule sales this holiday season, because fewer and fewer people think they need a full fledged computer any more.
If Apple comes out with a iPhone with a 10" or 12" screen and iChat, prices it about $500, it would kick netbooks to the curb.
Leaving Apple to have a monopoly? Not a good idea. Apple is already showing too many 'Big Brother' characteristics as it is... At least MS is cheap. Get rid of the cheap monopoly, and you're left with Apple being an expensive monopoly.
Competition is almost always a good thing, so I agree that Microsoft must survive.
There is GIMP, it's certainly no Photoshop. Also far as I know there isn't any InDesign type software for Ubuntu neither.
But for most users, that's enough. Adobe type software is for professionals or soon to be professionals, they can buy or invest in the right hardware to meet the software, namely a Mac or two.
But for general users who just want a netbook, Ubuntu is a excellent alternative to Windows and it's constant need for anti-malware and headaches.
Heck I even run Chrome OS, that's going to be something. A browser type OS with limited features for netbooks, perfect for newbies who just want to email and surf.
Apple has been pissing off it's professional market for years now, so has Adobe for that matter. Netbooks are going to rule sales this holiday season, because fewer and fewer people think they need a full fledged computer any more.
If Apple comes out with a iPhone with a 10" or 12" screen and iChat, prices it about $500, it would kick netbooks to the curb.
Of course AT&T is slowing Apple down big time.
Chrome OS is the big wildcard. Linux will continue as a viable low-cost solution but Chrome could potentially make the biggest inroads over the next decade, IMO.
he was referencing the fact if microsoft closed its doors there was an implication that the next successor would be apple to gain the majority market share.
That's true but anyone defending that possibility is nuts. If one could no longer buy MS products, which do you think would happen first:
1 - Dell, HP, IBM et al co-opt a linux distribution or two and customize them for general use. Intel and Google both have such a distro that would do the job or
2 - Apple drops its prices by 50% and expands manufacturing by 500%
Anyone who thinks more than 2 seconds gets shown the door in the floor because they're idiots.
A lot of what you're saying here is pure BS, or at best wishful thinking/hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Apple is threatened by Linux, it has better security, more customization and less bloat than OS X and it's free for most distros. In fact Pixar used Linux to run their renderfarm under Steve Jobs, he knows.
Apple is not threatened in the least by Linux which has a miniscule share of the market and addresses a completely different segment of the market than Apple does. The fact that Linux is used for a rendering farm has absolutely no bearing at all on the average user or the kinds of everyday computing tasks they need to do. This is like saying that a server OS is good, therefore your Mum should use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
... Many Mac users would be surprised how similar Linux is to OS X under the hood. Permissions, Bash, command line are nearly the same.
It's similar "under the hood" because Linux is a copy of Unix, which Mac OS-X actually is. The last thing the average Mac user wants however, is to dig "under the hood" of the OS. Most never discover the similarity and are quite happy about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
... The reason Apple is threatened by Linux, especially Ubuntu, is that it offers the security and ease of use of OS X, ...
More absolute BS. Linux is no where near as easy to use as Mac OS-X and numerous studies prove this year after year. Linux is also no more secure than OS-X in design, and less secure in reality as the user can do some very stupid things with all the customisation Linux offers.
I get that you are all hyped up on LInux, but most of your assertions are just plain wrong.
Apple is threatened by Linux, it has better security, more customization and less bloat than OS X and it's free for most distros. In fact Pixar used Linux to run their renderfarm under Steve Jobs, he knows.
Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu installed, the best desktop version of Linux. 10% of netbooks run Linux according to a article I read. I use it in VM Fusion, getting up to speed on it and will be installing it or buying it preinstalled on my new netbooks. It's very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X and the GUI is customizable. But it's not really for 'GUI only' newbies, one will need to hit the command line once in awhile and have a understanding how computers work.
Many Mac users would be surprised how similar Linux is to OS X under the hood. Permissions, Bash, command line are nearly the same.
The reason Apple is threatened by Linux, especially Ubuntu, is that it offers the security and ease of use of OS X, without the high price of the premium hardware attached.
Microsoft and Apple have been corning the market for years now. One plays low quality and the other high quality. Apple stays out of the business market and Microsoft keeps their lemmings buying anti-virus and produces OfficeMac.
Apple even sells OfficeMac, preinstalled if someone wants it. I find NeoOffice or Open Office (same thing, NeoOffice converted Open Office to a Mac version first, before Sun finally did) a excellent alternative to anything from security prone Microsoft.
There is no way, shape, or form in which Ubuntu can approach OS X in the consumer market. Linux-on-the desktop is an utter joke compared to what Apple brings to the table with OS X. Ubuntu being free ceratinly isn't preventing consumers from handing Apple record quarters in Mac sales. Why even mention cost when consumers are happily paying for operating systems, even Windows!
"Microsoft and Apple have been corning the market for years now. One plays low quality and the other high quality. Apple stays out of the business market and Microsoft keeps their lemmings buying anti-virus and produces OfficeMac."
So if Apple has the "high-quality" market cornered, then how in God's name is Linux a threat?? With the existence of OS X in the Premium end (where Linux will never be), and with a more stable and usable Windows 7 in the "low-end", where does that leave Linux? What is the point in using Linux for the average consumer? Savings?
"It's very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X and the GUI is customizable. But it's not really for 'GUI only' newbies, one will need to hit the command line once in awhile and have a understanding how computers work"
"very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X (not quite)"
Yet, you also claim "it's not really for "GUI only" newbies, and one will need to hit the command line once in a while. Guess what, the bulk of Apple's market - in fact the average user at large, is a GUI-only newbie. No, I don't want to "hit the command-line" once in a while, though it might be interesting to do so. I want to drop my vacation photos into iPhoto, hit "enhance", and watch the magic happen. I want to use iWork and then share my documents on iWork.com. I want everything auto-configured, auto-adjusted, etc.
Apple users aint looking for "free", my friend. They're looking for a quality experience that pampers the user. And they'll line up to pay every time.
Consumer Linux = a fun desktop experiment that showcases some interesting tech that may or may or may not make it into prime time when a REAL consumer-oriented OS may or may not make use of them.
Comments
Not clear to me what Custom XML actually is.
I found this http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3712
Post author Stephane Rodriguez links to a couple of Microsoft-provided definitions of Custom XML.
The first, from Office Program Manager Brian Jones, dates back to 2005:
?Custom XML is the support for custom defined schemas. It?s that support that allows you truly integrate your documents with business processes and business data. You can define your data using XML Schema syntax, and then you can use that data in your Office documents. By opening up our formats with our reference schemas, and supporting your custom defined schemas, you get true interoperability of your documents.?
I did some more searching. I found a 2008 retort to Rodriguez?s post that also attempts to define Custom XML. From .Net evangelist Wouter van Vugt:
Custom XML markup ?is about embedding custom XML defined outside of Open XML to support solution which aim to structure a document using business semantics, not only using formatting. A great advance since you want to get to the data, and not by saying that the customer name is the 3rd paragraph. The issue is that you cannot just allow any arbitrary XML to be stored in the WordprocessingML package. This would become application specific, and it would break validation since all XML is valid. Not a great idea.?
Yea this is how the software engineers that I work with talk. I have no fucking clue what they are saying!
You've never actually paid for any MS software, have you?
The School and Home edition of Office is often sold here significantly cheaper than the Family pack of iWork
Still, if MS were to go out of business, there is no guarantee Apple would be the "successor" to rule the computing world. Not to say it wouldn't change but Apple's current business model sets them up in a niche market. To broaden the brand, they'd likely have to open up OSX.
you didnt read what he was referencing.
he was referencing the fact if microsoft closed its doors there was an implication that the next successor would be apple to gain the majority market share.
Doh! Sorry about that.
Still, if MS were to go out of business, there is no guarantee Apple would be the "successor" to rule the computing world.
In my opinion, Linux is becoming more relevant every day and could soon give Microsoft some competition in the OS area, especially on the lower end of the market.
Apple isn't really threatened by Linux because the OS is only part of what makes Macs so appealing. Besides, OS X is in no danger of being upstaged by Linux in terms of out-of-the-box features, support, and refinement.
windows and office are fairly priced for what they are. the full version of OSX
As opposed to what other version of OS X
As opposed to what other version of OS X
Why, the empty version, of course!
..and you're left with Apple being an expensive monopoly.
Not only that, but you have to buy their limited product line hardware too.
Apple's Mac market share would double in a few short years if they paid just a little more attention to the needs of it's consumers and business clients.
They are getting better, but it's been a slow grind.
Not only that, but you have to buy their limited product line hardware too.
Apple's Mac market share would double in a few short years if they paid just a little more attention to the needs of it's consumers and business clients.
They are getting better, but it's been a slow grind.
The question is whether Apple actually wants more market share, and if they do, whether the pace at which they've grown hasn't been what they've wanted all along.
As it is, they dominate the high-end computer market. Their profit margins are fantastic and they don't need a huge market share or huge volume to be profitable.
In my opinion, Linux is becoming more relevant every day and could soon give Microsoft some competition in the OS area, especially on the lower end of the market.
Apple isn't really threatened by Linux because the OS is only part of what makes Macs so appealing. Besides, OS X is in no danger of being upstaged by Linux in terms of out-of-the-box features, support, and refinement.
Apple is threatened by Linux, it has better security, more customization and less bloat than OS X and it's free for most distros. In fact Pixar used Linux to run their renderfarm under Steve Jobs, he knows.
Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu installed, the best desktop version of Linux. 10% of netbooks run Linux according to a article I read. I use it in VM Fusion, getting up to speed on it and will be installing it or buying it preinstalled on my new netbooks. It's very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X and the GUI is customizable. But it's not really for 'GUI only' newbies, one will need to hit the command line once in awhile and have a understanding how computers work.
Many Mac users would be surprised how similar Linux is to OS X under the hood. Permissions, Bash, command line are nearly the same.
The reason Apple is threatened by Linux, especially Ubuntu, is that it offers the security and ease of use of OS X, without the high price of the premium hardware attached.
Microsoft and Apple have been corning the market for years now. One plays low quality and the other high quality. Apple stays out of the business market and Microsoft keeps their lemmings buying anti-virus and produces OfficeMac.
Apple even sells OfficeMac, preinstalled if someone wants it. I find NeoOffice or Open Office (same thing, NeoOffice converted Open Office to a Mac version first, before Sun finally did) a excellent alternative to anything from security prone Microsoft.
Free yourself from Microsoft, free the world.
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://ubuntuforums.org/
http://www.ubuntupocketguide.com/index_main.html
http://www.openoffice.org/
Apple is threatened by Linux, it has better security, more customization and less bloat than OS X and it's free for most distros. In fact Pixar used Linux to run their renderfarm under Steve Jobs, he knows.
Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu installed, the best desktop version of Linux. 10% of netbooks run Linux according to a article I read. I use it in VM Fusion, getting up to speed on it and will be installing it or buying it preinstalled on my new netbooks. It's very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X and the GUI is customizable. But it's not really for 'GUI only' newbies, one will need to hit the command line once in awhile and have a understanding how computers work.
Many Mac users would be surprised how similar Linux is to OS X under the hood. Permissions, Bash, command line are nearly the same.
The reason Apple is threatened by Linux, especially Ubuntu, is that it offers the security and ease of use of OS X, without the high price of the premium hardware attached.
Microsoft and Apple have been corning the market for years now. One plays low quality and the other high quality. Apple stays out of the business market and Microsoft keeps their lemmings buying anti-virus and produces OfficeMac.
Apple even sells OfficeMac, preinstalled if someone wants it. I find NeoOffice or Open Office (same thing, NeoOffice converted Open Office to a Mac version first, before Sun finally did)
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://ubuntuforums.org/
http://www.ubuntupocketguide.com/index_main.html
http://www.openoffice.org/
you are very right...ubuntu is awesome
if there were adobe software available on linux, mac os x would be threatened by it big time
you are very right...ubuntu is awesome
if there were adobe software available on linux, mac os x would be threatened by it big time
There is GIMP, it's certainly no Photoshop. Also far as I know there isn't any InDesign type software for Ubuntu neither.
But for most users, that's enough. Adobe type software is for professionals or soon to be professionals, they can buy or invest in the right hardware to meet the software, namely a Mac or two.
But for general users who just want a netbook, Ubuntu is a excellent alternative to Windows and it's constant need for anti-malware and headaches.
Heck I even run Chrome OS, that's going to be something. A browser type OS with limited features for netbooks, perfect for newbies who just want to email and surf.
Apple has been pissing off it's professional market for years now, so has Adobe for that matter. Netbooks are going to rule sales this holiday season, because fewer and fewer people think they need a full fledged computer any more.
If Apple comes out with a iPhone with a 10" or 12" screen and iChat, prices it about $500, it would kick netbooks to the curb.
Of course AT&T is slowing Apple down big time.
Leaving Apple to have a monopoly? Not a good idea. Apple is already showing too many 'Big Brother' characteristics as it is... At least MS is cheap. Get rid of the cheap monopoly, and you're left with Apple being an expensive monopoly.
Competition is almost always a good thing, so I agree that Microsoft must survive.
Yea this is how the software engineers that I work with talk. I have no fucking clue what they are saying!
There is GIMP, it's certainly no Photoshop. Also far as I know there isn't any InDesign type software for Ubuntu neither.
But for most users, that's enough. Adobe type software is for professionals or soon to be professionals, they can buy or invest in the right hardware to meet the software, namely a Mac or two.
But for general users who just want a netbook, Ubuntu is a excellent alternative to Windows and it's constant need for anti-malware and headaches.
Heck I even run Chrome OS, that's going to be something. A browser type OS with limited features for netbooks, perfect for newbies who just want to email and surf.
Apple has been pissing off it's professional market for years now, so has Adobe for that matter. Netbooks are going to rule sales this holiday season, because fewer and fewer people think they need a full fledged computer any more.
If Apple comes out with a iPhone with a 10" or 12" screen and iChat, prices it about $500, it would kick netbooks to the curb.
Of course AT&T is slowing Apple down big time.
Chrome OS is the big wildcard. Linux will continue as a viable low-cost solution but Chrome could potentially make the biggest inroads over the next decade, IMO.
you didnt read what he was referencing.
he was referencing the fact if microsoft closed its doors there was an implication that the next successor would be apple to gain the majority market share.
That's true but anyone defending that possibility is nuts. If one could no longer buy MS products, which do you think would happen first:
1 - Dell, HP, IBM et al co-opt a linux distribution or two and customize them for general use. Intel and Google both have such a distro that would do the job or
2 - Apple drops its prices by 50% and expands manufacturing by 500%
Anyone who thinks more than 2 seconds gets shown the door in the floor because they're idiots.
Apple is threatened by Linux, it has better security, more customization and less bloat than OS X and it's free for most distros. In fact Pixar used Linux to run their renderfarm under Steve Jobs, he knows.
Apple is not threatened in the least by Linux which has a miniscule share of the market and addresses a completely different segment of the market than Apple does. The fact that Linux is used for a rendering farm has absolutely no bearing at all on the average user or the kinds of everyday computing tasks they need to do. This is like saying that a server OS is good, therefore your Mum should use it.
... Many Mac users would be surprised how similar Linux is to OS X under the hood. Permissions, Bash, command line are nearly the same.
It's similar "under the hood" because Linux is a copy of Unix, which Mac OS-X actually is. The last thing the average Mac user wants however, is to dig "under the hood" of the OS. Most never discover the similarity and are quite happy about it.
... The reason Apple is threatened by Linux, especially Ubuntu, is that it offers the security and ease of use of OS X, ...
More absolute BS. Linux is no where near as easy to use as Mac OS-X and numerous studies prove this year after year. Linux is also no more secure than OS-X in design, and less secure in reality as the user can do some very stupid things with all the customisation Linux offers.
I get that you are all hyped up on LInux, but most of your assertions are just plain wrong.
But it's not really for 'GUI only' newbies, one will need to hit the command line once in awhile and have a understanding how computers work.
The way you say that implies that you don't understand that those "GUI newbies" comprise easily 98% of the computing world.
If Apple comes out with a iPhone with a 10" or 12" screen and iChat, prices it about $500, it would kick netbooks to the curb.
It would also lower Apple's total profits by taking sales away from other hardware that it sells. Which is why it won't happen at that price.
Apple is threatened by Linux, it has better security, more customization and less bloat than OS X and it's free for most distros. In fact Pixar used Linux to run their renderfarm under Steve Jobs, he knows.
Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu installed, the best desktop version of Linux. 10% of netbooks run Linux according to a article I read. I use it in VM Fusion, getting up to speed on it and will be installing it or buying it preinstalled on my new netbooks. It's very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X and the GUI is customizable. But it's not really for 'GUI only' newbies, one will need to hit the command line once in awhile and have a understanding how computers work.
Many Mac users would be surprised how similar Linux is to OS X under the hood. Permissions, Bash, command line are nearly the same.
The reason Apple is threatened by Linux, especially Ubuntu, is that it offers the security and ease of use of OS X, without the high price of the premium hardware attached.
Microsoft and Apple have been corning the market for years now. One plays low quality and the other high quality. Apple stays out of the business market and Microsoft keeps their lemmings buying anti-virus and produces OfficeMac.
Apple even sells OfficeMac, preinstalled if someone wants it. I find NeoOffice or Open Office (same thing, NeoOffice converted Open Office to a Mac version first, before Sun finally did) a excellent alternative to anything from security prone Microsoft.
Free yourself from Microsoft, free the world.
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://ubuntuforums.org/
http://www.ubuntupocketguide.com/index_main.html
http://www.openoffice.org/
There is no way, shape, or form in which Ubuntu can approach OS X in the consumer market. Linux-on-the desktop is an utter joke compared to what Apple brings to the table with OS X. Ubuntu being free ceratinly isn't preventing consumers from handing Apple record quarters in Mac sales. Why even mention cost when consumers are happily paying for operating systems, even Windows!
"Microsoft and Apple have been corning the market for years now. One plays low quality and the other high quality. Apple stays out of the business market and Microsoft keeps their lemmings buying anti-virus and produces OfficeMac."
So if Apple has the "high-quality" market cornered, then how in God's name is Linux a threat?? With the existence of OS X in the Premium end (where Linux will never be), and with a more stable and usable Windows 7 in the "low-end", where does that leave Linux? What is the point in using Linux for the average consumer? Savings?
"It's very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X and the GUI is customizable. But it's not really for 'GUI only' newbies, one will need to hit the command line once in awhile and have a understanding how computers work"
"very easy to use, nearly the same as OS X (not quite)"
Yet, you also claim "it's not really for "GUI only" newbies, and one will need to hit the command line once in a while. Guess what, the bulk of Apple's market - in fact the average user at large, is a GUI-only newbie. No, I don't want to "hit the command-line" once in a while, though it might be interesting to do so. I want to drop my vacation photos into iPhoto, hit "enhance", and watch the magic happen. I want to use iWork and then share my documents on iWork.com. I want everything auto-configured, auto-adjusted, etc.
Apple users aint looking for "free", my friend. They're looking for a quality experience that pampers the user. And they'll line up to pay every time.
Consumer Linux = a fun desktop experiment that showcases some interesting tech that may or may or may not make it into prime time when a REAL consumer-oriented OS may or may not make use of them.
I wouldn't be celebrating. This could bring business and institution Mac sales to halt.
MS needs OFFICE sales far more than we need MS.
MS is more desperate than anyone realizes. They're not going to allow a mere legal technicality to hinder their sales.
Guaranteed MS will find a way to wiggle through this (and it looks like they already have).