Agree completely. To my knowledge, Apple hasn't supported SCO-like efforts to destroy Linux, funded studies claiming Linux was plagiarized, consistently shippe

Agree completely. To my knowledge, Apple hasn't supported SCO-like efforts to destroy Linux, funded studies claiming Linux was plagiarized, consistently shipped buggy and insecure code, and wielded the patent and lobbying swords against its enemies and tried to destroy other businesses and open source in general by illegal means and lobbying (slightly off topic, but see also http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.longman.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.longman....). Apple may be controlling, but they are just selling their products and not destroying others (although Jobs's wife is apparently a big political contributor, so who knows?). As for the "Jobs vs. Gates" article, comparing the business practices of Microsoft and Apple by pointing out that Gates makes a lot of philanthropic contributions (and in fact also spends lots of money lobbying for the US government to spend more money on Gates Foundation-related projects) is just nonsense. "But great wealth does not make a great man." Neither does making lots of high-profile charitable donations. Frankly, this whole thing of having to be seen doing charitable work is a bit disgusting. Not that charity is bad, but shouldn't being a successful businessman involve shipping a great product rather than in cultivating an image to keep the antitrust crowd off your back? This said, it's no better when the EU and DoJ go after Microsoft and Opera's CEO cheers them on. Maybe I'd actually try out Opera if they didn't support using bureaucrats to destroy their enemies. As one hacker once said, "Shut up and show them the code."