Because I write about technology for 7 hours out of any given 24, I usually steer clear of writing on the subject here. One story has prompted me to break this rule, however.
I don't know if you know of the $100 laptop project? It's the brainchild of Nicholas Negroponte, the founding chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab, and it involves putting together a wind-up laptop which will cost less than $100 to be distributed to millions of schoolchildren, ostensibly in the developing world, in a bid to level the playing field a bit in today's economy. Very laudable.
Today, most feeds in the Mac section of my RSS reader are reporting that Apple offered to supply its operating system, Mac OS X, for the laptops completely free. Again, laudable.
The folks behind the project politely declined the offer, on the basis that Mac OS X isn't open source – click here for a definition if you're not a geek – and most of the Mac sites around the globe have been smacking their collective palm against their collective forehead and condemning Negroponte and his colleges for denying 'starving children in Africa' the chance to use super-duper Mac OS X (my quote marks).
But here's the thing: although there's much in Mac OS X that is open source, the operating system is still, to all intents and purposes, a closed system. It can't as easily be adapted to a specific task, can't be as quickly fixed if a systemic flaw is discovered, and can't be worked on by legions of alpha geeks the world over.
The decision was entirely justified, but even so I imagine that it wasn't taken lightly. It would have been an interesting business move for Apple, and one which at a stroke would have radically improved its still-tiny market share, but it must have been very tempting for the $100 laptop coordinators.
Open source is not a panacea – it should coexist alongside commercial software – but the reaction of MacDailyNews to the story is misinformed and bigoted. (MDN, it should be pointed out, it the most rabidly pro-Apple site I know, even more so than Apple itself.)

Here, have a Lexus for free. No thanks, we'd rather have this here Ford Fiesta. You can't tinker much with a Lexus, but the Fiesta's hood always seems to be open. Check this out, we put some big knobby tires on it, filled in the rust spots and holes with Bondo, took it to Earl Scheib and, voilà! All your Lexus does is smoothly go 150 mph without complaint. Plus, nobody can break into it and it just runs and runs and runs.

To characterise open source software as a Ford Fiesta compared to a Lexus (ignoring the obvious observation that for a lot of people the Fiesta will be better suited, more econonical to run and less likely to get keyed while parked) is plain wrong. Open source software can be spectacularly polished and very easy to use – hell, OS X users use open source every time they fire up iChat, retrieve email or even just boot the operating system – never mind all the advantages inherent to a system that has thousands of individuals continually working on how to improve it. And bollocks to the suggestion that open source is patched up with 'Bondo'. No system is perfect, as the steady stream of security patches Apple itself issues for OS X proves.

Wouldn't Mac OS X – which runs a wide range of polished applications, networks easily, accepts peripherals painlessly, is extremely secure, plus many other reasons – work best for such a project, especially if Jobs offered it for free? What a boneheaded decision to decline Apple's offer!

Most of those nice things you've just said about Mac OS X can be applied to most modern operating systems today, from Windows to Palm OS to Symbian. Standards such as USB Mass Storage, TCP/IP, Bluetooth and 802.11 are making these archaic notions of Why-The-Mac-Is-Better-Than-Anything-Else-You-Smell-Like-Pee-Anyway much less relevant.

And what about Darwin? http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

Absolutely, first intelligent thing you've said, though it must be noted that you're now promoting open source; what about the Lexus/Fiesta analogy? Darwin is a great, open source component of the Mac OS X experience. But, people, it's a component. Sure, open source bods can dick about with it to their heart's content, but stick Darwin on a £100 laptop and you ain't got Mac OS X.
So let's get a bit of perspective here. I am a Mac user, and for 80% of the time, that makes me a very happy bunny. But there's room for other operating systems, and frankly I'd be at least as excited about the idea of a $100 laptop running a Linux variant than one running Mac OS X. Guys, it's still windows, icons, menus and pointers. Your mum could use it. Have you ever used it?
There's a feeling among the Mac Faithful that Apple can do no wrong and that it's still a maverick company piloted by a bunch of feel-good hippies. Bollocks. Apple is a business. If it had the chance to be in Microsoft's place today, you can be damn sure it would be. Give it a monopoly on the $100 laptop – a project which is closer to socialist ideals than capitalist – and after a few years I'd be very surprised if they didn't start tightening the thumb screws a little. And, let's say this all together folks, if it's a closed system, nobody but the controlling company can dictate progress or direction for the operating system. By using open source, the $100 laptop can go wherever the needs take it.

In other news, I wholeheartedly endorse the reaction to über-twat Jason Kottke's comment about stickers made by the lovely folks at 37signals.