There will be a divide created
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Scott_Ruecker Jun 09, 2007 1:30 PM EDT |
If it doesn't already exist. There will be Linux's and MS-Linux's. Microsoft is preying upon the weak of Corporate Linux and they will continue to do so until the leaders of Corporate Linux stop being weak. My Father says, "The only thing money can't you buy is, Poverty." Unfortunately it looks like that phrase is true more and more lately. Because on the other side of this is what we know is coming.. There will be two kinds of Linux, Linux and MS-Linux. And that makes me sick. |
| dinotrac Jun 09, 2007 2:24 PM EDT |
So... What is the difference between them? From what I can tell, there isn't any. |
| jdixon Jun 09, 2007 3:02 PM EDT |
> What is the difference between them? Microsoft promises not to sue you if use theirs. |
| dinotrac Jun 09, 2007 3:30 PM EDT |
>Microsoft promises not to sue you if use theirs. Yup, that's it. Given that I haven't picked up any software based on something Microsoft said in at least 10 years, that's as good as no difference at all to me. |
| bigg Jun 09, 2007 3:52 PM EDT |
> There will be two kinds of Linux, Linux and MS-Linux. I really, really, really hope to see MS-Linux. Then Microsoft would be violating the GPL if it pursues patent claims against anyone, effectively ending their nonsensical patent FUD. As for someone else choosing a Linux distribution based on protection against lawsuits, if they pay extra for that, the old saying comes to my mind, "If you're dumb enough, go ahead." |
| tuxchick Jun 09, 2007 4:40 PM EDT |
This is weak, not bleak. MS feels very threatened by Linux, which is completely stupid because they can use FOSS just like anyone else. But no; they would rather die of thirst two feet from the water. So they come up with a Brilliant Plan- we can't beat 'em, so let's generate a revenue stream from them! So they pick off these pipsqueak, marginal companies, who get nice cash infusions and go "yay! money! I almost forgot what it looks like!" Meanwhile, back at in the Real Linux world, at Red Hat and Mandriva and Debian and Buntuville and OpenSUSE and Slackware and Gentoo and all of the meelyuns of others, life goes on. We still have our own personal favorites, progress on the kernel continues at its astonishing pace, adoption increases, and life is good. The worst that can happen with these microlinuxes is they'll fail. The best that can happen is more microsofties will become infected with the FOSS virus, and someday, when the intransigent silverbacks running the company retire, maybe someone with real vision and brains will take over. |
| jdixon Jun 09, 2007 4:55 PM EDT |
> and someday, when the intransigent silverbacks running the company retire, maybe someone with real vision and brains will take over. We can only hope. And we can actually expect that most of us will see it. Ballmer is 51. I'd expect to step down sometime within the next 10 years. |
| jdixon Jun 09, 2007 4:56 PM EDT |
> I really, really, really hope to see MS-Linux. Don't hold your breath. They're still wedded to Windows, and as long as they can collect royalties from idiot Linux companies, why should they come out with their own? |
| devnet Jun 09, 2007 6:59 PM EDT |
give this time everyone...I feel we're going to be continually surprised at the distros that sign up for patent protection. |
| r_a_trip Jun 09, 2007 9:08 PM EDT |
I feel we're going to be continually surprised at the distros that sign up for patent protection. There is always Debian. We can seek refuge there. In case the world has gone insane and Debian also signs, we might as well pony up the cash for Vista Home Premium. I expect flying pigs sooner though... |
| jdixon Jun 09, 2007 9:54 PM EDT |
> There is always Debian. We can seek refuge there. There's no indication Red Hat is interested in signing on, and I doubt Patrick Volkerding is either. So both Red Hat and Slackware should be safe. Since software patents are largely invalid in Europe, most European based distros should be OK. I can't really speak to any of the other distros. |
| tracyanne Jun 09, 2007 10:38 PM EDT |
I'd also be very surprised if Mandriva signed such an agreement. 1) they are French 2) they are European 3) their primary markets are Europe South America and Africa 4) they hardly get a look in in the US 5) they are actually doing quite well commercially. Canonical is much more likely to do a deal with Microsoft, because Mark Shuttleworth wants the American Market. |
| jdixon Jun 09, 2007 11:49 PM EDT |
> ...their primary markets are Europe South America and Africa And signing a deal with Microsoft would be the kiss of death to their European market. Microsoft is not very popular in Europe right now. I just don't know if their management realizes that or not, or if they can resist the kind of money Microsoft can throw their way. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 3:41 AM EDT |
>or if they can resist the kind of money Microsoft can throw their way. Here's a good question: Should a distro resist the kind of money Microsoft can trhow their way? When I look at the Novell deal, for example, I see a big win for Novell and no harm to Linux. Seriously, why wouldn't I take that deal, especially since it: 1. Didn't violate any laws, 2. Didn't violate any licenses, 3. Didn't take one tiny iota of freedom from so much as a single sould, 4. Didn't admit to any kind of wrongdoing, infringement or otherwise, 5. Even got Microsoft to sell Novell product, 6. Paid Novell a sum roughly equal to 8 or 9 years' profit Getting a swee deal like that may prove harder for other companies. Linux is only a small part of Novell's business and GPLV3 has thrown few curves. But...If I could get it, I would sign it. No harm, no foul and a pile of cash? I'd have to be moron to say no. |
| devnet Jun 10, 2007 7:01 AM EDT |
dino, From a business standpoint, all tha tyou discussed is sound...that's true. But they're not taking into account word of mouth in an open source community that surrounds a product. It's much like digg did earlier this year when they removed those codes from their articles...the community rallied. Now I'm not saying the community is rallying now...I'm just saying that when these companies consider the deals, they aren't thinking about ramifications that can happen inside the communities surrounding their product. They also aren't considering who makes up these communities...as there are developers, resellers, oems, etc. So, in the end, they're not considering this angle...they're ignoring it blatantly. And you're not a moron...you just play one on TV :D |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 7:47 AM EDT |
>But they're not taking into account word of mouth in an open source community that surrounds a product. If the community is paying my bills, then I might want to ignore the pile of cash, depending on its size. OTOH -- If it ain't, I got kids and companies may also have employees and investors. Frankly, I have come to the conclusion that it makes no sense to worry about what the "community" says or thinks. You will never get anything done that way and you will never advance the cause of free software. It is the difference between Ubuntu and Debian. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2007 9:23 AM EDT |
> If the community is paying my bills, then I might want to ignore the pile of cash, depending on its size. > OTOH -- If it ain't, I got kids and companies may also have employees and investors. Which is why Novell and Xandros have signed deals, but not Red Hat. Novell is hurting for money, and Xandros has never really fit into the community. |
| Abe Jun 10, 2007 12:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:Should a distro resist the kind of money Microsoft can trhow their way? ... I'd have to be moron to say no. Good question Dino. Until MS discloses their plan and we get to know its details in controlling Linux & FOSS, we wont know the answer. As for some of the points you listed, some I agree and most I don't No, Novell didn't violate any laws and most are clear on that. It used a loop hole, which prompted revising the GPL3. No, Novell didn't violate any license and at the same time, they didn't honor its spirit nor respected its purpose and intent. They sure did take away freedom from consumers. They allowed MS to take away a choice that some consumers had before the deal by casting a shadow on distros other than Novell Suse. No, admitting doesn't mean they didn't do wrong. Allowing and enabling MS to take away choice is wrong by any measure. MS didn't need Novell to sell Linux. The GPL allows anyone to sell Linux and FOSS products. MS needed Novell to legitimize its IP in Linux. That is what MS paid all that money to Novell for. Novell sold out something they don't own. That is totally wrong. MS is a marketing company more than a software company. They steal, copy, or purchase to produce products to sell with higher margins. They are planning the same with Linux. Having said all of that, here is how I see MS reaction and plan. MS came to the conclusion that they wont be able to stop Linux. They are hurting but not desperate yet. They still can get some mileage out of their products (may be for 5 more years). Making the deals with various distros is what they are hoping to generate revenue from in addition to keeping an effort to discredit Linux. Unless MS has a hidden plan (normally they do), they don't know where this is going to lead them to. But it is better than sitting idle while Linux is flourishing and alienating their customers by suing them for using Linux. MS is having an opportunity with Linux distros who are having fiscal trouble. When MS reaches its objectives, we could be sure they will cut off their air supply. The terms of the deals must have the trump card that MS needs for doing just that. It is quite possible that MS will have a deal signed with Ubuntu, Mepis, LinSpire, etc... but that will only carry them for a short while until new distros are created. MS can't control Linux for the long run and can't keep making money of it either. Eventually, consumers will get enlightened and drop MS totally. Even if MS builds its own Linux distro, they wont be able to monopolize it like they do with Windows. MS will have to compete and to be successful, they have to create and innovate better software than the thousands of developers. That isn't going to happen. If MS enhances Linux, it will have to be GPLed and others will benefit from it unless MS finds some loop hole. The bottom line is, MS should never be allowed to join FOSS in any way. They are ruthless business and they are not going to change. What these distros making deals with MS are doing is for their own temporary benefit. What happens to them in the long run is something they fully deserve. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 12:19 PM EDT |
>They allowed MS to take away a choice that some consumers had before the deal by casting a shadow on distros other than Novell Suse. Excuse me? I still use opensuse and I still use Ubuntu (well, that's a recent pickup thanks to the UIC LUG). Nobody has had any choice taken away from them. Some FOSS folk have decided to run away from certain distros. That is an exercise of freedom, not a denial of it. >When MS reaches its objectives, we could be sure they will cut off their air supply. How? By refusing to fork over more money? If the distros need Microsoft's money to survive, they were going away anyway. No loss of freedom or choice there. Quite the contrary -- a few choices get to survive longer than they would have. >MS can't control Linux for the long run and can't keep making money of it either. That sounds like something I would say, but then, I really and truly believe in the power of free software. Lots of people don't and get all apoplectic every time Microsoft snarls. >The bottom line is, MS should never be allowed to join FOSS in any way. Sigh. Maybe we can take up a collection to send you off to FSF boot camp. Microsoft cannot be an active (or, at least, non-covert) participant in FOSS without abiding by its terms. A Microsoft that contributes to FOSS and supports true open standards (not just standards that have the word "open" in their name) would be a win for everybody. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2007 12:30 PM EDT |
> They are ruthless business and they are not going to change. Abe, all it takes is a change in management. We've seen it happen the other way often enough. |
| tracyanne Jun 10, 2007 1:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:Until MS discloses their plan and we get to know its details in controlling Linux & FOSS, we wont know the answer. The thing is, if Microsoft controls the interoperability between Windows and Linux, they control Linux. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2007 1:44 PM EDT |
> The thing is, if Microsoft controls the interoperability between Windows and Linux, they control Linux. Eh? They control Windows. Given that, haven't they always controlled the interoperability between Windows and Linux? Just ask the Samba folks how many changes they've had to work around over the years. Or do you mean control in a more legal sense? |
| Abe Jun 10, 2007 1:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:Excuse me? I still use opensuse and I still use UbuntuYou as an individual who knows better can still use OpenSuse and Ubuntu, but others don't especially corporations who are very concerned about getting sued by MS if they do. Those who purchase Linux from Suse, can they exercise the rights granted to them by the GPL? If you read the conditions that MS outlines in its contract, you will realize the choices that were taken away. Quoting:If the distros need Microsoft's money to survive, they were going away anyway...Not necessarily. They could have joined efforts and competed against MS and had a better chance surviving much longer. Making a deal with MS gain them nothing other that temporary survival like I mentioned in my original post. So what did the distro gain by that? Nothing. But if they persisted and made it, wouldn't that be a better outcome for them? But the reality is, those distros who are signing deals with MS are looking for nothing more than making a quick buck. For that, I think they deserve all they will be getting. Quoting:A Microsoft that contributes to FOSS and supports true open standards (not just standards that have the word "open" in their name) would be a win for everybody.And what is your guess of the chance of this happening? Mine is 0, Nil. If we don't see that, we must be in la la land. GPL wouldn't allow MS to monopolize FOSS and consequently, MS would not be able to make the large margins and profits that it makes by its monopoly. Without such profits, MS will abandon software business and go with other more lucrative ones. |
| tracyanne Jun 10, 2007 2:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:Eh? They control Windows. Given that, haven't they always controlled the interoperability between Windows and Linux? Just ask the Samba folks how many changes they've had to work around over the years. Or do you mean control in a more legal sense? The interoperability agreements give Microsoft control of how interoperability is implemented, the pace of that implementation and who has legal access to the standards used. That give Microsoft control. It also gives them an income from Linux sales, something they are obviously not getting from their alleged 235 patents. It also means that Microsoft control the dialogue (they are doing that already, all you need do is read the headlines), and they can use this to keep the perception alive, that Linux owes Microsoft, for an extended period of time. Ask yourself who's responding to whom, and that will tell you who controls the dialogue, and therefore who is currently pulling the strings. I don't see Microsoft currently in the position of having to justify their actions to anyone, but I see plenty of Linux vendors in the position of having to justify their actions. |
| Abe Jun 10, 2007 2:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:all it takes is a change in managementJdixson, I don't believe It is a matter of management, it is a culture created by BG & SB. That is not easy to change and I doubt it will. A monster doesn't change its feeding habits and eventually will self destruct. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2007 2:18 PM EDT |
Tracyanne: > The interoperability agreements give Microsoft control of how interoperability is implemented, the pace of that implementation and who has legal access to the standards used. OK. That's what I meant by "more legal sense". Understood. Abe: > it is a culture created by BG & SB. Yes, it is. But that doesn't matter. Good management teams change corporate cultures all time. The examples are numerous. Given proper management, the company would change. Whether that will happen or not is anybody's guess. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 2:35 PM EDT |
> Those who purchase Linux from Suse, can they exercise the rights granted to them by the GPL? Absolutely they can, because neither Microsoft nor Novell has the power to take those rights away. Nothing in the agreement can change that, even if the agreement said, in big bold print, "We hereby rescind all rights granted by the GPL." You should know that. >Not necessarily Yes necessarily. Whip out your handy dictionary and look up the word "need". >And what is your guess of the chance of this happening? Doesn't matter. If it happens, it's good. Your stated position was that it's bad. >GPL wouldn't allow MS to monopolize FOSS No kidding. But FOSS ain't going away. If MS wants to make money, it will have to co-exist. >MS will abandon software business and go with other more lucrative ones. So how's that been working out for them? |
| Abe Jun 10, 2007 2:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:Given proper management, the company would change OK, strange things happen, I give you that. On the other hand, there is no indication it will and I prefer to assume it wont until I see it happen. |
| Abe Jun 10, 2007 3:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:If MS wants to make money, it will have to co-exist. Knowing its track record and the latest deals they are orchestrating, I am firmly convinced that MS will never join FOSS to do good, It will only join FOSS if they are sure they can sabotage it. If they change, then it is a new chapter. Time will tell. For now, this is the safer stand. You are being too optimistic Dino, I would be very concerned if you had any decision making powers in FOSS. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 3:35 PM EDT |
>You are being too optimistic Dino Optimistic about what? I don't think I've made any predictions, except perhaps, that FOSS has a rosy future that Microsoft will not be able to squash. That seems to be stating the obvious: Microsoft has been trying to squash FOSS for the last ten years to no avail. |
| Abe Jun 10, 2007 4:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:Optimistic about what? About the intentions of MS towards FOSS. Yes, FOSS has a rosy future. The issue is whether that future is here in couple of years or 10 years due to the FUD campaign MS is spending a bundle to conduct. The Nazists used to say "Propaganda is half the war". MS sure learned few things from. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 4:43 PM EDT |
>About the intentions of MS towards FOSS. I defy you to find a single thing from me that is optimistic about the intentions of MS towards FOSS. Read carefully, grasshopper. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2007 4:48 PM EDT |
> Microsoft has been trying to squash FOSS for the last ten years to no avail. Not necessarily agreeing Dino, but I will add that if anything their ability to do so now is weaker than ever. As little as 5 years ago Micorosft was touted as having a $40 billion warchest. That has such shrunk by almost over $2 billion (from Google: Cash + Short Term Investments + Long Term Investments = $37.86 billion). Their cash is no longer growing. Now, that would be very simple to fix. All it would require is for them to jettison their non-money making products and concentrate on those which are making money (i.e., Windows and Office), but they show no signs of doing so. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2007 4:49 PM EDT |
> The Nazists used to say "Propaganda is half the war". And how well did that work out, Abe? Please note that I fall somewhere between you and Dino on this matter. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 4:53 PM EDT |
>but they show no signs of doing so. That's kind of interesting, isn't it? Nothing they can ever do will make the kind of money that Windows and Office make, and yet they continue to seek out inferior income sources. Maybe, just maybe, somebody sees the writing on the wall. If so, they won't go down without a fight. A $37 billion fight. |
| Aladdin_Sane Jun 10, 2007 4:53 PM EDT |
>>MS sure learned few things from. The entire MS strategy has been posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies |
| Abe Jun 10, 2007 6:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:And how well did that work out, Abe? Not far, but it did help them initially. MS is in the same situation today and they are trying to win the propaganda part of the war. I know you do, and I know where Dino falls. He is enterprise sympathetic and I think he wishes that FOSS can be commercialized right now and doesn't really care if it is MS or anyone else. Well, he will get his wish sometime in the future but not very soon. The nice think about GPL is it allows free/Free distributions for non-commercial users. Why do I see FOSS as commercial product? Well, it will be too superior to MS products and the enterprise demand for it will be high enough to be 1st choice even it it cost money for services and support. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 7:06 PM EDT |
>I think he wishes that FOSS can be commercialized right now If by commercialized, you mean sold as a product, you are wrong. I really don't care one way or the other. What matters to me is that freedom be maintained. They may not understand it, but corporate users need the freedom every bit as much as, maybe more than, individual users. Free software everywhere - that is what I want to see. Not because it is good software, but because it is free software. Anything that spreads free software without curtailing its freedom is a good thing to me. On the other hand, I see no benefit in imagining a parade of horribles every time Microsoft sneezes. I don't care about Microsoft. It can fall into the ocean with every copy of every Microsoft product anywhere for all I care. It can also get twice as big and twice as rich. That would be fine with me, too, but not at the expense of software freedom. |
| Abe Jun 11, 2007 6:25 AM EDT |
DIno, Sounds great to me. You are for software freedom and so are many others. The issue is MS relentless attempts to subvert any software freedom. I am sure you agree! I guess we disagree on the means of responding and preventing MS from doing that. For some reason and from the sound of your posts, I feel that you are less concerned about MS threats than other people. What MS is trying to do, by all means and fashion, is to kill FOSS like they did with many other products. They tried so hard and ended up with failure, but they haven't given up. Their failure so far is no comfort to me and to many others, we still need to take their attempts serious and never let our guard down a bit. We can't afford to because we already know how sneaky, devious, powerful etc... MS is. MS ruthlessness is still is and will remain a big problem as long as they have the bigger share of the market. It is still not time to relax and ignore them. When MS accepts and honors the GPL, then and only then we can relax. |
| dinotrac Jun 11, 2007 7:33 AM EDT |
>I feel that you are less concerned about MS threats than other people. I am less concerned. Microsoft's biggest threat came 8 or 9 years ago. It had complete control of the Desktop and NT looked like it would knock the competition out of the server room. Apple was on life support, kept alive by Microsoft charity. Linux absolutely and completely destroyed the Microsoft master plan. Microsoft's arrogance and incompetence took care of the rest. Microsoft is still big, ugly, and nasty. They have tons of money and can cause tons of pain. They can grease palms. They can do a lot of things. What they can't do is kill FOSS. Too many people have tried it -- including people in corporate IT departments -- for it to go away. Microsoft is fat Elvis. Everybody knows the name and the name still opens doors. The hits have faded away, however, leaving past glories to live on. |
| kozmcrae Jun 11, 2007 1:43 PM EDT |
>Microsoft is fat Elvis. I saw it. I saw it here first. The new metaphor for Microsoft. It's perfect, it's beautiful. Dino you're a genius. I hope I'm not embarrassing you with my praise but I just love it when someone sticks it to Microsoft. It's funny though, something as silly as a metaphor could actually do a lot of damage to a company if it circulates in wide use. I hope you don't mind if I help out with the circulation. Then again I could just be late to the party as usual and it has been in use for sometime now. |
| devnet Jun 11, 2007 7:41 PM EDT |
dino,Quoting: Microsoft is fat Elvis. Everybody knows the name and the name still opens doors. The hits have faded away, however, leaving past glories to live on.can I quote you on this one? Please?! This is hilarious! |
| dinotrac Jun 12, 2007 1:00 AM EDT |
>This is hilarious! How can that be? Humor usually requires some small element of surprise. Microsoft as fat Elvis seems so obvious... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!