For average consumers I don't see stereo lithography being a big seller. If they were $1K my company would probably buy a hundred of them today for prototyping.

Clarion, actually it sounds like you do understand them. The attitude of the users is simply an extension of the developers/company. Both Apple and Linux developers have decided that they will avoid mention of their own product in favor of attacking MS and insulting Windows users. I think if they looked into it they repel at least as many people as they attract with the strategy. However I've heard from many Mac & Linux users that they're perfectly happy with a small marketshare so perhaps that too is the strategy

"you're wrong in assuming that it has to "unseat" Windows in order to be successful. " At least stick to what I actually said. That's presumption on your part not assumption on mine. I didn't say it had to do anything.

"most Windows users don't have access to MS support." Huge amount of official support online and a company with a long history behind the product. Also support doesn't simply mean hand-holding. It also means having a product history.

"I think it's time to update your knowledge of Linux, because it's advanced quite a lot since the last time you looked at it, it seems." Oh you mean since the last time I toured a Google server farm with palates of Velcroed together Linux boxes? I would say nice try with that juvenile attempt at a personal dig but it wasn't.

Had you actually read my posts you'd know that I use Unix around 50% of the time. I prefer it over Linux but run Linux on some work machines where we use Python. I'm about as tech agnostic as a person gets. So perhaps you should look inward for irrational bias.

And like it or not for the general public this guy is the face of open source. Not him personally since you didn't and may still not get what that means from a marketing aspect. The general public hears about Linux almost exclusively through headlines about some random act of vandalism. If open source continues to have no face and no message to the general public then people like this guy become the face and the message.

archiesteel I would be the first to say competition is not only good but great. In fact I've said it for 30 years of sitting in front of a computer. Ok, now the problem for open source is that it has to actually compete. If a version of Linux for instance wants to unseat MS they will have to change from being the "no one speaks for it" operating system because when there's a problem people want to speak to someone.

I have no bias against open source I'm also a realist. If you're saying there are no open source zealots then you must be living under a rock. I'll admit the promoters are slowly trying to put a professional face on open source but they have an uphill battle. Not because of MS as they would love to believe but because of their own history.

Lastly, don't kid yourself about this guy being the face of open source. The average person is more likely to know what the capital of Guam than what open source is. But when they hear open source they'll remember having seen this guy on the news.

furry_goat. I'm not entirely certain why you'd think it was odd. You would probably get the same numbers on almost any site because of how its asked. I think he's deluded and misguided but I support him protesting if he wants. Heck I'm sure even MS does because this wacko is now the face of open source.

I'm actually more surprised by the 63.95% number. I think he's a moron but I still support the method. Do open source zealots want him to shoot someone or plant a bomb instead?

"Seriously, what is preventing open source software from succeeding?" One thing, lack of support, a consistent product and coherent direction.

Seriously Ubuntu is less than 3 years old and before it a different flavor of Linux was all the rage and before than another. What is touted as the strength of open source is also it's greatest impediment to adoption. There is no central source to keep it alive so next year Ubuntu may be gone entirely and another flavor will be the MS/Apple killer.

And the greatest argument open source format promoters have against companies like MS are also the greatest weakness of open source formats. They will argue that MS can end support for a format any time they like. But if there isn't a penny going toward keeping an open source format alive will it be supported next year or even next week?

Someone is going to trot out the argument that because the standard is open you can write your own software if none exists. Sorry but open source isn't the panacea its promoters would like it to be.

Oh and BTW, I use Unix about 50% of the time.

"I wonder how long it's going to be before the 1024px width is going to become the 'accepted' standard?". That's the same bad design philosophy that has led to software bloat. "More resources, lets eat it up."

Just because there is on average more monitor space doesn't mean people want to fill it with browser. One of the things I love about large monitors is the browser is a smaller percentage of the screen.

I understand everyone who creates anything for the computer screen believes users will love it so much they will never want anything else on their screen (which is where 'run at boot' programs come from) but it just isn't reality. I can think of very few instances, especially on business sites, where a wider format page truly adds anything.

"Controls are a good thing for all media!" To have your speakers on in a crowded room is the fault of the user. But to have media automatically play on a website is unquestionably bad design. If someone wants to have media on their site it should always be off by default.

Many people listen to their own audio while surfing whether it be music or an audio feed and for a designer to not know this borders on incompetence.

#6 is a huge problem. Web designers should be beaten night and day with this. Sites of any kind that automatically play media especially sounds or music chase people away.

Unless they're giving away money there is seldom anything important enough on a website to make people return to it after it screams at them through headphones.

Seriously light on details here.

You say 'Chipset' as though that means something. Is it a Laser driver, a postamp, a TIA, a CDR or all of the above?

"with driver and receiver integrated circuits in current CMOS technology," Yep that describe current transceivers.

Seeing as how 10 Gb/s transceivers have been slow to catch on in the industry and the most common optical transceivers in Gigabit rates sold are in the 2.1 to 2.5 Gb/s range I doubt there will be much demand for a 160Gb/s transceiver in the near future.